Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge and

Lacreek Wetland Management District

29746 Bird Road

Martin, SD 57551

605/685 6508

and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Division of Refuge Planning

PO Box 25486 DFC

Lakewood, CO 80225

303/236 4365

Approved by:

J. Mitch King Date

Regional Director, Region 6

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

 Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge and

Lacreek Wetland Management District

February 2006

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval

Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge and

Lacreek Wetland Management District

Submitted by:

__________________________________ ________________

Tom Koerner Date

Refuge Manager

Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge and

Lacreek Wetland Management District

Martin, SD

Concurred with:

__________________________________ ________________

David Wiseman Date

Refuge Program Supervisor

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, CO

and

__________________________________ ________________

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date

Assistant Regional Director

National Wildlife Refuge System

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, CO

i

 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-1 

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

Purpose and Need for Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Ecosystem Descriptions and Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

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

The Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

2 Lacreek NWR and Lacreek WMD Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Vision and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Special Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Planning Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3 Refuge Resources and Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Geology and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Vegetation Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Special Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Visitor Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Fire and Grazing History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4 Management Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Management Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Step-down Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Plan Amendment and Revision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Contents
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

ii

 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

 Appendix A. Compatibility Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

 Appendix B. Key Legislation and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

 Appendix C. Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

 Appendix D. Planning Team and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

 Appendix E. Black-tailed Prairie Dog Management Plan, Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge. . . . 87

 Appendix F. Fire Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

 Appendix G. Species List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

 Appendix H. Refuge Operating Needs System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

 Appendix I. Maintenance Management System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

 Appendix J. Environmental Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
iii

List of Figures and Tables

Figures

 1. USFWS ecosystem map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 2. The steps in the CCP process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

 3. Location map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

 4. Prairie dog management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

 5. Habitat map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

 6. Public use map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

 7. Adaptive management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Tables

 1. Endangered and threatened species found at Lacreek NWR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

 2. Habitat requirements for selected grassland birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

 3. Current and proposed staff, Lacreek NWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

 4. Step-down management plans for Lacreek NWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

iv

Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in this CCP

BMPs best management practices

CCP comprehensive conservation plan

CD compatibility determination

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

EA environmental assessment

EO executive order 

FMP fi re management plans 

FONSI fi nding of no signifi cant impact

FTE full-time equivalent 

FQA fl oristic quality assessment

FQI fl oristic quality index

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

IPM integrated pest management

LWRRA Little White River Recreation Area

NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

Non-wildlifedependent 

recreational uses

Personal watercraft, camping, swimming, horseback riding, volleyball, 

basketball, tournament fi shing, power and speed boating

NWR national wildlife refuge

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System

SAV submergent aquatic vegetation

SDGFP South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

SWAP Small Wetlands Acquisition Program

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses

Hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation

WMA wildlife management area

WMD wetland management district

WPA waterfowl production area
S-1

The Refuge and Its Purpose

Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was 

established in 1935 by President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt through Executive Order No. 7160. The 

order establishes Lacreek NWR “....as a refuge 

and breeding ground for migratory birds and other 

wildlife.” The refuge lies in the Lake Creek Valley 

on the northern edge of the Nebraska Sandhills 

and includes 16,410 acres of native sandhills, 

sub-irrigated meadows, impounded fresh water 

marshes, and tall- and mixed-grass prairie uplands. 

The refuge serves as an important staging area 

for many species of waterfowl, sandhill cranes, 

shorebirds, and Neotropical migrants. Spring 

fl ows entering the refuge help to provide critical 

wintering habitat for the high plains trumpeter 

swan fl ock. These open waters during the winter 

also attract large concentrations of Canada geese 

and mallards. The refuge’s grasslands support 

long-billed curlews, marbled godwits, grasshopper 

sparrows, bobolinks, and other grassland bird 

species of concern. Bald eagles, a threatened 

species, are commonly observed on the refuge, 

and the endangered whooping crane has been 

documented using refuge wetlands during 

migration. 

Unique habitats are provided in black-tailed 

prairie dog towns, which support high numbers of 

burrowing owls and host other species of concern, 

such as ferruginous hawks. The refuge provides 

a variety of habitats for resident wildlife and 

supports local concentrations of white-tailed and 

mule deer, sharp-tailed grouse, and ring-necked 

pheasants during the fall and winter. 

The wetland management district (Lacreek 

Wetland Management District) was started as 

part of the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program in 

the 1950s to save wetlands from various threats, 

particularly draining. The passage of Public Law 

85-585 in August of 1958 amended the Migratory 

Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck 

Stamp Act) of 1934, allowing for the acquisition 

of waterfowl production areas and easements for 

waterfowl management rights (easements). 

Refuge Vision and Goals

The vision for the refuge is based on the 

establishing purposes of the refuge, resource 

conditions and potential, and the issues. The goals 

help the refuge staff achieve the vision.

Summary

Pool 9

© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

S-2

Refuge Vision

Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge’s wetland 

resources create a sanctuary within the semi-arid 

Great Plains landscape. The refuge provides a 

great diversity of uses for wildlife and humans 

alike. Refuge stewards manage hydrology to 

refl ect natural conditions and restore native plant 

communities of the Lake Creek Valley and the 

adjacent sandhills for migratory birds and other 

native wildlife. Visitors learn about grasslands, 

wetlands, and sandhill ecosystems and enjoy 

wildlife-dependent recreation. Ongoing cooperation 

with partners and the public fosters appreciation 

and builds support for the refuge’s biological and 

cultural assets.

Refuge Goals

Goal 1. Wildlife and Habitat Management: 

Conserve, restore, and enhance the native 

biological diversity of the Lake Creek Valley and 

Nebraska Sandhills for migratory birds and other 

wetland and grassland-dependent species.

Goal 2. Research and Science: 

Use sound science, monitoring, and applied 

research to advance the understanding of natural 

resources and management within the Lake Creek 

Valley, Nebraska Sandhills, and surrounding 

grasslands.

Goal 3. Public Use: 

Provide opportunities for quality wildlifedependent recreation and promote awareness of 

Lacreek NWR’s resources and the mission of the 

Refuge System.

Goal 4. Cultural Resources: 

Identify, value, and preserve the cultural resources 

and history of Lacreek NWR to connect refuge 

staff, visitors, and the community to the area’s 

past.

Goal 5. Refuge Operations:

Secure and demonstrate effective use of funding, 

staffi ng, and partnerships for the benefi t of all 

resources in support of the Refuge System mission.

Goal 6. Partnerships: 

Engage a wide range of partners, including nongovernmental organizations and federal, state, 

tribal, and local entities, to join with Lacreek NWR 

Complex to support research and management, 

promote awareness, and foster appreciation for 

the Lake Creek Valley, Nebraska Sandhills, and 

surrounding grasslands.

Outcome of the Plan

Through an integrated restoration approach, the 

refuge will strive to restore ecological processes 

and achieve habitat conditions that require reduced 

management over time while recognizing the 

place of the refuge in the overall landscape and 

community. An emphasis on monitoring the effects 

of habitat management practices and use of the 

research results to direct ongoing restoration will 

be a priority. Current levels of priority public uses 

and activity will increase. The staff will continue to 

manage the wetland management district (WMD) 

through monitoring and enforcement of easements. 

Kingfi sher

© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
1 Introduction
Sandhill Crane

Bob Savannah/USFWS
1

1 Introduction

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

developed this CCP to provide a foundation for 

the management and use of the Lacreek National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, which includes not 

only the refuge but also the wetland management 

district (WMD). The plan is intended to serve as 

a working guide for management programs and 

actions over the next 15 years.

The plan was developed in compliance with the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 and Part 602 (National Wildlife 

Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual. The actions described within this 

plan also meet the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (see 

appendix B). Compliance with NEPA is being 

achieved through the involvement of the public 

and the inclusion of an integrated environmental 

assessment (EA). 

When fully implemented, this plan will strive to 

achieve the program vision and the purposes of 

the refuge. Fish and wildlife and their habitats are 

the fi rst priority in refuge management, and public 

use (wildlife-dependent recreation) is allowed and 

encouraged as long as permission is granted by 

the manager and it is compatible with, or does not 

detract from, a refuge’s purpose(s). 

The plan has been prepared by a planning team 

composed of representatives from various Service 

programs, including the refuge staff and the 

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department 

(SDGFP).

Purpose and Need for Plan

The purpose of this CCP is to identify the role 

that Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

will play in support of the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), and 

to provide long-term guidance to management 

programs and activities. The plan is needed:

■ To provide a clear statement of direction for 

the future management of the program;

■ To provide landowners, neighbors, visitors, and 

government offi cials with an understanding 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

management actions on and around these 

refuges;

■ To ensure that the Service’s management 

actions are consistent with the mandates of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997;

■ To ensure that the management of these 

refuges is consistent with federal, state, and 

county plans; and

■ To provide a basis for the development of 

budget requests for the program’s operational, 

maintenance, and capital improvement needs.

Canada Geese Taking Flight

Tom Koerner/USFWS
2

Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

Perhaps the greatest need of the Service is to build 

relationships with landowners and communicate 

with the general public and other partners in 

efforts to carry out the mission of the Refuge 

System. Sustaining our nation’s fi sh and wildlife 

resources is a task that can be accomplished only 

through the combined efforts of governments, 

businesses, and private citizens.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

“The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

working with others, is to conserve, protect, and 

enhance fi sh and wildlife and their habitats for the 

continuing benefi t of the American people.” 

Over 100 years ago, America’s fi sh and wildlife 

resources were declining at an alarming rate. 

Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting and 

angling groups joined together to restore and 

sustain our national wildlife heritage. This was the 

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

Today, the Service enforces federal wildlife laws, 

manages migratory bird populations, restores 

nationally signifi cant fi sheries, conserves and 

restores vital wildlife habitat, protects and 

recovers endangered species, and helps other 

governments with conservation efforts. It also 

administers a federal aid program that distributes 

hundreds of millions of dollars to states for fi sh 

and wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter 

education, and related programs across America. 

The Service manages the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, thousands of waterfowl production areas 

(WPA), and other special management areas. It 

also operates 66 national fi sh hatcheries and 78 

ecological services fi eld stations. 

Service Activities in South Dakota

Service activities in South Dakota contribute to 

the state’s economy, ecosystems, and education 

programs. Lacreek NWR contributes to the 

economic benefi ts of hunting, fi shing, wildlife 

observation, and wildlife photography in South 

Dakota. A report titled, Banking on Nature 2004: 

The Economic Benefi ts to Local Communities of 

National Wildlife Refuge Visitation, evaluated 

the impacts of refuges to local economies. Based 

on fi gures from 2004, Lacreek NWR is estimated 

to have generated $84,500 in local economic effects 

from refuge recreation visits. The majority of 

effects were associated with expenditures by 

non-resident visitors. The refuge budget also 

contributes a stimulus to the local economy with 

a signifi cant portion of payroll, maintenance, and 

operation expenditures spent locally.

The refuge employs 7 full-time equivalent (FTE) 

employees, with a current budget of $741,700 and 

has an annual visitation of 16,400. This includes 

funds for the fi re program and the Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife Program. In addition, 150 

volunteer hours are contributed to the refuge 

operations. 

In general, the South Dakota Federal Aid – Sport 

Fish and Wildlife Restoration program is a source 

of federal excise taxes paid by hunters, anglers, 

and boaters on fi shing and hunting equipment. The 

monies generated from this tax have economic 

benefi ts to South Dakota. In 1998, the economic 

impact of angler expenditures was $206 million 

and hunters contributed $176 million to the overall 

economy (Source: http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/

reference/briefi ng_book_nd_2000.pdf).

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated 

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

fi rst wildlife refuge for the protection of brown 

pelicans and other native nesting birds. This was 

the fi rst time the federal government set aside land 

for the sake of wildlife. This small but signifi cant 

designation was the beginning of the System. One 

hundred years later, this System has become the 

largest collection of lands in the world specifi cally 

managed for wildlife, encompassing over 96 million 

acres within 544 refuges and over 3,000 small areas 

for waterfowl breeding and nesting. Today, there 

is at least one refuge in every state in the nation 

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

In 1997, a clear mission was established for the 

System through the passage of the Improvement 

Act. That mission is:

“... to administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of the fi sh, wildlife 

and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefi t of present and future 

generations of Americans.”

The Improvement Act further states that each 

refuge shall be managed:

■ To fulfi ll the mission of the System;

■ To fulfi ll the individual purposes of each refuge;

■ To consider the needs of fi sh and wildlife fi rst;
 Chapter 1—Introduction 

3

People and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System

Our fi sh and wildlife heritage contributes to the 

quality of our lives and is an integral part of our 

nation’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places have 

always given people special opportunities to have 

fun, relax, and appreciate our natural world. 

Whether through bird watching, fi shing, hunting, 

wildlife photography, or other wildlife pursuits, 

wildlife recreation also contributes millions of 

dollars to local economies. In 2002, approximately 

35.5 million people visited a national wildlife 

refuge, mostly to observe wildlife in their natural 

habitats. Visitors are most often accommodated 

through nature trails, auto tours, interpretive 

programs, and hunting and fi shing opportunities. 

Signifi cant economic benefi ts are being generated 

to the local communities that surround the refuges. 

Economists have reported that national wildlife 

refuge visitors contribute more than $792 million 

annually to local economies. 

Ecosystem Descriptions and Threatst

Central Flyway

Lacreek NWR is located in the Central Flyway, 

which is one of four administrative fl yways in 

North America (see fi gure 1, USFWS ecosystem 

map). The states and provinces included are: 

Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, 

Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, 

North Dakota, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. The 

Central Flyway Council is made up of federal, 

state, and provincial representatives from the 

United States and Canada who meet regularly to 

coordinate population surveys, regulate and set 

hunting seasons, and plan for management of the 

migratory bird resource. Lacreek NWR designates 

a staff member to represent region 6 on the swan 

subcommittee of the Central Flyway Council. 

In 1986, Canada, the United States, and Mexico 

united to form the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan (NAWMP), designed to restore 

diminishing continental waterfowl populations to 

the levels of the 1970s.

The NAWMP brought together federal and state 

agencies, private conservation organizations, 

business and private landowners, national 

corporations and individuals of the three countries 

into “Joint Ventures.” Joint Ventures are regionally 

based, self-directed partnerships that carry out 

science-based conservation through a wide array of 

community participation. Joint Ventures strive:

■ To fulfi ll the requirement of developing a CCP 

for each unit of the System, and fully involve 

the public in the preparation of these plans;

■ To maintain the biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health of the System;

■ To recognize that wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities including hunting, 

fi shing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation, are legitimate and priority 

public uses; and

■ To retain the authority of refuge managers to 

determine compatible public uses.

In addition to the overall mission for the System, 

the wildlife and habitat vision for each national 

wildlife refuge stresses the following principles:

■ Wildlife comes fi rst.

■ Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are 

vital concepts in refuge management.

■ Refuges must be healthy.

■ Growth of refuges must be strategic.

■ The System serves as a model for habitat 

management with broad participation from 

others.

Following passage of the Improvement Act, the 

Service immediately began efforts to carry out 

the direction of the new legislation, including 

the preparation of CCPs for all refuges. The 

development of these plans is now ongoing 

nationally. Consistent with the Improvement Act, 

all refuge CCPs are being prepared in conjunction 

with public involvement, and each refuge is 

required to complete its own CCP within the 15- 

year schedule (by 2012).

Tom Koerner/USFWS

Waterfowl Viewed from the Auto Tour Loop
4

Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

Missouri River Main Stem Ecosystem Plan 

The Service has adopted watersheds as the basic 

building blocks for implementing ecosystem 

conservation. Lacreek NWR is found in the 

Missouri River Main Stem Ecosystem. This 

vast area covers all of North and South Dakota 

and small portions of Nebraska, Wyoming, 

and Montana. The major threats identifi ed for 

this ecosystem include conversion of prairie to 

cropland, overgrazing, invasive species, and 

aggressive prairie dog control. Lacreek NWR 

contributes to the accomplishment of goals and 

objectives for this ecosystem through its Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife Program and the partnerships 

that exist at the refuge and throughout the WMD. 

Key legislation and policies can be found in 

appendix B.

National and Regional Mandates 

The administration of the Refuge System is guided 

by a variety of international treaties, federal laws, 

and Presidential Executive Orders. Management 

options under each refuge’s establishing authority 

and the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

(the legal and policy guidance for the operation 

of national wildlife refuges) are contained in the 

documents and acts listed in appendix B.

The Improvement Act amends the Refuge 

System Administration Act by providing a 

unifying mission for the System, a new process for 

determining compatible public uses on refuges, and 

a requirement that each refuge will be managed 

under a CCP. The Improvement Act states that 

wildlife conservation is the priority of System 

lands and that the Secretary of the Interior will 

ensure that the biological integrity, diversity 

and environmental health of refuge lands are 

maintained. Each refuge must be managed to fulfi ll 

the System’s mission and the specifi c purposes for 

which it was established. The Improvement Act 

requires the Service to monitor the status and 

trends of fi sh, wildlife, and plants in each refuge. 

A list of other laws and executive orders that may 

affect the CCP or the Service’s implementation of 

the CCP is provided in appendix B. Service policies 

providing guidance on planning and the day-to-day 

management of a refuge are contained within the 

Refuge System Manual and the Service Manual.

The Planning Process

This CCP for Lacreek NWR and Lacreek WMD 

are intended to comply with the Improvement Act 

and NEPA and their implementing regulations. 

The Service issued a fi nal refuge planning policy in 

■ To build partnerships for conservation where 

participation is voluntary and programs are 

non-regulatory;

■ To work on public and private lands to protect, 

restore and enhance critical habitats for 

waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, and land 

birds; and

■ To build a scientifi c foundation through 

improvement of databases, scientifi c 

technologies and monitoring that help partners 

target conservation efforts to where they will 

do the most good and make the best use of 

resources.

Northern Great Plains Joint Venture

Lacreek NWR is found in the newest Joint 

Venture, the Northern Great Plains Joint Venture. 

It is bounded on the north and east by the Prairie 

Pothole Joint Venture and on the west by the 

Intermountain West Joint Venture.

The Northern Great Plains Joint Venture area 

is arid to semi-arid and mostly unglaciated. 

Relatively few natural wetlands exist. Land use 

in the area is primarily livestock production and 

numerous man-made wetlands have been created 

for livestock and wildlife. This area of short- and 

mixed-grass prairie has been dramatically altered 

in the last 100 years, due primarily to human 

intervention. Once common native grasslands are 

seriously threatened and many bird species are 

declining. Maintaining and protecting existing 

wetlands and grasslands, as well as creation and 

enhancement of wetlands, will be a major focus 

for the Northern Great Plains Joint Venture. 

Lacreek NWR contributes to and participates 

in the Northern Great Plains Joint Venture 

through its active Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program, management of the WMDs easements, 

and management and restoration of the refuges 

resources. 

Lacreek NWR Headquarters

Tom Koerner/USFWS
 Chapter 1—Introduction 

5

Figure 1. USFWS ecosystem map
6

Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

2000 that established requirements and guidance 

for Refuge System planning, including CCPs 

and step-down management plans, ensuring that 

planning efforts comply with the provisions of the 

Improvement Act. The planning policy identifi ed 

several steps of the CCP and EA process (see 

fi gure 2):

■ Form a planning team and conduct preplanning;

■ Initiate public involvement and scoping;

■ Draft vision statement and goals;

■ Develop and analyze alternatives, including 

proposed action;

■ Prepare draft CCP and EA;

■ Prepare and adopt fi nal CCP and EA and issue 

a fi nding of no signifi cant impact (FONSI) 

or determine if an environmental impact 

statement is needed;

■ Implement plan, monitor and evaluate; and

■ Review (every 5 years) and revise (every 15 

years) plan.

The Service began the pre-planning process in 

September 2004 (see appendix C). A planning team 

comprised of Service personnel from the refuge 

and the SDGFP (appendix D), was developed 

shortly after the initial kickoff meeting. Draft 

issues and qualities lists were developed. 

A notice of intent was published in the Federal 

Register on November 30, 2004. Notifi cation of a 

public open house was distributed through media 

press releases.

Over the course of pre-planning and scoping, the 

planning team collected available information about 

the resources of the refuge and the surrounding 

areas. This information is summarized under 

“Chapter 3, Refuge Resources and Description”.

This CCP provides long-term guidance for 

management decisions; sets forth goals, objectives, 

and strategies needed to accomplish refuge 

purposes; and identifi es the Service’s best estimate 

of future needs. This CCP details program 

Figure 2. The steps in the CCP process
 Chapter 1—Introduction 

7

planning levels that are sometimes substantially 

above current budget allocations and, as such, 

are primarily for Service strategic planning and 

program prioritization purposes. This CCP does 

not constitute a commitment for staffi ng increases, 

operational and maintenance increases, or funding 

for future land acquisition.

The Service has made compatibility determinations 

for Lacreek NWR (appendix A).

2 Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge and 

Lacreek Wetland Management 

District Background
American Avocet

Bob Hines/USFWS
11

Establishment, Acquisition, and 

Management History

Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge was established 

on August 26, 1935 by President Franklin D 

Roosevelt through Executive Order No. 7160:

“... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife.” 

The refuge lies in the Lake Creek Valley on the 

northern edge of the Nebraska Sandhills and 

includes 16,410 acres of native sandhills, subirrigated meadows, impounded fresh water 

marshes, tall- and mixed-grass prairie uplands, 

reseeded grasslands, and trees and shelterbelts 

(see fi gure 3, location map). The refuge serves as 

an important staging area for migrating Canada 

geese, other waterfowl, sandhill cranes, shorebirds, 

and Neotropical migrants. Providing critical 

migrational and wintering habitat for the high 

plains trumpeter swan fl ock is a primary goal. 

Unique habitats are provided in black-tailed prairie 

dog towns that support high numbers of burrowing 

owls and host ferruginous hawks, a species of 

concern. The refuge provides a variety of habitats 

for resident wildlife and supports concentrations 

of white-tailed and mule deer, sharp-tailed grouse, 

and ring-necked pheasants during the fall and 

winter.

The majority of the refuge was acquired shortly 

after refuge establishment. Several inholdings 

within the approved refuge boundary were never 

acquired. The refuge will be interested in acquiring 

these inholdings, should a future opportunity arise 

to purchase from a willing landowner. At the time 

of establishment it was the only managed NWR 

west of the Missouri River in South Dakota. Today 

Lacreek is one of two refuges west of the Missouri 

River in South Dakota.

The WMD was started as part of the Small 

Wetlands Acquisition Program (SWAP) in the 

1950s to save wetlands from various threats, 

particularly draining. The passage of Public Law 

85-585 in August of 1958 amended the Migratory 

Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck 

Stamp Act) of 1934, allowing for the acquisition of 

waterfowl production areas (WPAs) and easements 

for waterfowl management rights (easements). 

The WMD contains eight perpetual easements 

totaling 3,443 acres. The easement restrictions 

vary; however, they generally prohibit wetland 

drainage, grassland conversion, development, and 

they require a special use permit for vegetative 

manipulation. The lands remain in private 

ownership. No fee title lands are currently owned 

2 Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge and 

Lacreek Wetland Management District Background

Pool 5

© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

12

Figure 3. Location map
13

 Chapter 2—Lacreek NWR and WMD Background 

by the Service in the WMD. There is no active 

easement or fee title acquisition program in the 

WMD. 

Refuge and Wetland Management 

District Purposes

The purposes for the refuges and wetland 

management district are as follows:

Executive Order, August 26, 1935 “...as a refuge 

and breeding ground for migratory birds and other 

wildlife...”

Migratory Bird Conservation Act “...for use as an 

inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management 

purpose, for migratory birds.”

The 223 acre Little White River Recreation Area 

was donated to and accepted by the Service on 

May 20, 1980 under the authority of the Refuge 

Recreation Act

Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460K-K4) “...for 

public recreation on...developments adjacent to 

conservation areas in existence.”

Lacreek Wetland Management 

District

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act 16 U.S.C. 

718(c) “...as Waterfowl Production Areas 

subject to all provisions of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act ...except the inviolate sanctuary 

provisions...” 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act 16 U.S.C. 

715d “...for any other management purposes, for 

migratory birds.”

Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 7 

U.S.C. 1924 “... for conservation purposes.”

Vision and Goals

Vision

Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge’s wetland 

resources create a sanctuary within the semi-arid 

Great Plains landscape. The refuge provides a 

great diversity of uses for wildlife and humans 

alike. Refuge stewards manage hydrology to 

refl ect natural conditions and restore native plant 

communities of the Lake Creek Valley and the 

adjacent sandhills for migratory birds and other 

native wildlife. Visitors learn about grasslands, 

wetlands, and sandhill ecosystems and enjoy 

wildlife-dependent recreation. Ongoing cooperation 

with partners and the public fosters appreciation 

and builds support for the refuge’s biological and 

cultural assets. 

Goals

Goal 1. Wildlife and Habitat Management:

Conserve, restore, and enhance the native 

biological diversity of the Lake Creek Valley and 

Nebraska Sandhills for migratory birds and other 

wetland- and grassland-dependent species.

Goal 2. Research and Science: 

Use sound science, monitoring, and applied 

research to advance the understanding of natural 

resources and management within the Lake 

Creek Valley, Nebraska Sandhills and surrounding 

grasslands.

Goal 3. Public Use: 

Provide opportunities for quality wildlifedependent recreation and promote awareness 

of the refuge’s resources and the mission of the 

System.

Goal 4. Cultural Resources: 

Identify, value, and preserve the cultural resources 

and history of Lacreek NWR to connect refuge 

staff, visitors, and the community to the area’s 

past.

Goal 5. Refuge Operations: 

Secure and demonstrate effective use of funding, 

staffi ng, and partnerships for the benefi t of all 

resources in support of the System mission.

Goal 6. Partnerships: 

Engage a wide range of partners, including nongovernmental organizations and federal, state, 

tribal, and local entities, to join with Lacreek NWR 

Complex to support research and management, 

promote awareness, and foster appreciation for 

the Lake Creek Valley, Nebraska Sandhills, and 

surrounding grasslands.

Tom Koerner/USFWS

Trumpeter Swans 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

14

Special Values

The planning team and public identifi ed special 

values and qualities that make most of these 

refuges valuable for wildlife and the American 

people. The Lacreek NWR has the following 

attributes:

■ The refuge lies at an intersection of different 

grassland types. Sandhills prairie, tall-grass 

prairie, and mixed-grass prairie can all be 

found here. 

■ Water in an otherwise arid landscape is a 

wildlife magnet. The presence of reliable 

springs with high quality water was the reason 

for establishment of the refuge and continues 

today. 

■ Many species of both eastern and western 

birds, small mammals, and other wildlife 

overlap ranges here. For example, both 

eastern and western meadowlarks can be found 

on the refuge.

■ Lacreek NWR played a key role in the 

restoration of the High Plains Flock of 

trumpeter swans and continues to be one of the 

primary fall staging and wintering sites for this 

fl ock.

■ Visitors can still fi nd wide-open spaces that 

remain relatively undisturbed. Visitors 

may often feel as if they had the place to 

themselves. 

Wildlife is abundant and highly visible because of 

habitat types and relatively low disturbance levels.

Planning Issues

This section describes issues regarding the refuge 

that were identifi ed during public scoping.

Habitat Management

Lacreek NWR’s primary purpose is to provide 

optimal habitat conditions for the needs of a suite 

of migratory and resident wildlife found on the 

refuge. To achieve goals and objectives set for the 

refuge’s habitat, aggressive management must 

be completed. Nearly all uplands north of Lake 

Creek were previously farmed and the native 

vegetation lost. Many of the refuge’s wetlands are 

located behind or below earthen dams that can be 

used to either create deep and stable water levels 

or to mimic natural wet and dry cycles. There is a 

gap between public perception of disturbance and 

the understanding of how managed disturbance 

mimics natural disturbance and creates healthier 

ecosystems. 

Black-tailed Prairie Dog 

Management

In July 1998, the National Wildlife Federation 

petitioned the Service to list the black-tailed 

prairie dog as threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act. In the fall of 1999, a moratorium of all 

black-tailed prairie dog control on Service lands 

was issued by the Regional Director. In February 

2000, the Service concluded that this species 

warranted listing, but was precluded from being 

listed due to other higher priority species concerns 

and resource constraints. In August 2004, an 

updated evaluation of the best available scientifi c 

information led the Service to determine that the 

black-tailed prairie dog should be removed as a 

candidate for listing.

In March 2005, the South Dakota legislature passed 

Senate Bill 216. This measure sets forth conditions 

under which prairie dogs will be considered pests 

by the state. It also outlines a formalized complaint 

process by which private landowners may fi le 

complaints against adjacent landowners. If the 

adjacent private landowner does not comply with 

controlling a one mile buffer or mutually agreed 

to buffer, then the County Weed Board may be 

authorized to enter onto private lands to control 

prairie dogs and bill the landowner for that work. 

The state Department of Agriculture will attempt 

to negotiate control measures on federal and tribal 

lands where formal complaints are received from 

adjacent private landowners. 

During this same 1999-2005 period, a severe 

drought hit western South Dakota. A cessation 

of all control activities on federal lands combined 

with the drought caused a rapid increase in 

Tom Koerner/USFWS

Prairie Dog
15

 Chapter 2—Lacreek NWR and WMD Background Figure 4. Prairie dog management 73Æ·

73Æ· 18£¤

Tuthill

Martin

Legend

Prairie Dog Management Areas

Refuge Boundary

Prairie Dog CompatibleResidence Buffer

Acreage

Little White River 

Recreation Area

17871956

Easement

Prairie Dog Management

U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceLacreek National Wildlife Refuge

Bennett County, South Dakota

Incompatible Soil TypesRangeland Buffer

109332666

0123 0.5

Miles

01234 0.5

Kilometers
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

16

total acres occupied by black-tailed prairie dogs 

in southwestern South Dakota. The number of 

occupied acres on Lacreek NWR showed a similar 

trend, and increased an estimated 343 percent from 

1997 to 2004. The number of individual prairie dog 

towns increased from three in 1997 to 10 in 2004. 

Prairie restoration includes control of noxious 

weeds such as Canada thistle, and replacement 

of non-native planted species that tend to form 

single-species stands of vegetation (such as crested 

wheatgrass and smooth brome). Restoration is 

best accomplished by farming for 3 to 5 years, and 

then reseeding with a diverse seed mix including 

native grass collected locally, sedge, and forb seeds. 

Under current regulations prairie dogs cannot be 

disturbed by plowing. Therefore, this effective 

prairie restoration technique can no longer be used 

on the refuge. 

Prairie dogs located on the refuge have expanded 

onto adjacent private lands where they are not 

wanted. Control on private lands has proven futile 

in these situations, as prairie dogs quickly reoccupy controlled sites. A step down black-tailed 

prairie dog management plan is in appendix E. 

Noxious Weed Control

Noxious weeds, especially Canada thistle, have 

the ability to degrade wildlife habitat and to 

spread into adjacent private lands. This has been 

a signifi cant issue on the refuge for many years. 

A large portion of the refuge’s resources are 

directed at control of Canada thistle and other 

invasive species. Integrated pest management 

(IPM) strategies currently used include prescribed 

burning, grazing, mowing, herbicides, insects, 

interseeding, and farming in combination to 

provide control. 

New invasive species—such as salt cedar or 

purple loosestrife—establishing on the refuge is a 

constant threat. Generally, an immediate control 

response to new invasive species is most effective 

in the long term.

Water Rights and the Use of Water 

for Wetland Management

Contested water rights on the Brown Ranch 

portion of the refuge have been a signifi cant issue 

for the refuge during the last 20 years. During 

a coordinated resources management effort, 

the Service agreed to withdraw its application 

for diversion of water from Lake Creek to fl ood 

irrigate portions of the refuge north of Lake Creek. 

The CRM process was not successful in resolving 

water issues with refuge neighbors. Following a 

protracted hearing before the South Dakota Water 

Management Board, a water right was granted for 

installation and maintenance of Diversion 4A for 

the primary purpose to act as a physical barrier for 

carp. Adjacent landowners and Bennett County 

offi cials involved in this dispute are concerned that 

the Service may attempt to reapply for this water 

right to divert water from Lake Creek. 

Public Use

Hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation are all uses currently allowed on 

the refuge. Limited public lands available for 

public recreation in the area make this an issue 

of interest. There is demand for increased and 

improved recreational fi shing opportunities on the 

refuge. 

Little White River Recreation Area

The Little White River Recreation Area (LWRRA) 

was accepted as a donation in fee title under the 

Refuge Recreation Act. The recreational fi shery 

and opportunities for swimming and boating are 

currently impaired by high sediment loads. Many 

local residents are interested in determining if 

improvements are possible. 

A second issue concerning the LWRRA is the 

proposed Phase III Project. The proposed project 

includes excavation of a secondary emergency 

spillway, replacement of the primary emergency 

spillway, replacement of the outlet works, and 

raising the elevation of the dam by one foot. The 

operating level of the pool would not be increased 

due to the 1 foot of additional freeboard. Once 

completed, a probable maximum fl ood event would 

pass without overtopping the dam. 

Species of Concern

Pelicans. Lacreek NWR hosts the largest nesting 

colony of American white pelicans in South Dakota. 

Lacreek’s nesting colony has fl uctuated from 

year to year, but has had continued use since the 

1940s. Management of water levels in refuge pools, 

particularly Pool 9, could impact this nesting colony 

by allowing predators such as coyotes easier access 

to the islands. When Pool 9 is drawn down, a land 

bridge forms, allowing coyotes and other predators 

to walk to the islands. Emergent vegetation 

may also begin to grow around the islands with 

successive drawdowns, making the site less 

attractive to pelicans. During the 2005 nesting 

season, all adult pelicans abandoned the island 

and all young died. On several occasions, refuge 

visitors observed a coyote on the island that had 

swam from the shore. It is not known if a single 

coyote or numerous coyotes learned this behavior 

of swimming to the island. The abandonment and 
17

 Chapter 2—Lacreek NWR and WMD Background 

American White Pelican

© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams

subsequent loss of all young pelicans has occurred 

at several other nesting colonies in recent years, 

and coyote predation was also speculated as a 

cause in these cases. 

Swans. Lacreek NWR played a key role in the 

restoration of the High Plains Flock of trumpeter 

swans to the Central Flyway. Today, a signifi cant 

portion of this fl ock returns to Lacreek each fall. 

The swans winter on spring-fed streams in the 

sandhills to the south. The refuge will continue to 

play a key role as a fall staging and wintering area. 

Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered 

Species. The Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 

Environmental Health Policy (published January 

16, 2001, effective April 16, 2001) (http://policy.fws.

gov/library/ 01fr3809.pdf) guides System personnel 

in implementing the clause of the Improvement 

Act that directs the Secretary of the Interior to 

ensure that the Service maintain the “biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health” of 

the System. This policy further guides the Service 

to consider restoring lost or severely degraded 

components of the system “where appropriate and 

in concert with refuge purposes and the System 

mission.”

The Lacreek NWR staff reviewed all threatened 

and endangered species with historical ranges 

on or near the refuge to determine if additional 

actions could be taken to restore or enhance 

habitat for endangered species. Only the blowout 

penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) was determined 

to be appropriate for restoration actions. 

Predators. The predator community on Lacreek 

NWR is diverse, ranging from coyotes and shorttailed weasels to bald eagles and kestrels. This 

array of predators helps maintain the “biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health” 

of the refuge. Several species, including striped 

skunks and raccoons, are found at higher than 

historical levels due to modifi cations of habitat. 

These species can impact migratory bird 

populations and reduce the likelihood of reaching 

goals and objectives outlined for the refuge, 

primarily by depredating the nests of an array of 

grassland-nesting bird species. 

3 Refuge Resources and Description
Sandhill Cranes

Tom Kelley/USFWS
21

Lacreek NWR is located about 12 miles southeast 

of Martin in Bennett County in southwestern 

South Dakota. The refuge lies in the shallow 

Lake Creek Valley on the northern edge of the 

Nebraska Sandhills and includes native sandhills, 

sub-irrigated meadows, impounded fresh water 

marshes, and tall- and mixed-prairie uplands. 

The refuge occurs in a region characterized by 

the transition between eastern and western 

plant and animal species. Wildlife on the refuge 

includes aquatic and marsh dwelling species, as 

well as species typical of the prairie. This chapter 

describes the refuge’s environmental resources 

that may be affected by the implementation of the 

CCP.

The refuge is in a semi-arid are characterized 

by cold winters and hot summers. Temperature 

fl uctuates both seasonally and daily. Summer 

temperatures climb above 100oF, while winter 

temperatures may drop to -30oF with wind chills 

as low as -60oF. Annual rainfall is 17 inches, of 

which 80 percent occurs from April to September. 

Average snowfall is 32 inches. 

Geology and Soils

The geologic materials underlying the refuge 

consist of clays and silts of the Chadron Formation 

and siltstones and sandstones of the Brule 

Formation, deposited during the Lower Tertiary 

and overlain with materials of the Arikaree and 

Ogallala Formations deposited during the Upper 

Tertiary (Whitehead 1996). The materials of the 

Arikaree and Ogallala Formations were deposited 

primarily by streams, but the presence of volcanic 

ash indicates that some material was deposited as 

the result of wind (Perisho 1912). 

The sandhills were of late Pleistocene age and were 

formed by wind-deposited sands. The surface on 

which the sand dunes were formed rises nearly 

2,000 feet over the 250-mile east-west extension of 

the sandhills. 

Three major soil associations are present on the 

refuge. The Valentine Association is an extension 

of the Nebraska Sandhills, and consists of hills 

with ridges ranging from 29 to 75 feet high. This 

association is made up of excessively drained, 

deep sandy soils. These soils are very permeable; 

a large percentage of runoff percolates into the 

groundwater. These soils also are very erosive, 

causing large “blowouts” to form when vegetation 

and its soil binding root systems are removed.

The Keith-Rosebud Association is an area of nearly 

level to gently sloping tablelands and consists 

of well drained, deep silty soils. These soils are 

suitable for farming, and the majority of these soils 

were farmed prior to establishment of the refuge. 

The Mosher-Minatare Loup Association is found 

on bottoms, terraces, upland valley bottoms, and 

basins that have a fl uctuating water table. These 

 3 Refuge Resources and Description

Soil Erosion

Tom Koerner/USFWS
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

22

associations consist of nearly level, somewhat 

poorly drained, deep loamy soils and saline soils 

with a clay pan. The shallow water table supports 

vegetation more typical of tall-grass prairie. In 

areas of saline soils with a claypan, saltgrass and 

foxtail barley are the predominant vegetation. 

Water Resources

Surface Water

Several spring-fed creeks emerge from the 

Nebraska Sandhills and provide a constant supply 

of clear water for the refuge. Lake Creek is the 

major spring-fed stream after which the refuge 

is named (see fi gure 5, habitat map). Average 

stream fl ows on Lake Creek range from a low of 

9.2 cfs in 1981 to a high of 41.2 cfs in 1997. The 

long-term average is about 20 cfs. A series of dikes 

with control structures impound these waters 

and create 5,400 acres of wetlands in 13 water 

management units. 

Groundwater

The majority of deep groundwater in Bennett 

County occurs in geologic materials of Oligocene, 

Miocene, and Holocene/Pleistocene age; however, 

some aquifers also exist at greater depths in 

Cretaceous and Paleozoic materials (Whitehead 

1996). Some domestic wells exist in the deeper 

aquifers, but there has been little development of 

deep groundwater for irrigation in the vicinity of 

the refuge.

Groundwater is also present in the alluvial aquifer 

associated with Lake Creek, and in the sandhills 

to the south of the refuge. The sandhills act like 

a huge sponge, soaking up the limited amount of 

precipitation that falls and slowly releasing it back 

to surface water features. The sandhills are largely 

responsible for maintaining Lake Creek as a 

perennial stream. The alluvial aquifer is expressed 

by the springs, small wetlands, and wet meadows 

near Lake Creek and Cedar Creek. This aquifer 

is critical to the maintenance of subirrigation 

on the refuge and surrounding properties. This 

subirrigated area has historically been the most 

productive area for grass hay.

Wetlands

Wetlands on Lacreek NWR occur primarily 

within the fl oodplain of Lake Creek. Given that 

the majority of groundwater at Lacreek NWR 

in this area discharges by movement to lakes 

and streams, leakage to shallower aquifers, and 

to springs (Whitehead 1996), surface hydrology 

of wetlands on the NWR is infl uenced by a 

combination of surface water and groundwater 

inputs. Several small, spring-fed creeks and 

major creeks (i.e., Lake Creek, Cedar Creek, Elm 

Creek) contributing water to the NWR exhibit 

perennial fl ows even though evaporation far 

exceeds precipitation annually. Data from the 

USGS gauging station on Lake Creek above the 

refuge indicate daily fl ows exceeded 20 cfs and 

10 cfs about 50 percent and 95 percent of days, 

respectively, during the periods 1963-1979 and 

1997-2003. Further, groundwater discharge from 

aquifers has been documented as contributing more 

than 50 percent of fl ows in the Little White River 

and Minnechaduza Creek, which are in relatively 

close proximity to the refuge (Carter 1998). This 

suggests that the infl uence of groundwater on the 

surface hydrology of wetlands on the NWR may 

be substantial, particularly during the late spring 

and summer when evapotranspiration rates are 

greatest.

Water Rights

The following section is a summary of water rights 

associated with the refuge:

■ U.S. Water Right 2-2, priority date October 16, 

1934, for all unappropriated waters of Lacreek 

(Lake Creek) and tributaries in Bennett 

County to be used on the refuge by means of 

dams 7, 8, 9, and 10. A maximum amount of 

23,710 acre-feet (11,008 acre-feet of storage and 

12,702 acre-feet of seasonal use) of water use is 

permitted. 

■ U.S. Water Right 3-2, priority date December 

13, 1935, authorizes storage of water in the 

LWRRA reservoir and the diversion of water 

from the Little White River to Pools 9 and 10. 

U.S. 3-2 was supplemented with the purchase 

of water license 253-2, priority date May 27, 

1940, for all of the unappropriated waters of 

Wetland 

Tom Koerner/USFWS
23

 Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description

the Little White River from its confl uence 

with Lake Creek to the Town of White River. 

A maximum of 1,827 acre-feet of storage with 

843 acre-feet of seasonal use is authorized for 

use in supplementing Pools 9 and 10.

■ Water Right 2147-2 to appropriate and 

impound up to 167.5 acre-feet in the DU subimpoundment in Pool 9 with a priority date of 

November 1, 1990.

■ Water Right 2192-2, priority 1991, authorizes 

1444.7 acre-feet with 4.44 cfs from six springs 

originating along the edge of the sandhills 

to create 235 acres of marshes, sloughs and 

wet meadows for waterfowl propagation and 

enhancement of wildlife habitat.

■ Water Right 1921-2, priority May 20, 1933 

for 4.45 cfs from Cedar Creek to be stored in 

a dam on Cedar Creek with a capacity of 30 

acre-feet, and to irrigate 362 acres.

■ South Dakota Reissued Water Permit 2300-

2 authorizes construction and maintenance 

of a control structure to impound 0.75 acrefeet of water to prevent carp from traveling 

upstream of the structure, in order to protect 

the state-listed threatened pearl dace. This 

permit has a priority date of February 1, 1994.

Vegetation Communities

Wetlands and Associated Vegetative 

Communities

Wetlands on the refuge (see fi gure 5) are managed 

to provide both resting cover and food resources 

for migratory birds. Flows from springs through 

the winter months keep portions of some units 

open and provide resting and feeding sites for 

trumpeter swans, Canada geese, mallards, and 

a small number of other migratory bird species. 

Throughout the rest of the year, wetlands serve as 

production and maintenance habitat for waterfowl, 

other migratory birds, and resident wildlife. 

Substantial emergent and submergent vegetation 

occurs in wetlands at the refuge. Sago pondweed, 

coontail, and duckweed occur in the deeper, more 

permanently fl ooded zones, while cattail, bulrush, 

wild rice, burreed, and arrowhead grow in more 

shallowly fl ooded areas that may go dry due to a 

drawdown. The perimeter of these units may be 

dominated by smartweed, barnyard grass, Canada 

bluejoint, prairie cordgrass, sedges, rushes, wild 

mint, and dock that can tolerate shorter periods of 

surface fl ooding and saturated soils. 

The management of wetlands on the refuge 

attempts to simulate historical wet/dry cycles by 

raising and lowering water levels to meet specifi c 

management objectives. Desirable emergent and 

submergent vegetation establishment and growth 

is encouraged, invertebrate substrate is increased, 

water clarity can be improved, accumulated 

nutrients in bottom sediments are broken down 

and cycled, and some measure of carp control is 

achieved. Extensive mudfl ats are created when 

wetlands are in the initial drawdown phase and 

create optimal feeding opportunities for migrating 

shorebirds, wading birds, and other Neotropical 

species. 

Wet Meadows and Associated 

Vegetative Communities

Wet, subirrigated meadows make up about 13 

percent of the acres on the refuge and occur 

notably between the Nebraska Sandhills to the 

south and the drier, uplands to the north (see fi gure 

5, habitat map). These meadows are nearly fl at, 

have saturated soils near the surface for most of 

the growing season, and frequently pond water 

for short periods after rainfall events. Much of the 

western portion of the refuge falls into the wetmeadow category. These wet meadows contain 

a full complement of native grasses and forbs. 

Species found in this community include Nuttall’s 

sunfl ower, blue vervain, goldenrod, wild licorice, 

swamp milkweed, wild mint, spotted joe-pye weed, 

and black-eyed susan.

Uplands and Associated Vegetative 

Communities

There are 10,350 acres of grasslands at Lacreek 

that consist of sandhills, meadows, and uplands (see 

Nuttall’s Sunfl ower

© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

24

Figure 5. Habitat map
25

 Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description

fi gure 5, habitat map). Approximately 4,900 acres 

of native grasses are within the refuge, of which 

3,726 acres are in the Nebraska Sandhills. Big 

bluestem, little bluestem, sand bluestem, prairie 

sandreed, switchgrass, Indian grass, Canada 

wildrye, June grass, sand dropseed, needle-andthread grass, western wheatgrass, and salt grass 

have all been noted on refuge grassland transects. 

The sandhills portion of the refuge contains a 

diverse component of grass and forb species 

generally not found anywhere else on the refuge. 

Although not found on the refuge, today it is 

believed that blowout penstemon may have 

extended at one time to the edge of the sandhills, 

including the area of Lacreek NWR. Several small 

“blowouts” or areas of active sand movement can 

be found and may be suitable habitat. 

During the 1930s, large fi elds formerly planted 

to crops were plowed to form ridges, and planted 

with non-native grasses including smooth brome, 

crested wheatgrass, and Kentucky bluegrass 

species to minimize soil erosion. Today, the refuge 

contains approximately 5,450 acres of uplands 

dominated by these non-native species. Extensive 

areas of crested wheatgrass and smooth brome 

remain on the refuge. 

In the early 1970s, habitat management techniques 

were developed to provide dense nesting cover 

for waterfowl. Several areas on the refuge were 

planted to grass species such as smooth brome 

and alfalfa. These fi elds initially provided good 

cover for nesting birds; however, over time they 

deteriorated and were prone to invasion by Canada 

thistle and other noxious weeds. The refuge plans 

to restore these grasslands, along with the crested 

wheat grass fi elds, to native grasses and forbs. 

The native grass restoration process generally 

involves cropping the fi eld for 3 or more years 

to eliminate exotic cool-season grass seeds and 

rhizomes, control Canada thistle and other noxious 

weeds, and prepare a seed bed for planting native 

seed. Since 1997, the refuge has restored or is in 

the process of restoring approximately 670 acres 

to native grasses. Approximately 350 acres were 

planted to native grasses in 2000 and 2001 alone. 

Starting in 2004, refuge staff began to harvest 

seed from the refuge and other local sites. Over 

120 species of native grass, forb, sedge, and 

rush species have been harvested to be used for 

restoration. Future plantings will utilize over 100 

species of locally collected seed. 

Upland vegetation is maintained to provide nesting 

habitat for migratory and resident bird species. 

Upland habitats also provide necessary habitat 

requirements for resident wildlife throughout the 

year. A variety of management techniques have 

been implemented to maintain and enhance upland 

habitat conditions on the refuge including the use 

of prescribed fi re, grazing, haying, native prairie 

restoration, and invasive species management.

Shrub and Tree Plantings 

(Shelterbelts)

The refuge has less than 70 acres of shrubs and 

trees. Some refuge dikes are lined with American 

plum, chokecherry, peachleaf willow, sandbar 

willow, and eastern cottonwood. In order to 

maintain dikes, and provide secure fi re lines for 

prescribed burning, most of the peachleaf willows 

will be removed from the dikes. American plum, 

chokecherry, and sandbar willow provide habitat 

for species such as Bell’s vireos and willow 

fl ycatchers. Large mature cottonwoods will be 

maintained to provide perch sites for bald eagles 

and other raptors. The refuge has several mature 

shelterbelts composed of green ash, American 

elm, honey locust, hackberry, ponderosa pine, 

eastern redcedar, and Russian olive. Many of the 

shelterbelts are near refuge housing, headquarters, 

and other buildings and provide protection from 

the wind.

Wildlife

Mammals

A total of 39 species of mammals have been 

recorded on the refuge. Representative species 

include coyote, cottontail rabbit, deer mice, shrew, 

meadow vole, weasel, ground squirrel, prairie dog, 

badger, mink, beaver, muskrat, skunk, raccoon, 

white-tailed deer, mule deer, and pronghorn. 

Black-tailed Prairie Dogs

It is unknown to what extent prairie dogs 

historically occurred on the refuge. Prairie dog 

control programs were enacted prior to refuge 

establishment and during the early years of the 

refuge. It is likely, however, that prairie dogs 

were present north of the sandhills and Lake 

Creek. Most of these soils were farmed prior to 

refuge establishment and were seeded to crested 

wheatgrass and smooth brome. These shallowrooted introduced grasses are more prone to 

drought stress than native mixed-grass prairie. 

The resulting short vegetation allows for rapid 

expansion of black-tailed prairie dogs during 

droughts. 

Eleven prairie dog towns totaling 502 acres are 

currently located within the refuge and are found 

primarily in the uplands north of Lake Creek (see 

the Draft Black-tailed Prairie Dog Management 

Plan in appendix E).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

26

Reptiles and Amphibians

Formal and informal surveys and observations 

on the refuge have noted tiger salamanders, 

Woodhouse’s toad, western chorus frog, leopard 

frog, bullfrog, and plains spadefoot toad. Turtles 

include common snapping turtle, western painted 

turtle, and box turtle. Four species of lizard have 

been observed: northern earless lizard, northern 

prairie lizard, many-lined skink, and the prairie 

racerunner. Snakes include the eastern yellowbellied racer, western hognose snake, bull snake, 

plains garter snake, red-sided garter snake, and 

prairie rattlesnake.

Birds

Over 281 species of birds have been recorded 

at Lacreek NWR since 1959. The majority of 

passerines and other birds common to the plains 

states are found on the refuge at some time 

during the year. Twenty-four species of waterfowl 

are commonly observed. During spring and fall 

migrations, waterfowl numbers have peaked at 

29,000 ducks and 37,000 geese in recent years. 

Refuge fi les indicate that as many as 80,000 ducks 

have staged on the refuge during migration. 

Approximately 150 to 200 trumpeter swans 

typically winter at Lacreek. The largest nesting 

colony of American white pelicans in South Dakota 

is found on the refuge. Nine species of cormorant, 

herons, egrets, bittern, and ibis use the refuge for 

migration and/or nesting. Secretive species such 

as American bitterns are commonly observed. 

Golden eagles, bald eagles, red-tailed hawks, 

Swainson’s hawks, northern harrier, American 

kestrel, great horned owls, burrowing owls, and 

short-eared owls are some of the more common 

species of raptors seen on the refuge. Twenty-one 

species of shorebirds use the refuge from spring 

through fall, some staying to nest. Regionally rare 

species such as long-billed curlews and marbled 

godwits are commonly observed. A number of 

songbirds migrate through or nest on the refuge. 

Declining species, such as grasshopper sparrows, 

bobolinks, eastern meadowlarks, and dickcissels, 

are commonly observed in refuge grasslands. 

Trumpeter Swans

Trumpeter swans were introduced on the refuge 

from Red Rock Lakes NWR between 1960 to 1962. 

These original birds established the High Plains 

Flock, which now nest primarily on sandhill lakes 

to the south of the refuge. An estimated 400 birds 

make up this fl ock, with as many as 268 returning 

to Lacreek NWR during the fall and winter. The 

trumpeter swans also rely heavily on spring-fed 

creeks in the sandhills for winter habitat. A portion 

of this fl ock migrates north to Greenwater Lake 

Provincial Park in Saskatchewan, Canada to nest 

and returns to Lacreek NWR to winter. 

Lacreek NWR has not had a successful nesting 

attempt for over 5 years. Habitat has decreased, 

but with wetland management efforts, habitat is 

increased and there may be nesting in the future.

American White Pelicans

American white pelicans began nesting on two 

islands in Pool 9 shortly after construction. This 

nesting colony has become one of the largest in 

South Dakota. A nesting site relatively free from 

predators, little human disturbance, and abundant 

food resources both on the refuge and lakes and 

ponds within fl ying distance are believed to make 

this site attractive to nesting pelicans. Although 

nesting requirements were met previously, 

predators have become a problem in recent years 

Fish

Fish species including northern pike, saugeye, 

large-mouth bass, black crappie, perch, bluegill, 

pumpkinseed, bullhead, carp and a variety of 

Snapping Turtle

© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams

Red-headed Woodpecker

© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
27

 Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description

minnows including the state threatened pearl dace 

and red-belly dace are all found in refuge waters. 

Rainbow trout are stocked in spring-fed ponds 

in the sandhills portion of the refuge. Great blue 

herons, American white pelicans, double-crested 

cormorants, American bitterns, and western, pied 

billed, eared, and horned grebes forage for fi sh in 

the refuge waters. Selected pools (Pools 3, 4, 7, 

10, the trout ponds, and the LWRRA) are open to 

public fi shing.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Table 2 from the South Dakota Natural Heritage 

Program documents federal and state listed 

endangered and threatened species found at 

Lacreek NWR.

Cultural Resources

Prehistoric Resources

Although the number of cultural resources 

investigations in and around Lacreek NWR have 

been few, a major discovery was made in 2000 of 

a large bison bone and stone artifact site located 

in Pool 8. The site was called the Sierra-Kai site. 

Mapped and recorded by Service archaeologists 

in August 2000 during a drawdown of the 

reservoir, over 1,500 bison bones and numerous 

stone artifacts were documented. It appears that 

the site may have been used to process bison 

carcasses. A Late Plains period (1500 A.D. to 1800 

A.D.) projectile point was recovered with other 

stone tools. The site covered nearly 20 acres and 

extended to the northeast. Other indications of 

prehistoric Native American activity within the 

boundaries of Lacreek NWR include stone artifact 

fi nds near Pool 9 by a Service archaeologist. These 

sites indicate the potential for other prehistoric 

sites, usually covered by the waters and vegetation 

of the reservoirs, to exist along the old creek bed 

and fl oodplain dammed in the 1930s to create 

the reservoirs. It is now known that the Sand 

Hills and the Badlands areas of Nebraska and 

South Dakota have evidence of various periods 

of Native American occupation, possibly going 

back several thousand years. It is also known 

from historic records, that the Lacreek NWR 

area was frequently visited by various tribes 

during the 18th and 19th centuries; including the 

Lakota, Cheyenne, Arapahoe and Pawnee, to name 

a few. Although no prehistoric sites have been 

determined eligible for nomination to the National 

Register of Historic Places, future discoveries may 

change that situation. 

Historic Resources

The refuge’s early twentieth century history is 

closely tied to the Civilian Conservation Corps 

(CCC) and Works Progress Administration (WPA). 

Young men enrolled in the CCC in the mid- to late 

1930s completed much of the dike-construction and 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

28

infrastructure work at the refuge. CCC Company 

#4723 started work at the refuge in spring 1937 

and completed its work in fall 1939. The WPA 

worked at the refuge from 1937 to 1941. Young 

men working under the WPA planted thousands of 

trees and shrubs on the refuge. Both the CCC and 

WPA were involved in building trails, dikes and 

landscaping.

The refuge buildings were constructed in 1936 and 

included a service garage and offi ce, small cabin 

residence, equipment shed, lookout tower, and 

barn. All these buildings are still present at the 

refuge except for the equipment shed. The service 

garage, barn, and lookout tower were determined 

to be eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places (Register) in 1999, but none of these 

structures has been formally listed on the Register.

The WPA constructed a picnic shelter at LWRRA 

in 1940-1941. The original fabric of the picnic 

shelter has been rebuilt over the years and it was 

determined to be ineligible for the Register in 2000.

Special Management Areas 

Wilderness Review

Lacreek NWR meets the size, scenic, and 

ecological value criteria for wilderness; however, 

the refuge has been modifi ed by roads, fences, 

grazing, agriculture, and wetland drainage. These 

alternations prevent designation as a wilderness 

area. To be designated a wilderness area; lands 

must meet certain criteria as outlined in the 

Wilderness Act of 1964:

■ Generally appears to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature, with 

the imprint of human work substantially 

unnoticeable;

■ Has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of suffi cient 

size as to make practicable its preservation and 

use in an unimpaired condition; and

■ May also contain ecological, geological, or other 

features of scientifi c, educational, scenic or 

historical value.

Little White River Recreation Area

The LWRRA is a special management area on the 

refuge. The land was accepted as a donation in fee 

title under the Refuge Recreation Act. Historically, 

it has been a place that surrounding community 

members have used for recreational purposes. 

Within the deed, there are provisions for activities 

not normally found on a wildlife refuge. In this 

area of the refuge there are opportunities for 

recreational hunting, fi shing, swimming, boating, 

and camping.

Visitor Services

The refuge offers a variety of recreational 

opportunities to local residents and other visitors 

centered on the wildlife resources. Opportunities 

on the refuge include wildlife-dependent and 

wildlife compatible uses legislated by Congress 

and outlined in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997. These uses 

include hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation. 

The refuge is open to hunting for white-tailed and 

mule deer, ring-necked pheasant, and sharp-tailed 

grouse. A number of select pools are open for 

fi shing throughout the year. The refuge is a popular 

destination for viewing migrations of waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and Neotropical birds. Popular wildlife 

watching opportunities on the refuge include 

trumpeter swans, American white pelicans, 

burrowing owls, and black-tailed prairie dogs. 

Interpretive displays and brochures are available 

at refuge headquarters. An auto tour route and 

nature trails provide opportunities for viewing and 

photographing wildlife. The LWRRA has facilities 

for boating, fi shing, swimming, and camping.

Fishing

Fishing is permitted year-round on Pools 3, 4, 7, 10, 

trout ponds, and the LWRRA. Warm water species 

such as northern pike, channel catfi sh, and large 

mouth bass are the species most desired by anglers 

on the LWRRA. The trout ponds are spring-fed 

and remain cold enough to support rainbow trout. 

The refuge coordinates with the South Dakota 

Red-winged Blackbird

© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
29

 Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description

lightning induced or deliberately set by Native 

Americans, fi re has infl uenced the composition of 

the plant community at the refuge. A handful of 

fi re-tolerant shrubs such as chokecherry, American 

plum, and leadplant were present, while other 

woody species killed by fi re were restricted to 

areas that were protected from fi re. The plant 

community was dominated by a number of species 

of grasses with many species of forbs dotting the 

landscape. 

It is believed that the historical fi re frequency for 

the mixed grass prairie was 5 to 7 years. Little 

information is available on the occurrence of 

wildfi re during the early years of the refuge. More 

recently, the refuge has had up to three wildfi res 

a year. Potential exists for fairly large wildfi res 

to occur; however, this has generally not been the 

case.

Local fi re departments and area ranchers 

aggressively suppress wildfi re. It is also refuge 

policy to control all wildfi res occurring on the 

refuge.

Refuge staff now uses prescribed fi re to simulate 

the historical infl uence wildfi re had on the plant 

communities (see appendix F). Most prescribed 

fi res are generally ignited during late winter 

through greenup in spring. This time of year 

presents opportunities to complete prescribed 

burns when temperatures are lower, humidity is 

higher, and the fi re may be more easily controlled. 

This time frame also coincides with other refuge 

activities such as wetland management. Wetlands 

can be drawn down in late winter and prescribed 

burned, and then be re-fl ooded to provide spring 

migratory habitat. Historically, wildfi res likely 

also would have occurred during the summer and 

fall. Prescribed fi re was infrequently used as a 

management tool for most of the refuge’s history. 

During the last 10 years, prescribed fi re has been 

increasingly used, and refuge staff now completes 

fi ve to ten prescribed burns each year, covering 

1,500 to 3,000 acres.

Similar to fi re, grazing greatly infl uences 

the structure and composition of grassland 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks to manage 

the recreational fi shery; the state stocks game fi sh. 

Hunting

A portion of the refuge is open to pheasant and 

sharp-tailed grouse hunting. The refuge also 

provides bow and muzzle loading hunting for deer. 

Special regulations apply to all hunting activities. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation

Refuge staff provides educational talks and 

tours for schools and other groups upon request. 

Exhibits, educational videos, and informational 

brochures are available in the visitor center. 

Informational brochures and refuge maps are also 

available at two information kiosks located on the 

refuge.

Wildlife Observation

The refuge provides outstanding opportunities 

for viewing wildlife. The abundance and variety 

of wildlife species combined with relatively low 

visitation provides many opportunities to view 

wildlife close up. The refuge offers a 4-mile, selfguided auto tour loop, starting at the refuge 

headquarters and winding around several large 

wetlands. Waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and 

raptors are common along the auto tour loop, as are 

deer, muskrats, and snapping and painted turtles. 

Trumpeter swans and large concentrations of ducks 

and geese begin to arrive in October. Numbers 

generally peak in November. From November 

through March, trumpeter swans are easily 

spotted from the auto tour route. Auto tour guides 

are available at the visitor center and provide 

interpretive information along the route. 

The Bird Walk Trail (0.2 mile) originates at refuge 

headquarters and takes visitors around a wooded 

thicket. The Pelican Islands Trail (0.2 mile) 

provides visitors with a rare opportunity to view 

American white pelicans nesting on two islands. 

During late April and early May, visitors can see up 

to 1,500 pelican, double-crested cormorant, black 

crowned night herons, and great blue heron nests 

located on these islands. Black-tailed prairie dogs, 

and, at times, burrowing owls, are easily viewed in 

the large prairie dog towns north of the refuge.

Fire and Grazing History

Historically, grasslands in the northern Great 

Plains co-evolved with various disturbance regimes 

such as fi re and large-scale grazing. Whether Mule Deer

Tom Koerner/USFWS
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

30

communities. Herbivores such as bison, elk, deer, 

pronghorn, and black-tailed prairie dog interact 

with soils, plants, other animals, and other 

processes to produce unique successional patterns 

in the landscape at multiple scales. 

Most plant species have developed growing points 

located at or near the ground surface, which allows 

the plant to be clipped off without killing it. Some 

contain bitter or toxic substances that cause 

animals to avoid grazing on them, and some species 

have spines to cause injury to grazing animal’s 

mouths. 

Historically, Lake Creek and other springs on the 

refuge were some of the only local water sources 

available. It is likely that herds of bison spent a 

considerable amount of time here. Their grazing, 

trampling, trailing, and related activities likely 

had a signifi cant impact on the development and 

maintenance of the plant communities.

Bison and elk are no longer present on the refuge. 

Instead, refuge staff works with local ranchers to 

mimic natural disturbances due to grazing. Grazing 

is generally conducted during the spring and early 

summer, and again in the fall in upland habitats, 

to stress exotic cool season grasses and favor 

native warm season grasses and forbs. Wetland 

and wet meadow grazing may occur for much of 

the growing season to stress and physically injure 

aggressive wetland species such as cattails and 

favor species that provide more seed production, 

open habitats, and competition to Canada thistle. 

Wetland grazing reduces accumulations of organic 

litter at the surface. A large amount of organic 

litter often favors invasive species such as Canada 

thistle. Grazing can also be used as part of an IPM 

program. Refuge staff has found that cattle will 

actively graze Canada thistle early in the growing 

season. Follow-up treatments also tend to be easier 

to complete and more effective after grazing.

Socioeconomics

Population and Demographics

The population in Bennett County grew 11.5 

percent from 1990 to 2000. The population estimate 

for the county in 2004 was 3,522, a 1.5 percent 

decline from 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). 

Martin, the county seat, had a population of 1,106 

in 2000. 

Farming and livestock ranching are the main 

agricultural enterprises. About 96 percent of the 

county land is in farms or ranches. Major crops are 

winter wheat, alfalfa, hay, proso, sorghum millet, 

and sunfl owers. During wet years, some dry land 

corn and soybeans are also planted. Movement 

of grain, livestock, and freight is by truck lines 

and farm-owned trucks; there is no rail line in the 

county. 

The racial makeup of the county is 40.91 percent 

White, 0.28 percent African American; 52.07 

percent Native American, 0.06 percent Asian, 0.14 

percent Pacifi c Islander, 0.17 percent from other 

races and 6.38 percent from two or more races 

(www.en.wikipedia.org/ southdakota). 

Employment and Income

In 2001, Bennett county had 71 private non-farm 

employment establishments with paid employees, 

compared to a total of 24,032 in the state of South 

Dakota overall. Agriculture is the major employer 

in the county. A variety of businesses exist in 

Martin, including health services, education, retail 

sales, and support services. The median per capita 

income is $10,106 (1999) compared with the state 

which was $17,562. 39.2 percent of the population 

was living below the poverty line, compared with 

the state at 13.2 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 

QuickFacts 2002).

Air Quality

The National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

include maximum allowable pollution levels for 

particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 

dioxide, lead, and carbon dioxide. Particulate 

matter is a measure of tiny liquid or solid particles 

in the air that is respirable in the lungs.

Cottontail

Tom Koerner/USFWS
31

 Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description

Air Quality in the area of the refuge is considered 

good, with no nearby manufacturing sites or major 

air pollution sources. Carbon from automobiles 

and diesel engines, prescribed fi re activities on the 

refuge, and dust associated with wind-blown sand 

and dirt from roadways and fi elds contribute to 

particulate matter. 

4 Management Direction
Prairie Dog

Bob Savannah/USFWS
35

In the uplands, greater than 20 percent of the 

habitats in each category (tall, medium, and short) 

will be restored. Less than 5 percent will be in 

native fi re-tolerant shrubs.

Objectives:

Upland Objective A (tall): In 5 to 10 years, 

increase fl oristic quality assessment C score by 

greater than 10 percent in patches greater than 

or equal to 125 acres, with vegetation measuring 

greater than 16 inches in height, as measured 

during the nesting season (May to July 15) within 

these patches, and greater than 164 feet from trees 

greater than 10 feet in height. 

Upland Objective B (medium): In 5 to 10 years, 

increase fl oristic quality assessment C score by 

greater than 10 percent in patches greater than 

or equal to 125 acres, with vegetation measuring 

between 6 to 16 inches in height, as measured 

during the nesting season (May to July 15) within 

these patches, and greater than 164 feet from trees 

greater than 10 feet in height. 

Upland Objective C (short): In 5 to 10 years, 

increase fl oristic quality assessment C score by 

greater than 10 percent in patches greater than 

or equal to 247 acres, with vegetation measuring 

less than 6 inches in height, as measured during 

the nesting season (May to July 15) within these 

patches, and greater than 328 feet from trees 

greater than 10 feet in height. 

Strategies:

1. Seed 100 to 300 acres/year of formerly cropped 

or exotic grass dominated uplands totaling 2,000 

to 3,000 acres to more than 100 species of native 

grasses, sedges, and forbs. 

2. Within designated grassland patches greater 

than or equal to 124 acres, remove trees greater 

than 16 feet in height and all non-native trees.

3. Interseed 100 to 300 acres/year of existing 

grasslands, totaling 1,500 to 3,000 acres, to more 

than 100 species of native grasses, sedges, and 

forbs.

4. Conduct 200 to 1,500 acres of prescribed burning 

in upland habitats each year to encourage/promote 

increased FQA C score and plant structure. 

5. Conduct 200 to 1,500 acres of prescribed grazing 

in upland habitats each year to encourage/promote 

increased FQA C score and plant structure. 

4 Management Direction

Introduction

Management Summary

Through integrated restoration, the refuge will 

strive to restore ecological processes where 

appropriate and achieve habitat conditions that 

require reduced management over time. This will 

be accomplished while recognizing the role of the 

refuge in the overall landscape and community and 

the capabilities of refuge staff and resources to 

complete the proposed management actions during 

the next 15 years. An emphasis on monitoring the 

effects of habitat management practices and use of 

the research results to direct ongoing restoration 

will be a priority. Current levels of priority public 

uses and activities will increase (fi gure 6). 

Refuge staff will continue to manage the WMD 

through monitoring and enforcement of easements. 

Management Direction

The objectives and strategies below describe how 

management of the refuge will be carried out to 

meet the overall goals for the refuge. 

Uplands Goal

Restore and enhance the mixed grass plant 

community to create a mosaic that refl ects the 

habitat requirements for grassland birds of 

management concern.

American Avocet

© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

36

6. Continue use of IPM strategies to reduce 

noxious weeds and other invasive species. 

Rationale:

The decline of grassland nesting birds has been

attributed to habitat loss and conversion, 

fragmentation, and the disruption of ecological 

factors such as fi re and grazing that created a 

mosaic of habitat types across the landscape. As 

a result, many grassland bird species are now 

considered species of biological concern (Service 

2002). Managing natural areas for these bird 

species involves providing the nesting habitat 

requirements and food resources essential for 

production and survival. These requirements 

include large, treeless patches that contain within 

them diversity in vegetation structure (Renken 

and Dinsmore 1987; Johnson and Temple 1990; 

Volkert 1992; Helzer and Jelinski 1999; DeJong 

2001; Herkert et al. 2003; Davis 2004; Fritcher et 

al. 2004). Through fi re, grazing, tree removal, and 

grassland restoration, habitat for many grassland 

nesting birds will be provided, but efforts will 

concentrate on managing for those birds that are of 

management concern. 

Several federal, state, and private “birds of concern 

lists” were reviewed. These lists are created based 

on population status and habitat conditions for bird

species in certain biological regions. Some birds, such

as the long-billed curlew appear on as many as eight

different lists. Species that are on many different 

lists are of the highest management concern and 

those species that were confi rmed to nest on the 

refuge were used as the focus for habitat objectives 

in the CCP. Once those birds were identifi ed, a 

literature search was conducted to determine the 

specifi c habitat requirements for each species. 

Requirements such as vegetation height, patch size, 

and distance from trees were used to create sciencebased objectives for the CCP (table 4). First, the 

nesting and foraging habitat requirements were 

identifi ed and compared. Birds were grouped based 

on similar requirements. For example, dickcissels, 

short-eared owls, grasshopper sparrows, and 

bobolinks nest in patches with a grass/forb mix 

where vegetation is moderate to tall and where 

woody edges are at a minimum (Birkenholz 1972; 

Wiens 1973; Rotenberry and Wiens 1980; Ryan 

1986; and Frawley 1989). A vegetation height 

somewhere in the middle of this range (8 to 30 

inches) was assumed to suit the needs of all the 

birds in this group, and greater than 16 inches 

was chosen as identifi ed in Objective A (tall). The 

next requirement that was examined was patch 

size. Again, a range of acres was determined. It 

was assumed that an acreage somewhere in the 

middle (125 acres) could accommodate the birds 

in the “tall” group, and be provided on the refuge 

through management actions. The fi nal requirement 

identifi ed was distance from trees. Trees on a 

grassland landscape can affect grassland obligates 

by fragmenting habitat and providing roost sites 

for avian predators. Trees also create corridors for 

mammalian predators such as skunks and raccoons 

(Bakker 2003). In the upland objectives, it was 
37

 Chapter 4—Management Direction

assumed that anything greater than 10 feet was a 

tree and anything above this height will provide 

places for grassland bird predators. 

Upland Objective B was developed just as A, 

using sharp-tailed grouse determine specifi cs 

(i.e., vegetation heights, number of acres, and 

distance from trees). Sharp-tailed grouse nesting 

requirements include large grassland patches 

where native grasses and forbs are dominant, 

of short to moderate heights, and far from 

trees (Johnsgard 1983; Gregg 1987; Prose 1987; 

Hanowski et al. 2000). As food and cover are 

reduced in open habitats throughout the summer, 

woody vegetation becomes increasingly important 

because it provides cover and high-energy food 

resources such as berries (Johnsgard 1983; Prose 

1987; Connelly et al. 1998). This is an important 

consideration for managing sharp-tailed grouse 

that winter on the refuge. 

Finally, species such as long-billed curlew, 

burrowing owl, and upland sandpiper were used 

to develop Objective C. These birds require short 

grass/forb mix (less than 6 inches) patches free 

from woody vegetation and adjacent to grasslands 

with moderate vegetation heights for foraging 

(Redmond and Jenni 1986; Pampush and Anthony 

1993; Benedict et al. 1996; Thompson and Anderson 

1988; Dechant et al. 1999b; Clayton and Schmutz 

1999; Herkert et al. 1993; Bowen and Kruse 1993). 

However, in this objective, the greatest acreage 

requirement (247 acres) and distance from trees 

(382 feet) was chosen based on the habitat needs 

of the upland sandpiper. The largest fi gures were 

chosen because it was assumed these quantities 

(acres and feet) could be easily achieved through 

grazing and prescribed fi re. 

Methods:

To determine whether management actions are 

providing a diverse native plant community on the 

refuge, staff will use Floristic Quality Assessment 

(FQA) methodology to determine plant species 

diversity and integrity. FQA was developed by 

Swink and Wilhelm (1979, 1994) to measure the 

fl oristic quality of a natural area. It has been used 

to determine the effectiveness of restoration 

efforts, monitor natural areas, and determine 

the fl oristic intactness of an area in Wisconsin, 

Illinois, and the Dakotas (Taft et al 1997; USGS 

2001; Bernthal 2003). Aspects such as tolerance 

of a plant species to disturbance and fi delity to 

specifi c habitat integrity are used to assign each 

native plant a coeffi cient of conservatism (C). The 

coeffi cient for each species is determined by its 

conservatism relative to other species in the area. 

Once an area has been surveyed, a mean C value 

is calculated and the higher C value the higher 

the quality of a natural area (C = 0 to 10). Given 

the assumption that the fl oristic quality of an area 

is correlated to species diversity (Wilhelm and 

Ladd 1988), it can be said that a high C score is 

directly related to high native plant diversity. Thus 

an area with a high C score should also provide 

the diversity in vegetation structure needed by 

grassland nesting birds, provided the patches are 

large enough. That is when sites are compared to 

those with relatively higher C scores will display 

a greater diversity in plant structure than a 

corresponding area with low C scores. To test this 

assumption, measures of vegetation structure will 

be taken during the FQA. By talking to scientists 

who have used the FQA method in the Northern 

Great Plains and Midwest, it was determined that 

an increase of greater than 10 percent within a 

5- to 10-year period was feasible with persistent 

grassland restoration efforts on the refuge.

Increasing native plant species diversity in 

formerly cropped areas or in degraded grasslands 

has received signifi cant attention, particularly 

in the tallgrass prairie portions of the Great 

Plains (Steinauer et al. 2003). Wide varieties of 

techniques have been used to harvest and process 

seed, prepare a seedbed, complete the seeding, 

and manage the seeding. Similar techniques can 

be adapted for use in the mixed-grass prairie and 

utilized for high diversity seeding and management 

at the refuge. Local seed sources will be utilized to 

collect over 100 species of native grasses, forbs, and 

sedges to include in these high diversity seedings. 

Follow-up management of prescribed burning, 

grazing, mowing, and haying will be used to help 

the Service achieve goals and objectives.

Sandhills Goal

Preserve and maintain the ecological integrity of 

indigenous fl ora and fauna of the sandhills portion 

of the refuge. 

Objectives:

Sandhills Objective A: Maintain the composition 

of the sandhills in greater than 90 percent 

native grasses and forbs to meet the needs of 

Burrowing Owls

© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

38

the lark sparrow and sharp-tailed grouse. Plant 

composition will consist of approximately 60 to 

90 percent grasses (i.e., blue and hairy grama 

grass, sand lovegrass, needle and thread, little and 

big bluestem, prairie sandreed, Junegrass, sand 

bluestem, switchgrass, and Indian grass), 5 to 15 

percent forbs/woody vegetation (Puccoon spp., 

Penstemon spp., sand cherry, yucca, prickly poppy, 

and Liatris spp.) and 5 to 10 percent bare ground.

Sandhills Objective B: Eradicate invasive plant 

species, such as leafy spurge, from the sandhills 

within 15 years. 

Strategies:

1. Conduct annual monitoring to detect invasive 

species.

2. Utilize IPM techniques (i.e., biological, 

mechanical, chemical, and cultural techniques).

3. Conduct annual vegetation monitoring to 

determine if objectives are being met.

4. Investigate potential for introduction of blowout 

penstemon (Penstemon haydenii).

Rationale: 

The sandhills prairie is distinctive because of 

the particular combination of plant communities 

found there. Typical short-, mixed-, and tall-grass 

species are all located in the sandhills because 

differences in topography and available moisture 

create conditions that allow each to persist (Kaul 

1990). Plant species that have a marked ability to 

conserve water often occur on dune tops where 

surface water and organic matter is limited. While 

cool-season grasses and plants that use water less 

effi ciently tend to be located in the interdunal 

valleys. Pool (1914) recognized six communities 

in the sandhills: four upland communities and a 

wet meadow and marsh community. All these 

communities are found within the sandhills portion 

of the refuge, and each will be used to defi ne the 

ecological integrity of indigenous fl ora and fauna to 

be maintained on the refuge.

The Bunchgrass Community: Plant species 

in this community consist of little bluestem, 

junegrass, needle and thread, prairie sandreed, and 

switchgrass, blue grama, lovegrass, and ricegrass, 

sages, milkweeds, penstemon, puccoon, cactus, 

aster, and pea plant. Some low shrubs such as sand 

cherry and wild rose also occur. 

Sand Muhly Community: The species of this 

community are characteristic of places with dry 

and unstable slopes that are undergoing succession 

following disturbances such as fi re and blowouts. 

Common species are sand muhly, sand bluestem, 

needle-and-thread, prairie sandreed, hairy grama, 

puccoon, and yucca.

The Blowout Community: Few plants occur in 

this community because of aridity and instability 

of the sand. Species include blowout grass, prairie 

sandreed, sand muhly, ricegrass, sand lovegrass, 

and lemon scruf-pea. Blowout penstemon, although 

not on the refuge, is found in this community type.

The Meadow Community: Sandhill meadows 

occur in level areas between dunes where water is 

readily available. Grass species commonly found 

here are slender and western wheatgrass, needle 

and thread grass, porcupine grass, switchgrass, 

Indiangrass, and junegrass.

Woody Vegetation: Trees and shrubs are abundant 

near permanent water and areas on the sides and 

bottoms of north-facing slopes (Schmidt 1986). 

Species include plains cottonwood, green ash, 

cedar, wild plum, chokecherry, buffaloberry, and 

dogwood and provide habitat for lark sparrow, 

Bell’s vireo, and sharp-tailed grouse. 

Lark sparrow and sharp-tailed grouse habitat 

requirements were identifi ed and used to develop 

Sandhills Objective A. The lark sparrow appears on 

two North American Bird Conservation Initiative 

lists for region 19 (breeding and wintering) 

and is found on Lacreek NWR. Finkbeiner and 

Johnson (2002) found it exclusively occurred in 

the sandhills portion of the refuge, perhaps due 

to the open areas interspersed with native grass, 

forbs, and yucca. Lark sparrows are found in areas 

with a mix of native grass, forbs, small trees and 

shrubs, and bare ground (Bock and Webb 1984; 

Howe et al. 1985; Fannes and Lingle 1995; Martin 

and Parrish 2000; Lusk et al. 2003). Lusk et al. 

(2003) recommended management that focused on 

creating abundant structural cover with moderate 

levels of litter accumulation and bare ground. 

There was more variation in structural cover 

among successful nests than unsuccessful ones, and 

successful nests had nearly twice as much litter 

cover. Additionally, nests placed near structural 

cover may provide thermal cover and protection 

from predation (Lusk et al. 2003).

As mentioned previously, grassland habitats are 

essential breeding areas for sharp-tailed grouse, 

and woody areas are equally important for 

overwinter survival. The refuge is an important 

breeding and wintering area in Bennett County. 

By maintaining the integrity of the sandhills, these 

habitat requirements will be provided in order to 

sustain the population that occurs on the refuge.

There are 2 to 3 acres of leafy spurge in the 

sandhills portion of the refuge. Leafy spurge is 

sprayed each year and new patches are monitored 

and mapped when detected. Leafy spurge 

has been sprayed for three consecutive years 

beginning in 2002; the number of acres infested 

remains constant. Leafy spurge is perhaps the 

greatest threat to habitat in the sandhills. It 
39

 Chapter 4—Management Direction

has demonstrated an ability to invade native 

grasslands in portions of the Great Plains and 

signifi cantly degrade wildlife habitat. 

Wet Meadows Goal

Restore and enhance the wet meadow plant 

community using a diversity of native species 

to create a habitat mosaic that meets the 

requirements for birds of management concern 

dependent on the wet meadow community. As part 

of the plant community, native fi re-tolerant shrubs, 

such as indigo bush, dogwood, and native willow, 

will be allowed to persist. 

In wet meadow habitats, more than 20 percent of 

the habitats in each category (tall, medium, and 

short) will be restored. Between 0 and 10 percent 

will be in the riparian shrub community.

Objectives

Wet Meadow Objective A (tall): In 5 to 10 years, 

increase fl oristic quality assessment C score by 

greater than 10 percent in patches greater than 25 

acres with vegetation measuring greater than 24 

inches in height, as measured during the nesting 

season (May to July 15).

Wet Meadow Objective B (medium): In 5 to 10 

years, increase fl oristic quality assessment C score 

by greater than 10 percent in patches greater than 

25 acres with vegetation measuring from 12 to 24 

inches in height, as measured during the nesting 

season (May to July 15). 

Wet Meadow Objective C (short): In 5 to 10 years, 

increase fl oristic quality assessment C score by 

greater than 10 percent in patches greater than 

25 acres with vegetation measuring less than 12 

inches in height, as measured during the nesting 

season (May to July 15).

Wet Meadow Objective D (shrubby component):

Maintain 0 to 10 percent of wet meadow habitat 

dominated (canopy cover greater than 75 percent) 

by native shrubs. 

Wet Meadow Objective E: Investigate techniques 

and complete a feasibility study by 2009 for 

restoration of the hydrology of Lake Creek. 

Strategies:

1. By 2016, interseed 30 to 150 acres annually, 

totaling 300 to 1,500 acres of wet meadow that has 

been historically sprayed with herbicides. 

2. Conduct 200 to 1,500 acres of prescribed burning 

in wet meadow habitats each year to encourage/

promote increased FQA C scores and plant 

structure. 

3. Conduct 200 to 1,500 acres of prescribed grazing 

in wet meadow habitats each year to encourage/

promote increased FQA C scores and plant 

structure. 

4. Utilize prescribed burning and prescribed 

grazing on an adaptive management basis.

5. Utilize IPM to achieve acceptable levels of 

control for noxious weeds.

6. Encourage beaver dam construction in areas 

with no management confl ict. 

Rationale: 

Wet meadows are characterized by ecotones 

between emergent wetland and perennial uplands. 

The soils are moist to saturated with standing 

water present for only brief to moderate periods 

during the growing season. Vegetation includes a 

wide variety of herbaceous species, from sedges 

and rushes to forbs and grasses. Woody vegetation, 

if present, accounts for less than 10 percent of the 

total area covered. Wet meadow habitat on the 

refuge occurs at the perimeter of wetland areas, 

along riparian corridors, and at springs emerging 

from the sandhills. Vegetation includes prairie 

cordgrass, Canada bluejoint, switchgrass, foxtail 

barley, barnyard grass, wooly sedge, slough sedge, 

Nebraska sedge, golden doc, mint, golden rod, 

Nuttall’s sunfl ower, wild licorice, spike rush, Baltic 

rush, blue vervain, stinging nettle, sandbar willow, 

red-osier dogwood, and false indigo. 

This habitat type provides nesting and foraging 

requirements for marshbirds, raptors (e.g., harriers 

and short-eared owls), some shorebirds, and 

passerines. Virginia rail, sora, and American bittern 

are common in wetlands where the soils are moist 

to shallow, the vegetation is dense and tall (24 to 

51 inches) with very little (5 percent to 30 percent) 

open water habitat. These marsh birds prefer areas 

Sandhill Crane

© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

40

with a high diversity of wetland vegetation such as 

cattail, bulrush, cordgrass, and wildrice. 

Wet meadows provide nesting and foraging 

requirements for marshbirds, raptors (e.g., 

harriers and short-eared owls), some shorebirds, 

and passerines. The objectives for this habitat type 

were developed in much the same way the upland 

objectives were: by creating a list of birds that 

was used to focus management; identifying specifi c 

numbers for vegetation height, patch sizes, and the 

role of trees based on scientifi c literature; grouping 

birds with similar habitat requirements; and then 

determining what number would accommodate 

all birds in the group. These specifi c acres and 

heights were then incorporated into Objectives 

A through D. For Objective A, Virginia rail, sora, 

and American bittern were grouped into the “tall” 

category. These birds are common in wetlands 

where the soils are moist to shallow, the vegetation 

is dense and tall (24 to 51 inches) with very little (5 

percent to 30 percent) open water habitat. These 

marsh birds prefer areas with a high diversity 

of wetland vegetation such as cattail, bulrush, 

cordgrass, and wildrice. 

To develop Objective B, northern harriers and 

short-eared owls were used to determine the 

appropriate vegetation heights and number of 

acres. These raptors are often associated with wet 

meadow areas because they require large tracts 

(greater than 247 acres) of tall, dense vegetation 

adjacent to upland areas interspersed with stands 

of shrubs. These areas should be idle for 2 to 

5 years to allow the accumulation of litter and 

the persistence of small shrubby species such as 

snowberry, a key species associated with harrier 

nesting locations (Duebbert and Lokemoen 1977; 

Kantrud and Higgins 1992; Murphy 1993).

Objective C was developed by looking at the 

habitat requirements for a group of shorebirds. 

Grazed and burned areas adjacent to wetlands can 

provide the habitat requirements of shorebirds 

such as long-billed curlew, Wilson’s phalarope, 

and marbled godwit. These species utilize shorter 

(less than 12 inches) grassland areas adjacent to 

seasonal, semi-permanent wetlands that contain 

native vegetation such as green needlegrass, 

western wheatgrass, and inland saltgrass (Dechant 

et al. 2000, 2001, 2003; Duggar and Duggar 2002). 

Finally, Objective D was determined by examining 

the needs of two species that require riparian 

corridors and woody draws: Bell’s vireo and willow 

fl ycatcher. Bell’s vireo declined at a rate of 2.4 

percent between 1966 and 1987 and is currently 

listed on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Birds of Conservation Concern list, the North 

American Bird Conservation Initiative list for 

regions 17 and 19, and on the National Audubon 

Society Watch List. Bell’s vireo nests in relatively 

open, low, dense, shrubby habitats throughout its 

range (Overmire 1963; Brown 1993; Martin 1996; 

Swanson 1999). Wild plum thickets were found to 

be especially important nesting areas in western 

South Dakota. Martin (1996) found that 77 percent 

of all nests occurred in these areas. The remaining 

nests were located in buckbrush, dogwood, and 

chokecherry bushes. Willow fl ycatcher is on the 

National Audubon Society Watch List and is a 

bird strongly associated with the presence and 

abundance of willow throughout its range (Taylor 

1986; Sedwick and Knopf 1992; and Sanders and 

Edge 1998). 

Developed Wetlands Goal

In managed wetlands, mimic natural wet/dry cycle 

with an emphasis on seed production, submerged 

aquatic vegetation, and invertebrate production.

Defi nitions:

For the purposes of this goal and associated 

objectives, the defi nitions below for water regimes 

from Cowardin et al (1998) were modifi ed within 

the context of the refuge’s managed wetlands. 

Natural basins fl uctuate due to groundwater levels 

and surface runoff. Water levels within managed 

wetlands can generally be manipulated, with some 

management constraints. 

Semi-permanently fl ooded. Surface water persists 

throughout the growing season in most years. 

Seasonally fl ooded. Surface water is present for 

extended periods, especially early in the growing 

season. Surface water may again be present after 

the growing season in the fall and winter. When 

surface water is absent, the water table is often 

near the surface. 

Temporarily fl ooded. Surface water is present for 

brief periods during the growing season. Plants 

that grow both in uplands and wetlands are 

characteristic of the temporarily fl ooded regime. 

Meadow

© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
41

 Chapter 4—Management Direction

Objectives:

Developed Wetland Objective A (temporary water 

regime): From 2006-2021, manage 25 to 50 percent 

of managed wetland acres with a temporary water 

regime; greater than 50 percent of the unit area 

will be dominated by desirable plant species (see 

appendix G).

Developed Wetland Objective B (seasonal water 

regime): From 2006-2021, manage 25 to 50 percent 

of managed wetland acres with a seasonal water 

regime; greater than 50 percent of the unit area 

will be dominated by desirable plant species (see 

appendix G).

Developed Wetland Objective C (semi-permanent 

regime): From 2006-2021, manage 25 to 50 percent 

of managed wetland acres with a semi permanent 

water regime; greater than 50 percent of the unit 

area will be dominated by desirable plant species 

(see appendix G).

Strategies: 

1. Surface water will be diverted to or released 

from managed wetland units to provide the mix of 

temporary, seasonal, and semi-permanent water 

regimes outlined in objectives.

2. Conduct 200 to 1,500 acres of prescribed burning 

in developed wetlands to reduce plant litter depths, 

encourage germination and growth of desirable 

species, and improve effectiveness of grazing and 

IPM in this habitat. 

3. Conduct 200 to 1,500 acres of prescribed grazing 

in developed wetlands each year to reduce plant 

litter depths, encourage germination and growth of 

desirable plant species, injure aggressive perennial 

wetland plant root systems, and create openings in 

wetland vegetation. 

4. Utilize IPM to achieve acceptable levels of 

control for noxious weeds.

Rationale: 

Wetland birds are a diverse group of species that 

can have broadly contrasting habitat requirements. 

Species such as trumpeter swan, American coot, 

and American white pelican use deeper (31 to 

144 inches) semi-permanent water to meet their 

natural history requirements. Canada geese and 

redheads can utilize deeper water as well, but 

often obtain food resources in shallower (1 to 12 

inches) more seasonal water. Seasonal wetlands are 

essential for dabbling ducks such as blue-winged 

teal, mallards, and northern pintails because these 

wetlands provide optimum foraging depth for these 

species and typically produce more abundant seed 

and aquatic invertebrate resources (Fredrickson 

and Reid 1988). Seasonal wetlands often contain 

proportionately more waterfowl pairs than other 

wetland classes (Ruwaldt et al 1979). Finally, 

Wilson’s phalarope, godwit, willet, and long-billed 

curlew use mostly seasonal or temporary wetlands 

that measure 1 to 7 inches deep. 

On the refuge, requirements of all these birds can 

be met by managing for different water regimes in 

the various units. Semi-permanent, seasonal, and 

temporary wetland habitats can all be provided 

on the refuge through the manipulation of water 

levels. Water control structures (WCS) allow 

staff to mimic the wet-dry cycle of the Plains. The 

manipulation of water levels to mimic wet/dry 

hydrologic cycles is one tool used by wetland 

managers to infl uence vegetative productivity, 

composition, and structure (Kadlec 1962; 

Frederickson and Taylor 1982). The continuance of 

static water levels can create anaerobic conditions 

that limit decomposition and nutrient cycling 

(Brinson et al. 1981). High, static water levels can 

also adversely infl uence the growth of Submergent 

Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) by limiting light 

penetration and allowing water temperatures to 

remain cool. Proper water level manipulations can 

create hemi-marsh habitats that can provide open 

water areas that may contain SAV and shallow 

areas that may provide emergent food resources 

and cover for many wetland-dependent species 

(Weller and Frederickson 1974; Murkin et al. 1997).

Refuge staff have utilized water level 

manipulations to increase wetland plant diversity 

and nutrient cycling, and promote the growth 

of SAV. Wetlands that were once dominated by 

cattail and bulrush in emergent zones, are now 

interspersed with species such as arrowhead, 

beggarticks, and wild rice (Zizania aquatica). 

Arrowhead is carbohydrate-rich and especially 

important to swans in the winter and spring. 

Beggarticks contains high amounts of protein 

(Paullin 1973; Squires 1991; Eaggars and Reed 

1997). Additionally, the establishment of species 

such as waterweed and sago pondweed has 

occurred in open water areas after drawdowns, 

both important food resources for trumpeter swans 

(Shea 1979; Hughlett et al. 1984; Mitchell 1994). 

A secondary effect of increasing wetland plant 

diversity is the assemblage of invertebrates 

(Frederickson and Reid 1988). Invertebrate 

groupings are often infl uenced by the species of 

wetland vegetation present. For instance, the 

structure of macrophytes present can infl uence 

the species and number of invertebrates available, 

because a plant species that is more complex has 

more surface area available for invertebrates than 

a species that has a simple leaf structure such as 

wild celery (Frederickson and Reid 1988). This is 

important because invertebrates are crucial for 

providing protein needed for egg, muscle, and 

feather development, and having high densities and 

diversity of invertebrates can provide for many 

types of waterbirds. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

42

Water level manipulations are believed to have 

added benefi ts of controlling rough fi sh populations 

and snapping turtles. Rough fi sh, primarily carp, 

can thrive under static high water management. 

The carp attain population levels great enough to 

remove most desirable emergent and submerged 

aquatic vegetation and signifi cantly increase 

turbidity levels. This factor can severely limit 

food resources for wetland-dependent migratory 

birds. Snapping turtles also thrive in similar 

environments. The stable water levels, especially 

during overwinter periods, can increase survival 

of snapping turtles. These long-lived predators can 

reach unusually high population numbers under 

these conditions, and may have a signifi cant impact 

on brood survival for trumpeter swans, Canada 

geese, ducks, and other waterbirds. Varying water 

levels may kill snapping turtles overwintering in 

bottom sediments. 

Prairie Dogs Goal

Maintain a viable population of black-tailed prairie 

dogs within the boundary of the refuge. 

Objectives:

Prairie Dog Objective A: Support a minimum of 

300 acres of occupied black-tailed prairie dog towns 

within the biologically and socially compatible zone 

identifi ed in appendix E, over the next 15 years.

Strategies:

1. Fully implement an approved refuge black-tailed 

prairie dog management plan.

2. Within the socially incompatible zone, control 

will be considered for use as part of mixed grass 

prairie restoration efforts.

3. Within the biological/social compatible 

zone, prairie restoration will utilize herbicide, 

interseeding, burning, grazing, and other habitat 

restoration techniques. 

4. Conduct grazing, mowing and prescribed 

burning activities adjacent to black-tailed prairie 

dog towns in socially compatible zones when the 

occupied area falls below 300 acres. 

5. Work cooperatively with Bennett County 

Weed Board and the state of South Dakota on 

management of black-tailed prairie dogs on the 

refuge.

6. If black-tailed prairie dogs are extirpated 

within the boundaries of the refuge, and do not 

re-establish passively within 3 years, planning for 

translocation will be initiated.

7. Establish buffer zones for prairie dog towns 

that are located along the exterior boundaries of 

the refuge adjacent to private range and hay land 

or private residences. Coordinate with adjacent 

landowners on control efforts. 

Rationale: 

Black-tailed prairie dogs are an integral part of 

the wildlife community and it is appropriate to 

maintain a viable population on the refuge. Many 

wildlife species associate with or depend upon 

prairie dogs during some portion of their life cycle. 

Over 167 vertebrate species have been documented 

using prairie dog towns (Campbell and Clark 

1981; Clarke et al. 1982; Knowles 1994; Reading 

et al. 1989; Sharps and Uresk 1991). Some species 

feed on prairie dogs, but others utilize the burrow 

systems or the unique habitat to fulfi ll their needs. 

Vacant burrows are used by cottontail rabbits, 

several species of small rodents, tiger salamanders, 

prairie rattlesnakes, bull snakes, and by burrowing 

owls. Most active towns on the refuge have had 

successful nesting by burrowing owls. As the size 

and number of prairie dog towns have increased, 

so has the documented sightings of burrowing 

owls on the refuge. Many other passerine species, 

such as meadowlark, grasshopper sparrow, lark 

bunting, McCown’s longspur, and horned lark, 

prefer the sparsely vegetated habitat created on 

prairie dog towns due to the greater visibility of 

seeds and insects (Agnew et al. 1986). In addition 

to their importance to other wildlife species, prairie 

dogs provide an opportunity for wildlife observers 

and photographers. Management should focus on 

maintaining a large enough acreage to maintain 

prairie dogs and associated species while still 

allowing for prairie restoration and other grassland 

management objectives. 

During the CCP scoping process, management of 

prairie dogs on the refuge received considerable 

attention. Neighboring landowners and local 

government such as the Bennett County Weed and 

Pest Board and the Bennett County Conservation 

District were concerned that towns established 

along the refuge boundary were causing prairie 

dogs to spread onto adjacent private lands, where 

they are undesirable. Control of prairie dogs on 

private land is diffi cult as these areas are quickly 

re-colonized from refuge lands. 

A second issue concerning prairie dog management 

relates to prairie restoration efforts. Large 

expanses of exotic grasses and other invasive 

species occur in the refuge’s uplands. A large seed 

bank of these undesirable species exists and must 

be removed with tillage and herbicides. Rapid 

expansion and dispersal of prairie dogs have been 

noted after discing or herbicide applications for 

noxious weed control. Prairie dogs also expand 

into newly seeded fi elds and repeated prescribed 

burning and mowing may be needed to aid in 

establishment of prairie species. The ability to 

manage prairie dogs on the refuge is needed to aid 

with an aggressive prairie restoration effort. 
43

 Chapter 4—Management Direction

A refuge-specifi c prairie dog management plan 

has been approved that designates a portion of 

the refuge in which prairie dogs will be allowed 

to expand and contract without direct control 

efforts. A large portion of the refuge is considered 

to be unsuited to prairie dog occupation based on 

soils and hydrology. The remainder of the refuge 

will provide for a buffer adjacent to private hay 

and rangeland or residences and control will be 

authorized in these areas. Prairie dogs also may 

be controlled to facilitate grassland restoration 

efforts. 

Trumpeter Swan Goal 

Contribute to a long-term viable population of 

wild, free ranging trumpeter swans in the High 

Plains Flock, as outlined in the High Plains 

Flock Management Plan (Central Flyway Swan 

subcommittee). 

Objectives:

Trumpeter Swan Objective A: From October 

to March, when less than 10 percent of wetland 

habitat remains open, and greater than 25 swans 

concentrate on the trout ponds, restrict access by 

the visiting public and staff within 164 feet of trout 

ponds. 

Trumpeter Swan Objective B: From April through 

September, restrict access by the visiting public and 

staff within 820 feet of occupied trumpeter swan nesting 

territories.

Trumpeter Swan Objective C: Investigate lead 

concentrations on refuge wetlands occupied by 

swans by 2009. Eliminate known lead contributors 

(i.e., fi shing sinkers) by 2009.

Trumpeter Swan Objective D: Continue to monitor 

the High Plains Flock by conducting population 

surveys in the fall and summarize results in an 

annual report for public review.

Trumpeter Swan Objective E: Complete 

new management plan for High Plains Flock 

coordinated through the Central Flyway by 2006.

Strategies:

1. Implement regulations restricting use of lead 

sinkers for fi shing on the refuge.

2. Educate public about impacts of lead on swans 

and waterfowl through the use of signs, brochures, 

and other outreach activities.

3. Monitor swan behavior starting in March 2006, 

and every March through the life of the plan to 

determine possible nesting territories.

4. Attend Central Flyway Committee and 

Trumpeter Swan Society Meetings to disperse 

information, maintain network, and coordinate on 

management of this fl ock.

5. Conduct annual fall survey and coordinate 

with Nebraska Game and Parks Commission on 

publication of results.

6. Pursue research with partners to identify lead 

concentrations, inventory wintering habitats, or 

other research topics needed for management of 

this fl ock. 

Rationale:

Trumpeter swans are sensitive to disturbance. 

This can cause nest abandonment, movement 

from foraging areas, and ultimately result in poor 

body condition and lowered reproductive success 

(Holton 1982; Lockman et al. 1987; Henson and 

Grant 1991). However, the types of disturbance do 

affect the reaction of the birds. Henson and Grant 

(1991) found that aircraft and passing road traffi c 

alerted birds but did not cause females to leave 

the nest. Additionally, the study found that swans 

are sensitive to noise and the visible presence of 

stopped vehicles, pedestrians, and researchers. The 

study recommended posting wetlands where swans 

nest to limit disturbance and restrict the use of 

airboats by staff during nesting periods. 

Limiting disturbance of winter foraging areas is 

also important. Activities disrupting foraging or 

causing excessive energy use may cause fatality or 

loss of reproductive potential because the female 

prelaying nutrition is lowered (Gale et al. 1987; 

Mitchell 1994). Approximately 100 to 200 swans 

winter on the refuge, and limiting disturbance 

at key foraging areas where swans concentrate 

might increase the probability of survival and 

reproduction. Trumpeter swans will concentrate at 

the trout ponds when temperatures are extremely 

cold for an extended period. This area may be 

disturbed by the public and access should be 

restricted during these periods. The loop trail that 

crosses the dam of trout pond #2 and a buffer of 

Prairie Dog

USFWS
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

44

approximately 164 feet around these ponds will be 

signed as closed to the public during these periods. 

The trail leading onto private land to the south 

will remain open. Confl icts with fi shermen will 

be negligible at this time as ice around the shore 

prevents fi shing at this time. 

Swans are particularly susceptible to lead 

poisoning which may affect swans as young as 

three weeks old (Mitchell 1994). Lead deposits in 

the High Plains are generally thought to be the 

result of shot and fi shing sinkers. According to a 

study done by Pelizza (2001), elevated levels of 

lead were found in 50 percent of all swans tested 

from the refuge. Additionally, 12 swans died on the 

refuge as a result of lead poisoning from 1979 to 

1994. Although lead has been found in swans that 

use the refuge, the source of the lead is unknown. 

Lead shot had been banned for waterfowl hunting, 

but there may be residual lead in the environment. 

Hunting clubs from Nebraska frequently hunted 

the Lacreek area in the early 1900s and it was 

noted as favorite hunting spot (Farrar 1994). More 

research is needed to determine how much lead is 

in the environment at the refuge, so that it may be 

removed. Also, use of lead sinkers for fi shing must 

be eliminated in order to keep the area from being 

further contaminated.

American White Pelicans Goal

Maintain and protect the nesting colony on two 

islands in Pool 9 over the long term.

Objectives:

American White Pelican Objective A: Minimize 

disturbance from April 15 to August 15 within 

1,312 to 2,625 feet of both islands. Critical period 

for young is hatching to day 16 (late May to early 

June). 

American White Pelican Objective B: By March 

20 each year, reduce 80 percent of herbaceous 

vegetation on both islands to 4 inches or less. 

Strategies: 

1. Prescribed burn or mow the vegetation on the 

islands by March 1.

2. Use all effective, legal, and the most humane 

control for predators on and adjacent to islands 

from May 15 to July 30 each year. Increase efforts 

when Pool 9 water levels are drawn down.

3. Implement a limited coyote hunt on Pool 9 

during late winter period. 

4. Keep trail and overlook a minimum of 1,312 feet 

from islands. 

5. Reduce disturbance from April 15 to August 15 

by suspending the use of the refuge airboat near 

islands. 

6. Conduct drawdowns only once every 3 to 5 

years.

Rationale: 

American white pelicans are most sensitive to 

disturbance during courtship to brooding periods 

(Jonhson and Sloan 1976; Bunnel et al. 1981; 

Doran et al. 2004; Knopf 2004). Interference of the 

colony by humans and predators during this time 

can cause displacement of birds, abandonment of 

nests, trampling of eggs and young, and exposure 

of young to temperature stress and mammal and 

avian predators (Johnson and Sloan 1976; Bunnel 

et al 1981; Doran et al. 2004; Knopf 2004). Young 

are extremely vulnerable from hatching to day 16 

because they have the inability to thermoregulate 

(Abraham and Evans 1999). Brooding by adults up 

until this time helps young maintain temperatures 

and reduces the chances of mortality due to 

exposure. To increase the probability of successful 

production, Doran et al. (2004) recommended a 

1,312 to 2,625 feet buffer zone around the nesting 

island that is free from disturbance from March 

to August. After the brooding period has ended, 

adults will leave the colony for extended foraging 

Trumpeter Swans

Tom Koerner/USFWS
45

 Chapter 4—Management Direction

trips as far as 75 miles away from nesting island 

(Findholt and Anderson 1995). The absence 

of adults for extended periods makes young 

vulnerable to mammalian predators, especially 

coyotes, and avian predators until they have 

fl edged in August (Bunnell et al. 1981; Knopf 2004).

Pelicans are colonial nesters that nest on islands in 

freshwater lakes and rivers (Doran et al. 2004) and 

prefer non-vegetated islands with a sand or soil 

surface on at least part of the island (Stepney 1986; 

Knopf 2004). Two nesting islands are on the refuge: 

both with trees. Nesting once occurred on both 

islands; however, in recent years only the north 

island has been used. It may be that the pelicans 

are no longer using the south island because the 

vegetation has grown above the desired height. In 

spring 2005, the south island was burned to reduce 

vegetation height with the intention of promoting 

nesting. Although no nesting occurred on the 

island, pelicans once again made use of the island as 

a loafi ng area soon after their arrival. 

The loss of all young and dispersal of most adults 

that occurred in 2005 is believed to have been a 

result of predation and disturbance by coyotes. It 

appears that coyotes swim to the islands to feed 

on the eggs and young. Visitors have reported 

seeing coyotes on the island or swimming to 

and from it. Tracks, young with bite marks on 

the neck, and broken egg shells also have been 

noted. If this disturbance is allowed to continue, 

total abandonment of the site for nesting is likely. 

Control measures will be implemented to prevent 

this from occurring and to eliminate the predation 

and disturbance by coyotes. 

Finally, water level fl uctuations may be associated 

with reproductive output. During years when 

water levels are lower, access to nesting colonies 

by mammalian predators increases, and this 

disturbance may cause the loss of young and 

abandonment of nesting colonies by adults. If 

abandonment occurs early in the growing season, 

vegetation may quickly overtake the area making 

it less attractive to nesting in subsequent years. 

Alternatively, the newly exposed surface can 

create additional nesting habitat and lower water 

levels can concentrate prey resources (Knopf 2004). 

A periodic drop in water levels in not thought to 

affect the long-term reproductive output of the 

species (Evans 1972; Knopf 1976; Doran et al. 2004). 

A return to higher water levels in ensuing years 

restores breeding habitat by keeping islands free 

of vegetation and reducing access to mammalian 

predators; thus, pelicans generally recolonize the 

areas. However, annual drawdowns repeatedly 

allow mammalian predator’s access to nesting 

colonies and this disturbance may cause permanent 

abandonment of nesting sites.

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Goal

Protect, where appropriate restore, and manage 

habitats to support all threatened or endangered 

species that may occur on the refuge.

Objectives:

Threatened and Endangered Species Objective 

A: Continue to evaluate the effects of all refuge 

management activities that may impact threatened 

or endangered species likely to occur on the refuge. 

When appropriate, conduct Section 7 Intra-service 

consultation with Ecological Services.

Threatened and Endangered Species Objective B: 

Within 10 years of approval of this CCP, complete 

transplanting a minimum of 300 blowout penstemon 

in one blowout on the refuge. 

Strategies: 

1. Conduct intra-service consultation with South 

Dakota/Nebraska Ecological Services.

2. Consult with state of South Dakota on 

transplanting.

3. Pursue grant funding coordinated with the 

University of Nebraska to secure transplants.

4. Communicate with neighbors about transplants. 

Rationale: 

The blowout penstemon is a federally listed 

endangered species found only in the Nebraska 

Sandhills. Extensive surveys were conducted in the 

sandhills of South Dakota to document this species; 

however, it was never detected (Stubbendieck, 

pers. comm. 2005). Consultations with Dr. Jim 

Stubbendieck of the University of NebraskaLincoln indicate that suitable habitat is available 

in limited quantities on the refuge. Any additional 

populations established outside of the existing 

populations in Nebraska will benefi t the long-term 

survival of this species. 

Past efforts in the Nebraska Sandhills have 

included both seeding and transplanting plants 

grown from seed into active blowouts. The 

seeding efforts have had limited success while 

the transplants have fared much better. Based on 

past efforts, starting a site with transplants and 

then supplementing the site for several years with 

additional transplants is the best strategy. This 

increases the odds that this relatively short- lived 

perennial has at least one favorable year to produce 

seed in order to sustain itself over the long term. 

Due to the limited availability of transplants, 

perpetually protected sites, such as the refuge, are 

the fi rst candidates for transplants. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

46

Coordination with the state of South Dakota will 

be pursued prior to moving a federally listed 

species across state lines. Listed plant species 

are not protected on private land under the 

ESA; therefore, in the unlikely event that this 

species becomes established on private lands due 

to the transplanting on the refuge, neighboring 

landowners will not be affected. They will continue 

to be able to conduct weed control, grazing, haying, 

seeding, and all other activities that may occur in 

or adjacent to a blowout. 

Predator Management Goal

Conduct predator management activities in 

developed wetlands and Pelican Islands to increase 

nest success of migratory birds and species of 

management concern such as American white 

pelicans. 

Objectives:

Predator Management Objective A: Within 1 year 

of approval of the CCP, initiate management of 

coyotes and other predators prior to and during the 

nesting season, on and adjacent to the two Pelican 

Islands in Pool 9.

Predator Management Objective B: Within 1 year 

of approval of the CCP, initiate control of striped 

skunks and raccoons within the developed wetland 

units, using the most humane methods available. 

Strategies:

1. Conduct management trapping activities using 

live traps and cubby sets along dikes and check 

daily during inspection of water control structures.

2. Hire a contractor to seasonally conduct predator 

management activities in managed wetlands and 

Pelican Islands.

3. Conduct special hunts of coyotes and other 

predators on islands prior to and during the 

nesting season. 

4. Investigate and utilize other predator control 

techniques to cause an aversion to the nesting 

islands. 

Rationale:

Predator populations in the Great Plains have 

been directly affected by extensive habitat 

changes. Some predator species common and 

widely distributed before European settlement 

vanished from all or most of the region (e.g., 

swift fox and gray wolf), whereas populations 

of other species that were scarce and narrowly 

distributed expanded greatly (e.g., raccoon). The 

elimination of the gray wolf had a profound impact 

on mesopredators, especially the other canids (i.e., 

red fox and coyote). Wolves are highly territorial 

and intolerant of other canids. Thus, fox and coyote 

abundance was limited and somewhat controlled 

by wolves. However, after the extermination of 

gray wolves from the prairies, fox and coyote 

populations grew. 

In areas where habitat is limited (i.e., fragmented) 

and predator populations are high, nest success 

of waterfowl is potentially less than optimum. 

Cowardin et al. (1998) reported that mallard 

nest success averaged only 8 percent in central 

North Dakota during 1977-80 and concluded that 

this rate was insuffi cient to maintain the local 

breeding population without immigration. Klett 

et al. (1988) also concluded that nest success 

was too low for population stability of mallard, 

gadwall, blue-winged teal, northern shoveler, and 

northern pintail in North Dakota, South Dakota, 

and Minnesota. Researchers have also concluded 

that breeding populations of these species were 

not self-sustaining in many years. Predators 

mainly destroy duck eggs but some species also 

take ducklings and incubating hens. Many other 

migratory bird species, including long-billed 

curlew, marbled godwit, upland sandpiper, and 

trumpeter swan, are also negatively affected by 

egg predation by raccoons and striped skunks 

during the nesting season. 

American white pelicans are colonial nesters that 

typically nest on islands surrounded by open water. 

It is believed that islands are selected due to the 

protection from predators provided. Coyotes are 

known predators on eggs and young of white 

pelicans. They have recently been documented as 

preying on young pelicans and their eggs and are 

believed to have caused the total abandonment of 

nesting and subsequent loss of all young in 2005. 

Individual coyotes are likely to continue to swim to 

the islands after learning this behavior. Removing 

individual animals and causing an aversion of 

remaining coyotes for these islands will help to 

prevent abandonment of nesting on these islands in 

future years.

Currently, coyotes are frequently observed on the 

refuge and are one of the most common predators 

detected during annual scent post surveys, but red 

fox are rarely seen on the refuge. Recent research 

in the Northern Great Plains indicates that coyotes 

have a signifi cant infl uence on the population of 

other nest and egg predators, especially red fox. 

Where coyotes are found in low numbers, red 

fox tend to fi ll the vacated predatory niche. The 

removal of large numbers of coyotes could result in 

an increasing occurrence of red fox on the refuge. 

This will be counterproductive for increasing the 

nest success and hatchling survival of waterfowl. 

Therefore, coyotes will not be one of the target 

predators for removal, except on and adjacent to 

the Pelican Islands. 
47

 Chapter 4—Management Direction

Research Goal

Objectives:

Use sound science, monitoring, and applied 

research to advance the understanding of natural 

resources and management within the Lake Creek 

Valley, sandhills and surrounding grasslands.

Research Objective A: Initiate one research 

project every 2 years with an emphasis on 

grassland restoration, wetland management, 

prairie dog management, or other topics of 

interest to refuge staff.

Strategies: 

1. Fund and build a bunkhouse to support 

research, and provide support resources for 

conducting research activities.

2. Secure two additional travel trailers for use by 

researchers.

3. Develop a refuge-specifi c list of research to be 

conducted on the refuge that will assist the Service 

with adaptive management. 

4. Increase networking with universities and 

colleges to foster possible research projects and 

support that is available at the refuge. 

Rationale: 

The foundation of sound management should be 

a thorough knowledge of the biotic and abiotic 

factors affecting the plant and animal communities 

on the refuge and surrounding landscape. Refuge 

staff will be conducting signifi cant management 

and restoration activities that will affect the plant 

and animal communities. There is much yet to be 

learned from this to guide future management on 

and off the refuge. The lack of housing currently 

limits research opportunities. By providing 

housing, staff will be able to attract researchers to 

aid with achieving this goal. 

Hunting Goal

Provide quality hunting opportunities that are 

compatible with purposes and other uses on the 

refuge. 

Objectives:

Hunting Objective A: Within 4 years of approval 

of the CCP, expand youth hunting opportunities to 

include at least one additional hunt, in coordination 

with the state of South Dakota.

Hunting Objective B: Within 5 years of approval 

of the CCP, explore opening additional species for 

hunting (e.g., cottontail rabbit, mourning dove, 

Hungarian partridge, youth waterfowl, coyote, and 

turkey) outside of LWRRA, where compatible. 

Hunting Objective C: Within 2 years of approval 

of the CCP, pursue closing of hunting from primary 

traveled road ditches adjacent to the refuge (see 

fi gure 6, public use map). 

Hunting Objective D: Within 2 years of approval 

of the CCP, adjust the boundary of the area open to 

deer hunting to include a small unit referred to as 

Unit 6S-1.

Strategies: 

1. In partnership with the state of South Dakota, 

draft the refuge’s step-down hunting management 

plan. 

2. When compatible, on request, provide special use 

permits for physically challenged hunters.

3. Complete a redesign and printing of the refuge’s 

hunting and fi shing brochure.

4. Update the refuge website at least quarterly. 

Coyote

USFWS

Cottontail

Tom Koerner/USFWS
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

48

Rationale:

Hunting is one of the priority public uses allowed 

on the refuge. When determined to be compatible 

with refuge purposes, this is one of six priority 

uses. The presence of wintering trumpeter 

swans has historically created a need to provide 

signifi cant portions of the refuge that are closed to 

hunting. This strategy has been very effective at 

providing staging and wintering habitat for up to 

250 trumpeter swans at a time. The portions of the 

refuge open to hunting of sharp-tailed grouse, ringnecked pheasant, and deer are used relatively little 

by trumpeter swan. 

Several requests were made to increase the areas 

of the refuge open to ring-necked pheasant, sharptailed grouse, and waterfowl hunting. The sandhills 

and the Brown Ranch portions of the refuge were 

specifi cally mentioned. The quality of the muzzle 

load hunt was a signifi cant factor in originally 

designating a portion of the refuge open only to 

deer hunting (Kraft, pers. comm. 2004). In addition, 

having portions of the refuge closed to all hunting 

serves to provide a “refuge” for many other species 

of wildlife. This helps maintain the quality of other 

priority wildlife-dependent recreational activities 

such as wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation. 

A large population of Canada geese typically 

winters on the refuge, as spring fl ows provide open 

water and surrounding private croplands supply 

food resources. This has created a predictable 

concentration of geese and has become a very 

popular hunt on adjacent private lands. Three 

sections of county road have been identifi ed as a 

potential safety concern adjacent to the refuge. 

These sections of road receive the majority 

of vehicle traffi c and also the majority of pass 

shooting from the road ditches. A rule change 

by the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks 

Commission will be required to restrict hunting 

from both sides of the road ditches in these 

sections. Pass shooting will still be permitted 

around the remainder of the refuge boundary. 

Goose hunters have been allowed to shoot at geese 

outside of the refuge boundary, provided that they 

are unarmed when entering portions of the refuge 

that are closed to waterfowl hunting to retrieve 

geese. At times, a signifi cant amount of disturbance 

results as hunters enter the refuge and attempt to 

fi nd and retrieve geese. Hunters will still legally 

be allowed to pass shoot at geese outside of the 

refuge boundary, but will not be allowed to shoot 

over refuge property or enter onto portions of the 

refuge closed to waterfowl hunting to retrieve 

geese. 

Currently, the refuge participates in the youth 

pheasant hunt. In coordination with the South 

Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks, additional 

opportunities for youth only hunts on the refuge 

will be explored. Allowing hunting of cottontail 

rabbits, mourning dove, partridge, and turkey in 

areas open to ring-necked pheasant and sharptailed grouse will also be explored and coordinated 

with the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks. 

Fishing Goal

Provide quality sport fi shing opportunities that are 

compatible with refuge purposes and other uses on 

the refuge. 

Objectives:

Fishing Objective A: Within 2 years of approval 

of the CCP, annually sponsor at least one youth 

fi shing activity at the refuge or at a site within the 

local community. 

Fishing Objective B: Within 3 years of approval 

of the CCP, implement an educational campaign 

that results in at least 75 percent of the fi shermen 

understanding the hazards of lead sinkers to 

trumpeter swans and the need to eliminate use on 

the refuge. 

Fishing Objective C: Within 3 years of approval 

of the CCP, implement a regulation prohibiting 

the use of lead fi shing sinkers on all refuge waters 

outside of the LWRRA. 

Strategies: 

1. In partnership with the state of South Dakota, 

revise and rewrite a refuge sport fi shing plan.

2. Provide signage, brochures, news releases, and 

information on the refuge’s website explaining 

need for lead sinker ban.

Waterfowl on Trout Ponds

Tom Koerner/USFWS
49

 Chapter 4—Management Direction

3. In partnership with the state of South Dakota, 

support trout stocking in trout ponds and other 

game fi sh stocking in LWRRA to support a 

recreational fi shery. 

4. Consider requests for fi shing tournaments 

at LWRRA by issuance of a special use permit. 

Consider other requests on a case-by-case basis. 

5. Sponsor a youth fi shing day on the refuge or 

support other local fi shing day efforts such as 

at Cottonwood Wildlife Management Area in 

Merriman.

6. Complete a redesign and printing of the refuge’s 

hunting and fi shing brochure.

7. Update the refuge’s website at least quarterly. 

Rationale: 

Sport fi shing is one of the priority public uses 

for the System. Where compatible, this public 

use should be considered. Current and proposed 

wetland management for all areas of the refuge, 

except the trout ponds and the LWRRA, will 

support a very limited recreational fi shery. The 

trout ponds and the LWRRA have deeper and 

more stable water levels to support a recreational 

fi shery. These sites are locally important, due to 

the lack of public fi shing opportunities in western 

South Dakota. Past management has centered on 

periodic stocking of sport fi sh and has provided 

recreational opportunities for fi shermen. Stocking 

operations on the LWRRA has been halted until 

any modifi cations to the dam are complete. Once 

this is completed, stocking sport fi sh into the 

LWRRA may again be considered. 

The trout ponds are seasonally important to 

trumpeter swans and other waterfowl. During 

periods of extreme cold, the springs feeding 

the trout ponds help to keep some open water 

available. Fishing on the trout ponds is diffi cult 

at this time because the ice is not safe enough to 

walk on. A seasonal closure on the trout ponds 

will have little to no impact on recreational fi shing 

opportunities, but will prevent disturbance during 

this critical period. The ban on use of lead fi shing 

sinkers is needed to prevent ingestion of lead by 

trumpeter swans and other waterfowl. Canada 

geese and trumpeter swans have been found dead 

on the refuge and were determined to have been 

killed by ingestion of lead. Lead sinkers are the 

only known contributor of lead to the environment 

that is still allowed on the refuge. Non-toxic 

sinkers are now readily available to fi shermen at a 

reasonable cost. Their use will eliminate a known 

source of lead.

Wildlife Observation and Wildlife 

Photography Goal

Provide quality opportunities for wildlife 

observation and wildlife photography, where 

compatible with purposes and other uses 

throughout the refuge. 

Objectives:

Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography 

Objective A: Within 5 years of completion of 

the CCP, design, sign, and construct a minimum 

of three walking trails on the refuge that allow 

visitors to experience a range of refuge habitats 

(i.e., Pelican Islands, Wetland Loop, and Sandhills).

Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography 

Objective B: Within 5 years of approval of the 

CCP, construct an accessible portion of the Pelican 

Islands Trail that leads to an accessible observation 

platform within view of the islands.

Strategies:

1. Provide adequate signage to direct visitors and 

enhance the recreational experience.

2. Complete a design and printing of a refuge 

wildlife observation brochure.

3. Consider making a seasonal blind available for 

public use near a reliable sharp-tailed grouse lek.

4. Make personal contacts with neighboring 

federal, state, and tribal governments to inform 

and educate about opportunities for wildlife 

observation on the refuge.

5. Maintain current signage directing visitors to 

the refuge. Add additional directional signs. 

6. Increase distribution of refuge brochures 

7. Work with Bennett County Road Department to 

improve the condition of main access to the refuge.

8. Maintain wildlife observation and wildlife 

photography as the primary public uses on the auto 

tour loop south of the refuge headquarters.

9. Update the refuge’s website at least quarterly. 

Rationale: 

Wildlife observation and wildlife photography 

are two of the priority public uses on the refuge. 

Where compatible, these public uses should be 

allowed. The relatively low visitation and abundant 

wildlife provide frequent opportunities for wildlife 

observation and wildlife photography. The wide 

open spaces provide excellent opportunities 

for viewing mixed grass prairie, wetlands, and 

sandhills in one location. Currently, these public 

uses are allowed on the entire refuge. Many new 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

50

Figure 6. Public use map

! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !

óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

! ! ! !!

!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!! !!! !

!i

!i

!i

!i

!i

!i

!i

!i

!i

!i

!i !i

!i

!i

uI

QRÔ

QRÔ

Public Use Map

Martin

Tuthill

Trout Ponds

Pool 

7

Pool

8

Pool 

9

Pool 

10

!] !@

!]

Legend

!£

!l

01234 0.5

Miles

01234 0.5

Kilometers

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

Bennett County, South Dakota

j!!]

!@

9

!l!£

Refuge BoundaryRefuge BuildingsParkingInformationRefuge HeadquatersCampgroundFishingMotorboatingMax Water PoolHunting Areas** Subject to Refuge regulations.

Little White River 

Recreation Area

Pool 11

Pool 9A

Pool 9A DU

Pool 10 DU

Pool 2

Pool 1

Pool 3

Pool 4E

Pool 4W

Pool 5

Pool 6

73

!(

73

( 18

£¤

Little White River

Lake Creek

Auto Tour RouteRoadsEasement

!9 !l

!!!!!!

Proposed Auto Tour 

and Trail Expansion

óóóóóóóó Proposed Ditch Hunting Closure

!j!]

Proposed Parking

Proposed

Info/Observation

Proposed Seasonal 

Swan Closure

Proposed Hunting 

Area Expansions

!] !j

!j!] !]

Wetland 

Trail

Sandhills 

Trail

Observation Platform 

for Pelican Island

Observation Area 

for Prairie Dogs

!l !l

!l

Proposed Wildfood 

Gathering Areas
51

 Chapter 4—Management Direction

or fi rst time visitors are reluctant to explore 

the refuge off of the designated tour route. 

Development of a refuge wildlife observation 

guide, combined with development of three 

walking trails, will help new visitors to the refuge 

experience a range of habitats and wildlife. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Goal

Provide and actively support opportunities for 

environmental education and interpretation that 

are compatible with purposes and other uses on the 

refuge. 

Objectives:

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Objective A: Update interpretive messages 

presented throughout the refuge to refl ect habitat 

based decision making within 6 years of approval of 

the CCP. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Objective B: Upon approval of the CCP, sponsor/

conduct a minimum of two theme related 

educational or interpretive events each year. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Objective C: Actively work with local educators 

to incorporate wildlife and habitat based studies 

into curriculum and utilize refuge resources to 

support this with a minimum of fi ve environmental 

education programs, within 4 years of completing 

the CCP.

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Objective D: Within 5 years of approval of the CCP, 

in partnership with the South Dakota Highway 

Department, seek funds to complete a pull out and 

informational kiosk along Highway 73, to interpret 

refuge resources and opportunities for refuge 

visitors. 

Strategies: 

1. Complete design and construction of updated 

visitor contact station.

2. Complete a redesign and printing of the refuge’s 

general brochure.

3. Complete a redesign and printing of the refuge’s 

auto tour route brochure and installation of 

updated signage.

4. Seek funding to complete pull out along Highway 

73 in cooperation with South Dakota Department 

of Transportation. 

5. Conduct visits with local educators to inform and 

encourage use of refuge as an outdoor classroom.

6. Update the refuge’s website at least quarterly. 

Rationale: 

Environmental education and interpretation are 

two of the priority public uses for the refuge, 

and should be supported where compatible. 

Tremendous opportunities exist for educating and 

informing the local community and refuge visitors 

about refuge resources. Improvement of signage, 

designated trails, and brochures available to the 

public will signifi cantly improve the quality of 

visits to the refuge. 

Non-Wildlife-Dependent Public 

Use Goal

Provide limited non-wildlife-dependent uses where 

compatible and supported by refuge resources, and 

when they further the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

or the refuge’s mission and goals. 

Objectives:

Non-Wildlife-Dependent Public Use Objective A: 

Allow the non-wildlife-dependent uses of camping, 

picnicking, and swimming only on the LWRRA. 

Non-Wildlife-Dependent Public Use Objective B: 

Consider other compatible, non-wildlife-dependent 

uses where confl icts are minimized with other 

refuge uses.

Strategies: 

1. Permit the harvesting of native berries and 

fruits throughout the refuge.

2. Permit the harvesting of limited quantities of 

native plant materials, for non-commercial use 

through the issuance of special use permits.

3. Update Lacreek NWR website at least 

quarterly. 

Rationale: 

All of the non-wildlife-dependent public use on 

the refuge occurs on the LWRRA. The title to 

the LWRRA was accepted with encumbrances 

providing for hunting, fi shing, boating, camping, 

and picnicking attached. The intent of the 

LWRRA was clearly for providing recreational 

opportunities, as indicated by establishing 

authority: “for public recreation on...developments 

adjacent to conservation areas in existence” (16 

USC 460K-K4). This factor separates regulations 

for and management of the LWRRA from the 

remainder of the refuge. 

The major consideration for this unit is the 

availability of resources to administer these 

recreational uses. Currently, management centers 

on operation and maintenance of the dam, road, and 

facilities. Increased law enforcement patrols are 

required to reduce vandalism and provide for safe 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

52

and quality recreational opportunities for visitors. 

The existing partnership with the state of South 

Dakota helps provide for fi sheries management.

Other non-wildlife-dependent uses are evaluated 

to determine if they are compatible with refuge 

purposes and establishing authority. The low 

visitation encountered on the refuge often allows 

for public uses that at higher use levels will 

likely be considered incompatible. Activities such 

as berry picking for personal use or harvest of 

chokecherry branches for use by Native Americans 

may be allowed and contribute to local support of 

the refuge.

Cultural Resources Goal

Identify, value, and preserve the cultural resources 

and history of the refuge and WMD to connect 

refuge staff, visitors, and community to the area’s 

past.

Objectives:

Cultural Resources Objective A: By 2012, 

identify cultural resources and protect them from 

degradation.

Strategies: 

1. Conduct routine law enforcement patrols to 

protect undocumented resources from theft and 

vandalism.

2. Continue to conduct site-specifi c surveys for 

lands and facilities that may be disturbed by refuge 

management activities. 

3. Conduct a refuge wide survey to determine the 

presence of cultural resources on the refuge, upon 

securing funding. 

4. Continue to follow established procedures for 

all private lands projects to ensure protection of 

cultural resources.

5. Continue to protect structures built by the CCC.

6. Complete a design and printing of a refuge 

historical brochure.

Rationale: 

Federal laws and policies mandate the 

identifi cation and protection of cultural resources. 

Staffi ng and Resources Goal

Ensure that minimum staffi ng and resources are 

available to facilitate achievement of the Service’s 

and refuge’s goals and objectives. 

Strategies: 

1. Continue to advocate for minimum staffi ng as 

outlined in the refuge’s minimum staff chart.

2. Replace two existing refuge houses with singlefamily dwellings upon securing funding.

3. Construct a bunkhouse upon securing funding. 

Rationale:

Lacreek NWR requires an extensive amount of 

management to reach stated goals and objectives. 

A large infrastructure of dikes and diversions 

are used to manage wetland habitats. Many 

upland acres are being restored to native grasses 

and forbs, with thousands of acres to complete. 

Invasive species require aggressive management. 

The use of prescribed fi re and grazing is needed to 

manage upland and wetland habitats. A public use 

program requires maintenance of buildings and 

roads, interpretation for school groups, and a law 

enforcement program. All of this activity requires 

staff, equipment, and resources to complete. The 

minimum staffi ng level is designed to provide 

basic maintenance, operations, and administration 

support for the refuge. 

Capital Improvements Goal 

Ensure that all refuge facilities and structures 

meet accepted agency and industry standards. 

Table 3. Current and proposed staff, Lacreek NWR 

Staff Current Positions Proposed Positions 

Management Refuge Complex Project Leader, GS-12 

Refuge Operations Specialist, GS-11 (unfunded) 

None 

Biological Refuge Complex Biologist, GS-11 

Private Lands Biologist, GS-11 

Habitat Biologist, GS-11 (unfunded) 

Biological Technician, GS-6 (unfunded) 

None 

Administrative Administrative Support Assistant, GS-7 None 

Maintenance Maintenance Worker WG-6 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-8 

None 

Fire Management Prescribed Fire Specialist, GS-9 None 
53

 Chapter 4—Management Direction

Objectives:

Capital Improvements Objective A: Complete any 

required modifi cations to the Little White River 

Dam, based upon either fi nal designs completed in 

2005 or a re-evaluation of the hazard classifi cation, 

by 2009. 

Strategies: 

1. Complete a re-evaluation of the hazard 

classifi cation for the LWRRA.

2. Consider modifi cation of the Standard Operation 

Procedure to lower hazard classifi cation.

3. Consider modifi cation of the dam to lower hazard 

classifi cation.

Rationale: 

The Little White River Dam has been classifi ed 

as a “Signifi cant Hazard Dam.” This classifi cation 

is based on potential impacts to downstream 

structures. A fi nal design has been completed 

for modifi cation of the existing dam to facilitate 

passage of the probable maximum fl ood event 

without breaching the dam. Upon completion, 

a probable maximum fl ood event would still 

impact downstream structures; however, the dam 

would remain intact. The fi nal design includes 

construction of a secondary emergency spillway, 

reworking the existing emergency spillway, 

replacement of the outlet works, and raising the 

dam 1 foot to add more freeboard. The project will 

not increase the storage capacity of the reservoir, 

nor will it improve the fi sheries. Initial estimates 

for completion of this work were set at $5,000,000. 

The original dam was constructed in 1937 and 

has undergone only minor modifi cations in 68 

years. In 2001, the emergency spillway was 

modifi ed and armored with sheet pile and large 

riprap to address head cutting that had occurred 

downstream of the spillway. A comparison of the 

as-built topographic survey and a 1985 topographic 

survey completed by the South Dakota Game, 

Fish and Parks indicates that over 70 percent of 

the storage capacity behind the dam had silted in. 

It is unknown how much additional siltation has 

occurred in the last 20 years; however, additional 

storage has been lost. The signifi cant cost for an 

aging dam has been considered.

Currently, the dam facilitates fi lling of several 

of the refuge’s wetland units with surface water. 

Wildlife use of the site includes use by waterfowl 

and other waterbirds during spring and fall 

migrations, use by pelicans, herons, and egrets 

in the summer, and year round use by beaver, 

muskrats, pheasants, and other resident species. 

A marginal fi shery exists with largemouth bass, 

northern pike, black crappie, saugeye, and carp. 

The site also continues to provide recreational 

opportunities to the residents of Bennett County 

not provided at other sites. Camping, boating, 

fi shing, and picnicking are common uses at the site. 

The service is currently evaluating the hazard 

classifi cation for the dam. Pending an outcome 

that determines the hazard classifi cation should 

remain as Signifi cant, modifi cations to the dam will 

be made according to the fi nal designs completed 

in 2005. Pending an outcome that determines 

a downgrading of the hazard classifi cation 

is warranted, the need for completion of the 

modifi cations will be revisited. 

Partnerships Goal

A wide range of partners, including nongovernmental organizations and federal, state, 

tribal, and local entities, join with Lacreek NWR 

to support research and management, promote 

awareness, and foster appreciation for the Lake 

Creek Valley, Nebraska Sandhills, and surrounding 

grasslands. 

Objectives:

Partnerships Objective A: Continue to participate 

in partnerships that promote sound wildlife 

management or contribute to the Fish and Wildlife 

Services or Lacreek NWR’s mission. 

Partnerships Objective B: Continue to support 

an active private lands program that facilitates 

achievement of the Service’s and refuge’s goals and 

objectives. 

Strategies:

1. Attend Bennett County Weed Board Meetings to 

exchange information.

2. Attend Bennett County Commissioners meeting 

annually.

View of Lacreek NWR from Above

Shapins Associates
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

54

3. Attend Bennett, Todd, and other County 

Conservation District Board Meetings.

4. Hold Open House, Appreciation Day, or other 

similar event annually for refuge’s neighbors and 

friends.

Rationale:

The refuge is part of the larger landscape and 

community. Activities that occur on the refuge 

have the potential to affect neighbors and 

the surrounding community and vice versa. 

Establishing open lines of communication will 

help build support for the refuge and provide an 

avenue for discussion. The Service recognizes that 

partnerships are vital to the Service mission. The 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program clearly 

follows this belief. The landowner steps forward 

and voluntarily makes their land available for the 

establishment and improvement of wildlife habitat. 

The Conservation District helps to administer 

funding and coordinates with the landowner. 

Other agencies such as South Dakota Game, Fish, 

and Parks, Ducks Unlimited, Inc., or the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service contribute 

fi nancial and/or technical assistance to the project. 

The Service contributes technical and fi nancial 

assistance and often acts as the primary contact 

to see the project through completion with the 

landowner. 

Refuge staff will continue to seek out new 

opportunities and foster existing relationships to 

help with achieving mutually benefi cial goals and 

objectives. 

Personnel

Current staffi ng at the refuge consists of seven 

permanent FTEs. Three additional unfunded 

positions remain on the staffi ng chart for the 

refuge. No additional staff is proposed to fully 

implement the CCP. Staffi ng and funding are 

requested for the 15-year period of the CCP. 

Funding 

Projects required to implement the CCP are 

funded through two separate systems. Actions, 

projects, and maintenance needs for the refuge 

are displayed from the Refuge Operating Needs 

System (RONS) and the Maintenance Management 

System (MMS). RONS identifi es staffi ng needed 

to carry out projects above the existing base 

budget. MMS documents the refuge’s needs 

regarding equipment, buildings and the repair and 

replacement of facilities. Appendix H identifi es 

the RONS and appendix I identifi es the MMS 

requirements for the refuge.

Step-down Management Plans

This CCP is intended as a broad umbrella plan that 

provides general concepts and specifi c wildlife, 

habitat, endangered species, public use, and 

partnership objectives over the next 15 years.
55

 Chapter 4—Management Direction

The purpose of step-down management plans is to 

provide greater detail to managers and employees 

who will implement the strategies described in 

the CCP. Step-down management plans provide 

greater detail for implementing specifi c actions 

authorized by the CCP. Table 6 presents those 

plans needed for Lacreek NWR, their current 

status, and next revision date. 

Monitoring and Evaluation

Adaptive management is a fl exible approach to 

long-term management of biotic resources. It 

allows for management to be shaped and directed 

over time by the results of ongoing monitoring 

activities and other information discovered 

(see fi gure 7). More specifi cally, adaptive 

management is a process by which projects are 

implemented within a framework of scientifi cally 

driven experiments to test the predictions and 

assumptions outlined within a plan. On-theground observations of responses to management 

by habitats and wildlife are also factored in. 

Analysis of results helps managers determine 

whether current management should continue 

as is or whether it should be modifi ed to achieve 

desired conditions. Changes and adjustments 

to management and operations are considered 

utilizing the best information that is currently 

available.

Plan Amendment and Revision

This CCP will be reviewed annually to determine 

the need for revision. A revision will occur if and 

when signifi cant information becomes available, 

such as a change in ecological conditions. The fi nal 

CCP will be augmented by detailed step-down 

management plans to address the completion of 

specifi c strategies in support of the CCP goals and 

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

review and NEPA compliance. At a minimum, this 

plan will be evaluated every 5 years and revised 

after 15 years. 

Figure 7. Adaptive management

Glossary of Terms
Canada Goose

Bob Savannah/USFWS
59

Glossary

Accessible: Areas and activities allowing 

physical access to people of different abilities, 

especially those with physical impairments.

Adaptive Management: The rigorous application 

of management, research, and monitoring to gain 

information and experience necessary to assess 

and modify management activities. A process 

that uses feedback from research, monitoring, 

and evaluation of management actions to support 

or modify objectives and strategies at all planning 

levels. A process in which policy decisions are 

implemented within a framework of scientifi cally 

driven experiments to test predictions and 

assumptions inherent in management plan. 

Analysis of results help managers determine 

whether current management should continue 

as is or whether it should be modifi ed to achieve 

desired conditions.

Alternative: 1) A reasonable way to solve an 

identifi ed problem or satisfy the stated need (40 

CFR 1500.2). 2) Alternatives are different means 

of accomplishing refuge purposes and goals and 

contributing to the System mission (Draft Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Amphibian: A class of cold-blooded vertebrates 

including frogs, toads or salamanders.

Baseline: A set of critical observations, data, or 

information used for comparison or a control.

Biological Control: The use of organisms or 

viruses to control invasive plants or other pests.

Biological Diversity: The variety of life and 

its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, 

and the communities and ecosystems in which 

they occur (Service Manual 052 FW 1.12B). 

The National Wildlife Refuge System’s focus 

is on indigenous species, biotic communities, 

and ecological processes. Also referred to as 

Biodiversity.

Biomass: The total amount of living material, 

plants and/or animals, above and below the 

ground in a particular habitat or area.

Biotic: Pertaining to life or living organisms; 

caused, produced by, or comprising living 

organisms.

Canopy: A layer of foliage, generally the uppermost layer, in a vegetative stand. Can be used 

to refer to mid-level or understory vegetation in 

multi-layered stands. Canopy closure is an estimate 

of the amount of overhead vegetative cover (also 

canopy cover).

C score: Coeffi cient of conservatism that 

ranges from 0 to 10 and represents an estimated 

probability that a plant is likely to occur in a 

landscape unaltered from what is believed to be a 

pre-settlement condition.

CCP: see comprehensive conservation plan.

Colony: The nests or breeding place of a group of 

birds (such as herons or gulls) occupying a limited 

area.

Compatible Use: A wildlife-dependent recreational 

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

professional judgment of the director of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfi llment of the 

Mission of the System or the purposes of the refuge 

(Draft Service Manual 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility 

determination supports the selection of compatible 

uses and identifi ed stipulations or limits necessary 

to ensure compatibility.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP): A 

document that describes the desired future 

conditions of the refuge; and provides long-range 

guidance and management direction for the refuge 

manager to accomplish the purposes of the refuge, 

contribute to the mission of the System, and to 

meet other relevant mandates (Draft Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Concern: See defi nition of “Issue.”

Conspecifi c: Individuals or pair of the same 

species.

Cover: present vegetation of an area (also cover 

type or canopy cover).

Cool-season grasses: grasses that begin growth 

earlier in the season and often become dormant in 

the summer. These grasses will germinate at lower 

temperatures. Examples of cool-season grasses 

at the refuge are western wheatgrass, needle and 

thread, and green needlegrass.

Cultural Resources: The remains of sites, 

structures, or objects used by people in the past.

Cultural Resource Inventory: A professionally 

conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a 

defi ned geographic area. Inventories may involve 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

60

various levels, including background literature 

search, comprehensive fi eld examination to 

identify all exposed physical manifestations of 

cultural resources, or sample inventory to project 

site distribution and density over a larger area. 

Evaluation of identifi ed cultural resources to 

determine eligibility for the National Register 

follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 (Service 

Manual 614 FW 1.7).

Cultural Resource Overview: A comprehensive 

document prepared for a fi eld offi ce that discusses, 

among other things, its prehistory and cultural 

history, the nature and extent of known cultural 

resources, previous research, management 

objectives, resource management confl icts or 

issues, and a general statement on how program 

objectives should be met and confl icts resolved. 

An overview should reference or incorporate 

information from a fi eld offi ce background or 

literature search described in Section VIII of 

the Cultural Resource Management Handbook 

(Service Manual 614 FW 1.7).

Dense Nesting Cover (DNC): A composition of 

grasses and forbs that allow for a dense stand of 

vegetation which protects nesting birds from the 

view of predators. Usually consists of one to two 

species of wheatgrass, alfalfa, and sweet clover.

Depredation: Damage infl icted upon agricultural 

crops or ornamental plants by wildlife.

Developed Wetland: A wetland that can have 

water levels in it manipulated through various 

dikes, dams, diversions, and water control 

structures. 

DNC: see dense nesting cover.

Drawdown: The act of manipulating water levels 

in an impoundment to allow for the natural drying 

out cycle of a wetland.

Ecological Diversity: The variety of life and 

its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, 

and the communities and ecosystems in which they 

occur (Service Manual 052 FW 1.12B).

Ecosystem: A dynamic and interrelating complex 

of plant and animal communities and their 

associated non-living environment. A biological 

community, together with its environment, 

functioning as a unit. For administrative purposes, 

the Service has designated 53 ecosystems covering 

the United States and its possessions. These 

ecosystems generally correspond with watershed 

boundaries and their sizes and ecological 

complexity vary.

Emergent: A plant rooted in shallow water and 

having most of the vegetative growth above water. 

Examples are cattail and hardstem bulrush.

Endangered Species (Federal): A plant or animal 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973 (as amended) that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a signifi cant portion of its range.

Endangered Species (State): A plant or animal 

species in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated 

in a particular state within the near future if 

factors contributing to its decline continue. 

Populations of these species are at critically low 

levels or their habitats have been degraded or 

depleted to a signifi cant degree.

Environmental Assessment (EA): A concise public 

document, prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, that briefl y 

discusses the purpose and need for an action, 

alternatives to such action, and provides suffi cient 

evidence and analysis of impacts to determine 

whether to prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement or Finding of No Signifi cant Impact 

(40 CFR 1508.9).

Extinction: The complete disappearance of a species 

from the earth; no longer existing (Koford et al. 

1994).

Extirpate: The extinction of a population; complete 

eradication of a species within a specifi ed area.

Fauna: All the vertebrate and invertebrate 

animals of an area.

Federal Trust Resource: A trust is something 

managed by one entity for another who holds the 

ownership. The Service holds in trust many natural 

resources for the people of the United States of 

America as a result of federal acts and treaties. 

Examples are species listed under the Endangered 

Species Act, migratory birds protected by 

international treaties, and native plant or wildlife 

species found on a national wildlife refuge.

Federal Trust Species: All species where the 

federal government has primary jurisdiction 

including federally endangered or threatened 

species, migratory birds, anadromous fi sh, and 

certain marine mammals.

Flora: All the plant species of an area.

Forb: A broad-leaved, herbaceous plant; a seedproducing annual, biennial or perennial plant that 

does not develop persistent woody tissue but dies 

down at the end of the growing season.

Friends Group: Is defi ned as any formal 

organization whose mission is to support the goals 

and purposes of its associated refuge and the 

National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA) 

overall. This includes friends organizations and 

cooperative and interpretive associations.

Fragmentation: The alteration of a large block 

of habitat which creates isolated patches of the 
61

 Glossary of Terms 

original habitat that are interspersed with a 

variety of other habitat types (Koford et al. 1994); 

the process of reducing the size and connectivity of 

habitat patches, making movement of individuals 

or genetic information between parcels diffi cult or 

impossible.

Geographic Information System (GIS): A computer 

system capable of storing and manipulating spatial 

data; a set of computer hardware and software 

for analyzing and displaying spatially referenced 

features (i.e., points, lines and polygons) with 

non-geographic attributes such as species and age 

(Koford et al. 1994).

Global Positioning System (GPS): A system which 

by using satellite telemetry can pinpoint exact 

locations of places on the ground.

Goal: Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad 

statement of desired future conditions that conveys 

a purpose but does not defi ne measurable units 

(Draft Service Manual 620 FW 1.5).

Grassland Block: A contiguous area of grassland 

without fragmentation.

Habitat: Suite of existing environmental 

conditions required by an organism for survival 

and reproductions. The place where an organism 

typically lives and grows.

Habitat Disturbance: Signifi cant alteration of 

habitat structure or composition. May be natural 

(e.g., fi re) or human-caused events (e.g., timber 

harvest, discing). 

Habitat Type (vegetation type, cover type): A 

land classifi cation system based on the concept of 

distinct plant associations.

Impoundment: A body of water created by 

collection and confi nement within a series of levees 

or dikes thus creating separate management units 

although not always independent of one another.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM): Methods of 

managing undesirable species (such as invasive 

plants) including: education, prevention, physical or 

mechanical methods of control, biological control, 

responsible chemical use, and cultural methods.

Interseeding: Seeding into an existing stand of 

vegetation with a drill or broadcast. Increasing 

species diversity is one of the primary goals of 

interseeding 

Introduced species: A species present in an area 

due to intentional or unintentional escape, release, 

dissemination, or placement into an ecosystem as a 

result of human activity.

Inviolate sanctuary: A place of refuge or protection 

where animals and birds may not be hunted.

Invasive plant: a species that is non-native to 

the ecosystem under consideration and whose 

introduction causes, or is likely to cause, economic 

or environmental harm or harm to human health.

IPM: see integrated pest management 

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a 

management decision; e.g., a Service initiative, 

opportunity, resource management problem, a 

threat to the resources of the unit, confl ict in uses, 

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable 

resource condition (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 

1.5).

Maintenance Management System (MMS): A 

national database which contains the unfunded 

maintenance needs of each refuge. Projects 

included are those required to maintain existing 

equipment and buildings, correct safety defi ciencies 

for the implementation of approved plans, and 

meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates.

Management Alternative: See alternative.

Migration: Regular extensive, seasonal movements 

of birds between their breeding regions and their 

“wintering” regions (Koford et al. 1994); to pass 

usually periodically from one region or climate to 

another for feeding or breeding.

Migratory birds: Birds which follow a seasonal 

movement from their breeding grounds to their 

“wintering” grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, 

raptors, and song birds are all migratory birds.

Mission: Succinct statement of purpose and/or 

reason for being.

Mitigation: Measures designed to counteract 

environmental impacts or to make impacts less 

severe.

Mixed-grass prairie: A transition zone between 

the tall-grass prairie and the short-grass prairie 

dominated by grasses of medium height that are 

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

the tall-grass prairie and moisture levels are less.

MMS: see maintenance management system.

Monitoring: The process of collecting information 

to track changes of selected parameters over time. 

National Wildlife Refuge (National Wildlife 

Refuge): “A designated area of land, water, or 

an interest in land or water within the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, but does not include 

Coordination Areas.” Find a complete listing of all 

units of the System in the current Annual Report 

of Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service.

National Wildlife Refuge System: Various 

categories of areas administered by the Secretary 

of the Interior for the conservation of fi sh and 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

62

wildlife, including species threatened with 

extinction, all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges, 

areas for the protection and conservation of fi sh 

and wildlife that are threatened with extinction, 

wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management 

areas, or waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997: Sets the mission and the administrative 

policy for all refuges in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Clearly defi nes a unifying mission 

for the refuge System; establishes the legitimacy 

and appropriateness of the six priority public uses 

(hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation); establishes a formal process for 

determining appropriateness and compatibility; 

establish the responsibilities of the Secretary of the 

Interior for managing and protecting the System; 

and requires a Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended 

portions of the refuge Recreation Act and National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 

1966.

Native Species: A species that other than as a 

result of an introduction historically occurred or 

currently occurs in that ecosystem.

Neotropical migrant: A bird species that breeds 

north of the United States and Mexican border and 

winters primarily south of this border.

Nest success: The percentage of nests that hatch 

(one or more eggs hatch) successfully of the total 

number of nests initiated in an area.

Non-governmental organization: Any group that is 

not composed of federal, state, tribal, county, city, 

town, local or other governmental entities.

Noxious weed: any living stage (including seeds 

and reproductive parts) of a parasitic or other 

plant of a kind that is of foreign origin (new to or 

not widely prevalent in the U.S.) and can directly 

or indirectly injure crops, other useful plants, 

livestock, poultry, other interests of agriculture, 

including irrigation, navigation, fi sh and wildlife 

resources, or public health. According to the 

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

weed (i.e., invasive plant) is one that causes disease 

or has adverse effects on humans or the human 

environment and, therefore, is detrimental to the 

agriculture and commerce of the U.S. and to public 

health. (also see invasive plant)

Objective: An objective is a concise target 

statement of what will be achieved, how much will 

be achieved, when and where it will be achieved, 

and who is responsible for the work. Objectives 

are derived from goals and provide the basis for 

determining management strategies. Objectives 

should be attainable and time-specifi c and should 

be stated quantitatively to the extent possible. If 

objectives cannot be stated quantitatively, they 

may be stated qualitatively (Draft Service Manual 

602 FW 1.5).

Over-water species: Nesting species such as 

diving ducks and many colonial-nesting birds that 

build nests within dense stands of water-dependent 

plants (primarily cattail), or that build fl oating 

nests of vegetation that rest on the water.

Partners in Flight (PIF): A Western Hemisphere 

program designed to conserve Neotropical 

migratory birds and offi cially endorsed by 

numerous federal and state agencies and nongovernment organizations; also known as the 

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Program 

(Koford et al. 1994).

Pass Shooting: Hunting waterfowl from a 

stationary location where waterfowl are expected 

to fl y by.

Patch: An area distinct from that around it; 

an area distinguished from its surroundings by 

environmental conditions.

Perennial: Lasting or active through the year or 

through many years; a plant species that has a life 

span of more than 2 years.

PIF: see Partners in Flight.

Plant Community: An assemblage of plant species 

unique in its composition; occurs in particular 

locations under particular infl uences; a refl ection 

or integration of the environmental infl uences on 

the site -- such as soil, temperature, elevation, 

solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; denotes 

a general kind of climax plant community, i.e., 

ponderosa pine or bunchgrass.

Prescribed Fire: The skillful application of fi re 

to natural fuels under conditions of weather, 

fuel moisture, soil moisture, etc., that allow 

confi nement of the fi re to a predetermined area 

and produces the intensity of heat and rate of 

spread to accomplish planned benefi ts to one or 

more objectives of habitat management, wildlife 

management, or hazard reduction.

Proposed Action: The alternative proposed 

to best achieve the refuge purpose, vision, 

and goals; contributes to the refuge System 

mission, addresses the signifi cant issues; and is 

consistent with principles of sound fi sh and wildlife 

management.

Priority public use: one of six uses authorized 

by the refuge Improvement Act of 1997 to have 

priority if found to be compatible with a refuge’s 

purposes. This includes hunting, fi shing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation.
63

 Glossary of Terms 

Public: Individuals, organizations, and groups; 

offi cials of federal, state, and local government 

agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may 

include anyone outside the core planning team. It 

includes those who may or may not have indicated 

an interest in Service issues and those who do or do 

not realize that Service decisions may affect them.

Public Involvement: A process that offers affected 

and interested individuals and organizations an 

opportunity to become informed about, and to 

express their opinions on, Service actions and 

policies. In the process, these views are studied 

thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of public 

views is given in shaping decisions for refuge 

management.

Purpose of the refuge: The purpose of a 

refuge is specifi ed in or derived from the law, 

proclamation, executive order, agreement, public 

land order, donation document, or administrative 

memorandum establishing, authorization, or 

expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. 

(Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Raptor: A carnivorous bird (such as a hawk, falcon, 

or vulture) that feeds wholly or chiefl y on meat 

taken by hunting or on carrion (dead carcasses).

Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS): A 

national database which contains the unfunded 

operational needs of each refuge. Projects included 

are those required to implement approved plans, 

and meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates.

Refuge Purpose: see purpose of the refuge.

Refuge Use: Any activity on a refuge, except 

administrative or law enforcement activity carried 

out by or under the direction of an authorized 

Service employee.

Resident species: A species inhabiting a given 

locality throughout the year; non-migratory 

species.

Rest: Free from biological, mechanical, or chemical 

manipulation; referring to refuge lands.

Restoration: Management emphasis designed 

to move ecosystems to desired conditions and 

processes, and/or to healthy upland habitats and 

aquatic systems.

Riparian area or zone: Refers to an area or 

habitat that is transitional from terrestrial to 

aquatic ecosystems; including streams, lakes wet 

areas, and adjacent plant communities and their 

associated soils which have free water at or near 

the surface; an area whose components are directly 

or indirectly attributed to the infl uence of water; 

of or relating to a river; specifi cally applied to 

ecology, “riparian” describes the land immediately 

adjoining and directly infl uenced by streams. For 

example, riparian vegetation includes any and all 

plant-life growing on the land adjoining a stream 

and directly infl uenced by the stream.

RONS: see refuge operations needs system

Rough fi sh: A fi sh that is neither a sport fi sh nor an 

important food fi sh.

Scoping: The process of obtaining information 

from the public for input into the planning process.

Seasonally fl ooded: Surface water is present for 

extended periods in the growing season, but is 

absent by the end of the season in most years.

Sediment: Material deposited by water, wind or 

glaciers.

Service: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Shelterbelts: Single to multiple rows of trees and 

shrubs planted around cropland or buildings to 

block or slow down the wind.

Shorebird: Any of a suborder (Charadrii) of birds 

(as a plover or a snipe) that frequent the seashore 

or mud fl at areas.

Spatial: Relating to, occupying, or having the 

character of space.

Special-status species: Plants or animals which 

have been identifi ed through either federal law, 

state law, or agency policy, as requiring special 

protection of monitoring. Examples include 

federally listed endangered, threatened, proposed, 

or candidate species; state-listed endangered, 

threatened, candidate, or monitor species; U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service species of management 

concern and species identifi ed by the Partners in 

Flight Program as being of extreme or moderately 

high conservation concern.

Special-use permit: A permit for special 

authorization from the refuge manager required 

for any refuge service, facility, privilege, or product 

of the soil provided at refuge expense and not 

usually available to the general public through 

authorizations in Title 50 CFR or other public 

regulations (Refuge Manual 5 RM 17.6).

Species of concern: Those plant and animal 

species, while not falling under the defi nition of 

special status species, that are of management 

interest by virtue of being federal trust species 

such as migratory birds, important game species, 

or signifi cant keystone species. Species which 

are (1) documented or apparent populations 

declines, (2) small or restricted populations, or (3) 

dependence on restricted or vulnerable habitats.

Species richness: The absolute number of species 

in an assemblage or community; the number of 

species in a given area (Koford et al. 1994).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

64

Step-down management plan: a plan that 

provides the details necessary to implement 

management strategies identifi ed in the 

comprehensive conservation plan (Draft Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Strategy: A specifi c action, tool or technique or 

combination of actions, tools and techniques used 

to meet unit objectives (Draft Service Manual 602 

FW 1.5).

Submergent: a vascular or non-vascular 

hydrophyte, either rooted or non-rooted, which 

lies entirely beneath the water surface, except for 

fl owering parts in some species.

Tame species: see dense nesting cover

Threatened Species (Federal): Species listed 

under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, that are likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

signifi cant portion of their range.

Threatened Species (State): A plant or animal 

species likely to become endangered in a 

particular state within the near future if factors 

contributing to population decline or habitat 

degradation or loss continue.

Travel Corridor: A landscape feature that 

facilitates the biologically effective transport 

of animals between larger patches of habitat 

dedicated to conservation functions. Such 

corridors may facilitate several kinds of traffi c, 

including frequent foraging movement, seasonal 

migration, or the once in a lifetime dispersal of 

juvenile animals. These are transition habitats 

and need not contain all the habitat elements 

required for long-term survival or reproduction 

of its migrants.

Trust Species: see Federal Trust Species.

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

The principal federal agency responsible for 

conserving, protecting, and enhancing fi sh and 

wildlife and their habitats for the continuing 

benefi t of the American people. The Service 

manages the 93-million-acre National Wildlife 

Refuge System comprised of more than 530 

national wildlife refuges and thousands of 

waterfowl production areas. It also operates 

65 national fi sh hatcheries and 78 ecological 

service fi eld stations, the agency enforces 

federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird 

populations, restores national signifi cant fi sheries, 

conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as 

wetlands, administers the Endangered Species 

Act, and helps foreign governments with their 

conservation efforts. It also oversees the federal 

Aid program which distributes millions of dollars 

in the Federal Aid program which distributes 

the millions of dollars in excise taxes on fi shing and 

hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission: The 

mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is 

working with others to conserve, protect, and 

enhance fi sh and wildlife and plants and their 

habitats for the continuing benefi t of the American 

people.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS): A federal 

government agency whose mission is to provide 

reliable scientifi c information to describe and 

understand the earth; minimize loss of life and 

property from natural disasters; manage water, 

biological, energy, and mineral resources; and 

enhance and protect our quality of life.

USGS: see U.S. Geological Survey.

Vision Statement: A concise statement of the 

desired future condition of the planning unit, based 

primarily upon the System mission, specifi c refuge 

purposes, and other relevant mandates (Draft 

Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Visual obstruction: A measurement of the density 

of a plant community; the height of vegetation that 

blocks the view of predators and conspecifi cs to a 

nest. 

Visual Obstruction Reading (VOR): A method of 

visually quantifying vegetative structure and 

composition.

VOR: see visual obstruction reading

Wading birds: Birds that have long legs that 

enable them to wade in shallow water. Includes 

egrets, great blue herons, black crowned night 

herons, and bitterns.

Warm-season grasses: Grasses that begin growth 

later in the season (early June). These grasses 

require warmer soil temperatures to germinate 

and actively grow when temperatures are warmer. 

Examples of warm season grasses are Indiangrass, 

switchgrass, and big bluestem.

Water Control Structure: A metal and/or concrete 

structure placed in an earthen dam or dike which 

is used to control the fl ow of water. Two kinds 

are generally used. A slide or screw gate moves 

a metal plate in front of a pipe, restricting or 

stopping the fl ow of water into the pipe. A drop 

board structure uses metal or wooden boards that 

are dropped into groves in front of the pipe. Water 

is blocked until it reaches the top of the board, at 

which time the water fl ows freely over the top. 

Waterfowl: A category of birds that includes 

ducks, geese, and swans.

Watershed: The region draining into a river, river 

system, or body of water.
65

 Glossary of Terms 

Weedy Trees: Native and non-native trees 

established on their own and cause a management 

issue or problem.

Wetland Management District (WMD): Land 

which the Service’s Refuge System acquires (with 

Federal Duck Stamp funds), restores, and manages 

primarily as prairie wetland habitat critical to 

waterfowl and other wetland birds.

Wetland Reserve Program: A voluntary program 

offering landowners the opportunity to protect, 

restore, and enhance wetlands on their property. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides 

technical and fi nancial support to help landowners 

with their wetland-restoration efforts. The NRCS 

goals are to achieve the greatest wetland functions 

and values, along with optimum wildlife habitat, on 

every acre enrolled in the program. This program 

offers landowners an opportunity to establish 

long-term conservation and wildlife practices and 

protection. (www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/wrp)

Wildlife-dependent recreational use: “A use 

of a refuge involving hunting, fi shing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation.” These are 

the six priority public uses of the System as 

established in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act, as amended. Wildlifedependent recreational uses, other than the six 

priority public uses, are those that depend on the 

presence of wildlife. The Service also will consider 

these other uses in the preparation of refuge CCPs; 

however, the six priority public uses always will 

take precedence. 

Wildland fi re: A free-burning fi re requiring a 

suppression response; all fi re other than prescribed 

fi re that occurs on wildlands (Service Manual 621 

FW 1.7). 

Wildlife-dependent Recreation: A use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation. The National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 specifi es that 

these are the six priority general public uses of the 

System. 

WMD: see wetland management district. 

Woodland: Open stands of trees with crowns not 

usually touching (generally forming 25- to 60-

percent cover).