Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 

Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

South Dakota 

December 2012 

Approved by 

Noreen Walsh, Regional Director Date 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Prepared by 

Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

38672 291st Street 

Lake Andes, South Dakota 57356 

605 /487 7603 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 6, Mountain–Prairie Region 

Division of Refuge Planning 

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228 

303 /236 8145 

CITATION for this document: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South 

Dakota. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 218 p. 

 

 

 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 

Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

South Dakota 

Submitted by Concurred with by 

Bernie Peterson. Date 

Refuge Supervisor, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Matt Hogan Date 

Michael J. Bryant Date 

Project Leader 

Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Lake Andes, South Dakota 

Assistant Regional Director 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Summary .............................................................................................................................. ......... XI
 

Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................. .... XVII
 

CHAPTER 1–Introduction ...................................................................... 1
 

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

1.2	 North American Model of Wildlife Conservation ............................................. 3
 

1.3	 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System..................................... 4
 

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

Service Activities in South Dakota ................................................................ 4
 

National Wildlife Refuge System ................................................................ 5
 

People and the Refuge System................................................................... 5
 

1.4	 National and Regional Mandates .......................................................... 6
 

1.5	 Refuge Contributions to National and Regional Plans ......................................... 6
 

Fulfilling the Promise .......................................................................... 6
 

Bird Conservation ............................................................................ 6
 

Recovery Plans for Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species ..................................... 8
 

State Comprehensive Conservation Wildlife Strategy .................................................. 8
 

1.6	 Strategic Habitat Conservation ............................................................. 9
 

A Broader Vision ............................................................................. 9
 

Climate Change ............................................................................. 10
 

1.7	 Planning Process ......................................................................... 10
 

Public involvement ........................................................................... 11
 

State Coordination ........................................................................... 11
 

Tribal Coordination ........................................................................... 11
 

Results of Scoping ........................................................................... 11
 

Draft Plan .................................................................................. 13
 

Final Plan .................................................................................. 13
 

CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex.............................................................. 15
 

2.1	 Establishment, Acquisition, Management History, and Use .................................... 15
 

Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge .............................................................. 15
 

Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................ 15
 

Lake Andes Wetland Management District .......................................................... 18
 

2.2	 Special Values of the Refuge Complex ...................................................... 18
 

2.3	 Purposes ................................................................................ 18
 

Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge .............................................................. 27
 

Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................ 27
 

Lake Andes Wetland Management District .......................................................... 27
 

2.4	 Visions .................................................................................. 27
 

Vision Statement for the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge ........................................... 27
 

Vision Statement for the Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge.......................................... 27
 

Vision Statement for the Lake Andes Wetland Management District ....................................... 28
 

Contents
 
VI Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

2.5	 Goals ................................................................................... 28
 

Wetland Habitat Goal ........................................................................ 28
 

Riparian Habitat Goal ........................................................................ 28
 

Upland Habitat Goal ......................................................................... 28
 

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

Operations Goal ............................................................................ 28
 

2.6	 Planning Issues ......................................................................... 28
 

Lake Andes Water Quality and Fishery ............................................................ 28
 

Invasive Plant Control ........................................................................ 29
 

Monitoring and Research...................................................................... 29
 

Prairie Restoration .......................................................................... 29
 

Public Access and Opportunities for Wildlife-Dependent Recreation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
 

Money, Infrastructure, and Partnerships ........................................................... 29
 

CHAPTER 3–Refuge Complex Resources and Description ..................................... 31
 

3.1	 Physical Environment .................................................................... 31
 

Geology and Topography ...................................................................... 31
 

Soils..................................................................................... 32
 

Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
 

3.2	 Water Resources ........................................................................ 32
 

Surface Water ............................................................................. 32
 

Ground water .............................................................................. 33
 

Wetlands ................................................................................. 33
 

Water Rights .............................................................................. 33
 

3.3	 Vegetation Communities .................................................................. 33
 

Wetlands and Associated Vegetation Communities................................................... 33
 

Uplands and Associated Vegetation Communities .................................................... 38
 

Riparian Areas and Associated Vegetation Communities ............................................... 40
 

3.4	 Wildlife................................................................................. 40
 

Mammals ................................................................................. 40
 

Birds .................................................................................... 41
 

Fish ..................................................................................... 41
 

Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................. 41
 

3.5	 Visitor Services ......................................................................... 41
 

Hunting .................................................................................. 41
 

Fishing ................................................................................... 41
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation ........................................................ 42
 

Wildlife Observation and Photography ............................................................ 42
 

3.6	 Socioeconomics ......................................................................... 42
 

3.7	 Operations .............................................................................. 42
 

Infrastructure and Staff ....................................................................... 43
 

Cultural Resources .......................................................................... 43
 

Partnerships ............................................................................... 46
 

Law Enforcement ........................................................................... 46
 

Fire and Grazing History and Management ......................................................... 46
 

CHAPTER 4–Management Direction .......................................................... 47
 

4.1	 Identification of the Proposed Action....................................................... 48
 

4.2	 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationale ................................................ 48
 

4.3	 Prioritization for Waterfowl Production Areas .............................................. 48
 

Prioritization Objective ....................................................................... 51
 
Contents VII 

4.4	 Wetland Habitat Goal ..................................................................... 56
 

Wetland Habitat Objective 1: Improve Water Quality in Lake Andes ........................................ 56
 

Wetland Habitat Objective 2: Improve Water Quantity and Water Level Management in Lake Andes ................ 57
 

Wetland Habitat Objective 3: Control Invasive Plants on Refuge Complex Wetlands through 


Early Detection–Rapid Response ............................................................ 57
 

Wetland Habitat Objective 4: Protect Wetlands through Easement Acquisition ............................... 58
 

Wetland Habitat Objective 5: Restore Wetlands ...................................................... 61


Wetland Habitat Objective 6: Manage Wetland Water on the Prairie Ponds .................................. 62
 

Wetland Habitat Objective 7: Control Avian Disease in Wetlands.......................................... 62
 

4.5	 Riparian Habitat Goal ..................................................................... 64
 

Riparian Habitat Objective 1: Manage Woodlands for Bald Eagles and Red-headed Woodpeckers 


on Karl E. Mundt Refuge .................................................................. 64
 

Riparian Habitat Objective 2: Restore Woodland Understory on Karl E. Mundt Refuge........................... 65
 

Riparian Habitat Objective 3: Control Invasive Plants on Karl E. Mundt Refuge ................................ 66
 

Riparian Habitat Objective 4: Protect Woodlands and Riverbanks on Karl E. Mundt Refuge ....................... 66
 

Riparian Habitat Objective 5: Form Protection Partnerships for Karl E. Mundt Refuge ........................... 67
 

4.6	 Upland Habitat Goal....................................................................... 67
 

Upland Habitat Objective 1: Control Invasive Plants on Refuge Complex Grasslands (Early Detection–Rapid Response)... 68
 

Upland Habitat Objective 2: Control Invasive Forbs on Refuge Complex Grasslands ............................ 69
 

Upland Habitat Objective 3: Control Invasive Woody Species on Refuge Complex Grasslands ..................... 69
 

Upland Habitat Objective 4: Manage Native Prairie Habitat .............................................. 71
 

Upland habitat Objective 5: Reconstruct Prairie on Previously Farmed Areas.................................. 72
 

Upland Habitat Objective 6: Improve Tame Grasses.................................................... 74
 

Upland Habitat Objective 7: Manage Grassland Structure ............................................... 74
 

Upland Habitat Objective 8: Protect Grasslands through Easements ....................................... 75
 

Upland Habitat Objective 9: Protect Grasslands through Fee Acquisition .................................... 77
 

Upland Habitat Objective 10: Evaluate Wildlife Values of Refuge Complex Lands .............................. 77
 

Upland Habitat Objective 11: Control Nest Predators on Lake Andes Wetland Management District ................ 78
 

4.7	 Visitor Services Goal...................................................................... 81
 

Visitor Services Objective 1: Improve Lake Access on Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge ...................... 81
 

Visitor Services Objective 2: Investigate Increasing Hunting Opportunities ................................... 81
 

Visitor Services Objective 3: Investigate Increasing Fishing Opportunities.................................... 82
 

Visitor Services Objective 4: Improve Environmental Education and Interpretation by Hiring an 


Outdoor Recreation Planner ................................................................ 83
 

Visitor Services Objective 5: Commercial Bait Harvesting ............................................... 84
 

Visitor Services Objective 6: Improve Opportunities for Wildlife Observation and Photography..................... 84
 

Visitor Services Objective 7: Improve Accessibility for Wildlife Observation and Photography ..................... 85
 

4.8	 Operations Goal .......................................................................... 85
 

Operations Objective 1: Expand Staff and Infrastructure ................................................ 85
 

Operations Objective 2: Build a Prairie Reconstruction Facility ............................................ 86
 

Operations Objective 3: Replace Artesian Well ....................................................... 86
 

Operations Objective 4: Protect Cultural Resources .................................................... 86


Operations Objective 5: Expand Partnerships—Seek Additional Partners .................................... 87
 

Operations Objective 6: Expand Partnerships—Develop A Friends Group .................................... 87
 

Operations Objective 7: Law Enforcement—Easements ................................................ 87


Operations Objective 8: Law Enforcement—Public Uses ................................................ 88


Operations Objective 9: Manage Wildland Fires ...................................................... 88
 

Glossary ...................................................................................... 91
 

Appendixes 

Appendix A–Key Legislation and Policies ........................................................... 99
 

Appendix B–Compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Guidance................................... 103
 

Appendix C–Preparers and Contributors ............................................................ 105
 
VIII Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D–Public Involvement................................................................... 107
 

Appendix E–Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation .............................................. 111
 

Appendix F–Environmental Compliance............................................................. 117
 

Appendix G–South Dakota Upland Plant Associations ................................................. 119
 

Appendix H–South Dakota Species ................................................................ 121
 

Appendix I–Current and Proposed Staff............................................................. 137
 

Appendix J–Compatibility Determinations .......................................................... 139
 

Bibliography.................................................................................. 211
 

FIGURES 

1 Map of the Plains and Prairie Pothole Region and the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 


South Dakota .............................................................................. XIII
 

2 Location map of the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge, Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge,
 

9 Lake Andes Wetland Management District waterfowl production areas in Davison and Hanson Counties, 


10 Lake Andes Wetland Management District waterfowl production areas in Brule and Aurora Counties, 


11 Lake Andes Wetland Management District waterfowl production areas in Charles Mix and Douglas Counties, 


12 Lake Andes Wetland Management District waterfowl production areas in Bon Homme and Hutchinson 


13 Lake Andes Wetland Management District waterfowl production areas in Turner, Yankton, and 


14 Lake Andes Wetland Management District waterfowl production areas in Clay and Union Counties, 


16 National Vegetation Classification Standard vegetation on the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge, 


18 National Vegetation Classification Standard vegetation on the Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge, 


19 Predicted concentrations of duck pairs throughout the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 


21 Dominant vegetation community types on native prairie on the Lake Andes National Wildlife 


23 Upland accessibility for breeding duck pairs in the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 


and Lake Andes Wetland Management District, South Dakota....................................... 2
 

3 Map of the bird conservation regions of North America .............................................. 7
 

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

5 Map of the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota....................................... 16
 

6 Land status map for the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota ............................ 17
 

7 Map of the Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota ..................................... 19
 

8 Land status map of the Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota ........................... 20
 

South Dakota .............................................................................. 21
 

South Dakota .............................................................................. 22
 

South Dakota .............................................................................. 23
 

Counties, South Dakota...................................................................... 24
 

Lincoln Counties, South Dakota ............................................................... 25
 

South Dakota .............................................................................. 26
 

15 National Land Cover Data for the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota ..................... 34
 

South Dakota .............................................................................. 35
 

17 National Land Cover Data for the Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota ................... 36
 

South Dakota .............................................................................. 37
 

South Dakota .............................................................................. 49
 

20 Decision tree for prioritizing management of waterfowl production areas ............................... 52
 

Refuge Complex, South Dakota................................................................ 54
 

22 North American bird population indicators based on trends for obligate species in four major habitats ........ 54
 

South Dakota .............................................................................. 59
 

24 Quantitative measurements of visual obstruction readings of upland nesting species ...................... 76
 

25 Grassland bird conservation area matrix .......................................................... 79
 
Contents IX 

TABLES 

1 Planning process summary for the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota............. 12
 

2 Priorities for management of waterfowl production areas according to the decision tree (figure 20) ........... 53
 

3 Birds of conservation concern or priority species ................................................... 55
 

4 History of documented wildlife disease outbreaks on the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex,
 

South Dakota .............................................................................. 63
 

Summary
 

Blue-winged teals rest and wade in the waters of the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge. 

USFWS 

This section summarizes the comprehensive conservation plan for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex (refuge 

complex). The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires that a comprehensive 

conservation plan be developed for each unit of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System by 2012. This plan 

for the refuge complex will guide management of the 

refuge complex over the next 15 years. 

The Refuge Complex 

Located in southeastern South Dakota, the Lake 

Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex consists of 

three units: the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge, Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge, and 

the Lake Andes Wetland Management District. The 

refuge complex lies within the Plains and Prairie Pothole Region of South Dakota (figure 1), an ecological 

treasure of biological importance for wildlife, particularly waterfowl and other migratory birds—although 

the Plains and Prairie Pothole Region occupies only 

10 percent of North America’s waterfowl breeding 

range, it produces approximately 50 percent of the 

continent’s waterfowl population. 

The refuge complex manages lands located within 

Aurora, Bon Homme, Brule, Charles Mix, Clay, Davison, 

Douglas, Hanson, Hutchinson, Lincoln, Turner, Union, 

and Yankton Counties in southeastern South Dakota. 

These lands include a variety of grassland and wetland 

habitats that are managed with grazing, haying, rest, 

prescribed fire, restoration, tree plantings, invasive 

plant control, and very limited application of water 

level manipulation. 

Each waterfowl production area managed by the 

wetland management district typically contains wetlands that are managed for waterfowl and shorebirds. 

Extensive wetland drainage and alteration throughout the Plains and Prairie Pothole Region has reduced 

the number of wetlands available to migratory birds 

to the point that most of the wetlands in the refuge 

complex are surrounded by cropland. Upland areas 

are managed for a high diversity of native vegetation 

to sustain grassland birds. 

The National Wildlife Refuge 

System 

All the units of the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex are part of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. This system began when, in 1903, President 

Theodore Roosevelt designated the 5.5-acre Pelican 

Island in Florida as the Nation’s first wildlife refuge 
XII Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

for the protection of native nesting birds. This was 

the first time the Federal Government set aside land 

for wildlife. This small but significant designation was 

the beginning of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

One hundred years later, the National Wildlife 

Refuge System has become the largest collection of 

lands in the world specifically managed for wildlife, 

encompassing more than 150 million acres within 553 

refuges and more than 3,000 waterfowl production areas 

providing breeding and nesting habitat for migratory 

birds. Today, there is at least one refuge in every State 

as well as in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

The Improvement Act of 1997 established a clear 

mission for the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The mission of the System is to 


administer a national network of 


lands and waters for the conservation, 


management, and where appropriate, 


restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant 


resources and their habitats within the 


United States for the benefit of present 


and future generations of Americans.
 

Planning Issues of the 

Refuge Complex 

In May 2007, a notice of intent was published in the 

Federal Register announcing the Service’s intent to 

prepare a comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment for the refuge complex and to 

obtain suggestions and information on planning issues 

to be considered. Throughout the planning process, the 

planning team distributed information to stakeholders including the State of South Dakota, tribal governments, partners, and neighboring landowners and 

communities to involve them in this planning process. 

Following the analysis of comments from Service 

staff and the public and a review of applicable laws, the 

planning team identified several key planning issues. 

These issues were considered in the development of 

alternatives and are summarized below. 

LAkE ANDES WATER QUALITy AND FISHERy 

Numerous comments were received during scoping 

asking the planning team to consider restoration of 

Lake Andes in the comprehensive conservation plan. 

Over the past 100 years Lake Andes has supported a 

boom-and-bust fishery that has been successful during wet periods (when fish are abundant) and unsuccessful during dry periods (when fish die out). Over 

the years several events and processes have affected 

the fishery as well as the lake’s water quality on which 

numerous plants, fish, and migratory birds depend. 

INVASIVE PLANT CONTROL 

Invasive plants are degrading the quality of refuge 

complex habitats and spreading to neighboring private 

lands. Comments received during scoping indicated 

that the refuge complex’s neighbors desire more effective control of invasive and noxious weeds on refuge 

complex properties. 

MONITORING AND RESEARCH 

Only isolated and uncoordinated research and opportunistic monitoring has occurred in the lands administered by the refuge complex. Additional surveys 

and research are needed to provide the science-based 

information necessary to improve management of the 

refuge complex. 

PRAIRIE RESTORATION 

During scoping, many people expressed a desire for 

more prairie restoration on the refuge complex. Much 

of the native prairie that existed in the area before settlement has been lost through cultivation or degraded 

by invasive plants. Once broken, native prairie is essentially lost; however, restoration of native grasses 

and forbs can provide habitat that is very valuable to 

waterfowl and other migratory birds. 

PUBLIC ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR 

WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT RECREATION 

Much of Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge and 

all of Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge are 

currently closed to public use. During scoping, some 

people commented that they would like the Service 

to explore the possibility of expanding public access 

opportunities on both of these refuges. 

Interpretive signs educate visitors about the refuge 

complex’s resources. 

USFWS 

MONEy, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PARTNERSHIPS 

Funding limits the staff, the infrastructure, and to a 

large degree the capability of the refuge complex staff 
Summary XIII
 Figure 1. Map of the Plains and Prairie Pothole Region and the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota. 
XIV Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

 

to conserve wildlife and to provide wildlife-dependent 

recreation. Partnerships are an important way to help 

expand the staff’s capabilities to conserve wildlife and 

provide more and better recreation opportunities, especially when money is so limited. 

Vision Statements for the 

Refuge Complex 

Early in the planning process the planning team developed and refined a vision statement for each unit of 

the refuge complex. These future-oriented statements 

will guide the management of the refuge complex 

over the life of this comprehensive conservation plan. 

VISION STATEMENT FOR LAkE ANDES NATIONAL 

WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Migratory birds thrive on wetlands and 

grasslands comprised of native plants. 

Visitors enjoy walking the foot trails, 

watching and photographing wildlife, 

and learning about Plains and Prairie 

Pothole Region habitat. Teachers bring 

their students to the refuge’s outdoor 

classroom. 

VISION STATEMENT FOR kARL E. MUNDT 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Soaring bald eagles hunt, roost, and 


rear their young in this cottonwood 


forest where Lewis and Clark ventured 


up the Missouri River. Booming prairie 


chickens share the Missouri River 


bluffs with wild turkey, sharp-tailed 


grouse, quail, and songbirds. Careful 


observers, floating downstream along the 


refuge’s portion of the Missouri National 


Recreational River, may notice hunting 


bobcats, hovering raptors, or flying bats 


above placidly feeding deer. Wildlife-


dependent recreational opportunities on 


this refuge foster a greater understanding 


of the refuge’s resources and the mission 


of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
 

VISION STATEMENT FOR LAkE ANDES WETLAND 

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

The waterfowl production areas and 

conservation easements of the Lake 

Andes Wetland Management District 

provide a network of wetland and 

grassland habitats that preserves the 

integrity of vital nesting and breeding 

grounds of North America’s migratory 

waterfowl. This mosaic of diverse 

and vigorous plant communities, 

interspersed with wetland complexes, 

supports a variety of marshbirds, 

shorebirds, songbirds, and colonial 

birds, as well as prairie grouse, upland 

plovers, sandpipers, and other resident 

wildlife species typical of the Plains and 

Prairie Pothole Region. District staff, 

landowners, cooperators, neighbors, 

and other partners work together to 

promote habitat conservation programs 

throughout the district and to control 

invasive plant species on public lands. 

Both consumptive and nonconsumptive, 

compatible, wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses are allowed on these 

public lands. 

Goals for the Refuge 

Complex 

The following goals reflect the visions for the units of 

the refuge complex—providing for healthy ecosystems 

and compatible opportunities for the public to appreciate and enjoy the natural environment. 

WETLAND HABITAT GOAL 

Acquire, restore, manage, and protect wetlands for 

the conservation of migratory birds and other waterdependent species endemic to the Plains and Prairie 

Pothole Region. 

RIPARIAN HABITAT GOAL 

Acquire, restore, manage, and protect riparian habitats endemic to the lower Missouri River for the conservation of bald eagles, other species of concern, and 

migratory birds. 
Summary XV 

Birdwatchers gather on the refuge complex. 

USFWS 

UPLAND HABITAT GOAL 

Acquire, restore, manage, and maintain a diverse 

mix of native grassland habitats to support migratory birds and resident wildlife found in the northern 

mixed-grass prairie ecosystem. 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL 

Provide opportunities for high quality and compatible hunting, fishing, environmental education, environmental interpretation, photography, and wildlife 

observation for persons of all abilities and cultural 

backgrounds by fostering an understanding and appreciation of the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex and the missions of the Service and the 

Refuge System. 

OPERATIONS GOAL 

Provide money, staff, infrastructure, protection of 

cultural resources, partnerships, and a safe working 

environment to achieve the purposes and objectives 

of the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Management Direction 

The Service has prepared this comprehensive conservation plan in cooperation with the South Dakota 

Game, Fish and Parks and the Yankton Sioux Tribe 

and with significant involvement from the public. 

After reviewing a wide range of public comments 

and management needs, the Service developed and 

analyzed alternatives for management of the refuge 

complex and selected alternative B for implementation. This alternative focuses on addressing many of 

the external and internal comments received during 

scoping. Under this alternative, there would be increased efforts to restore fish and wildlife habitat on 

Lake Andes; more effective control of invasive plants; 

more focused monitoring, studies, and research activities; more restoration of native plants in grasslands; 

expanded opportunities for hunting, fishing, environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, 

and photography; and more money for the additional 

staff, infrastructure, and partnerships necessary to 

allow the refuge complex to fulfill the purposes for 

which the units of the refuge complex were established by Congress. 

Abbreviations
 

A.D. Anno Domini or “year of our Lord” 

Administration Act National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

B.C. before Christ 

BCR bird conservation region 

CCP comprehensive conservation plan 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMCLRO Charles Mix County Lake Restoration Organization 

CWCS comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy 

DNC dense nesting cover 

EA environmental assessment 

EDRR early detection–rapid response 

GPS Global Positioning System 

HAPET Habitat and Population Evaluation Team 

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

karl E. Mundt Refuge Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge 

Lake Andes District Lake Andes Wetland Management District 

Lake Andes Refuge Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NLCD National Land Cover Database 

NVCS National Vegetation Classification Standard 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

P.L. Public Law 

PPJV Prairie Pothole Joint Venture 

refuge complex Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System 

SDGFP South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

SUP special use permit 

SWG State Wildlife Grant 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

VOR visual obstruction reading 

WPA waterfowl production area 

Definitions of these and other terms are in the glossary, located after chapter 4. 

CHAPTER 1—Introduction
 

A birdwatcher emerges from the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex headquarters. 

© John Eriksson 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed this comprehensive conservation plan to provide a foundation for the management and use of the 

Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex (refuge 

complex) located in southeastern South Dakota (figure 2). This document will serve as a working guide 

for management programs and actions at the refuge 

complex over the next 15 years. 

This CCP was developed in compliance with the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 (Improvement Act) and Part 602 of “The Fish 

and Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions described 

within this CCP meet the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Compliance 

with NEPA has been achieved through public involvement and the analyses presented in the draft version 

of this document, which included an environmental 

assessment (EA). 

This final CCP specifies the necessary actions to 

achieve the vision, purposes, and goals of the refuge 

complex, as described in “Chapter 2–The Refuge 

Complex.” Wildlife is the first priority in the management of the refuge complex, and public use (wildlifedependent recreation) is allowed and encouraged as long 

as it is compatible with the refuge complex’s purposes. 

The draft CCP and EA and final CCP were prepared by a planning team comprising representatives 

from various Service programs, including national 

wildlife refuges; South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks 

(SDGFP); and the Yankton Sioux Tribe. In addition, 

the planning team used public input. Public involvement and the planning process are described in section 1.7, “Planning Process.” 

After reviewing management needs and a wide 

range of public comments, the planning team developed 

alternatives for management of the refuge complex; 

these were presented in the draft CCP and EA. The 

planning team recommended one alternative to be 

the Service’s proposed action. This action addresses 

all substantive issues while fulfilling the vision, purposes, and goals of the refuge complex, and it is the 

Service’s recommended course of action for management of the refuge complex. The details of this selected 

action compose the CCP, which is chapter 4. 

1.1 Purpose and Need for the 

Plan 

The purpose of the CCP is to identify the role that the 

refuge complex will play in support of the mission of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) 

and to provide long-term guidance for management of 

refuge programs and activities. The CCP is needed to: 

■■ communicate with the public and other partners 

in efforts to carry out the mission of the Refuge 

System; 
2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

Figure 2. Location map of the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge, Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge, and 

Lake Andes Wetland Management District, South Dakota. 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 3 

■■ provide a clear statement of direction for management of the refuge; 

■■ provide neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the Service’s management actions on and around the refuge; 

■■ ensure that the Service’s management actions are 

consistent with the mandates of the Improvement 

Act; 

■■ ensure that management of the refuge is consistent 

with Federal, State, and county plans; 

■■ provide a basis for development of budget requests 

for the refuge’s operation, maintenance, and capital 

improvement needs. 

Sustaining the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources 

is a task that can be accomplished only through the 

combined efforts of governments, businesses, and 

private citizens. 

1.2 North American Model of 

Wildlife Conservation 

Wildlife conservation in North America evolved to 

take on a form unique in the world; in recent years, it 

has come to be known as the North American Model 

of Wildlife Conservation (Geist et al. 2001). The wildlife conservation movement arose out of the conflict 

between market hunters and sport hunters in the midto late-nineteenth century. Market hunting increased 

in response to the growth in urban population fueled 

by the Industrial Revolution. Between 1820 and 1860, 

the percentage of Americans living in cities increased 

from 5 percent to 20 percent; this fourfold increase is 

the greatest proportional increase in urban population that ever occurred in the United States (Reiss 

1995). The demand for meat and hides—along with 

feathers for the millinery trade—led to exploitation 

of game animals by market hunters. Along with the 

increase in the urban population came a new breed of 

hunter—one who hunted for the chase and the challenge it provided. These sport hunters valued game 

animals more when they were alive; market hunters, 

however, placed value on dead animals they could 

bring to market. The growing legion of sport hunters 

started a national movement that resulted in Federal 

and State governments taking responsibility for regulating the take of wildlife. 

The keystone concept of the North American Model 

of Wildlife Conservation, and the bedrock that allowed 

government to exercise control, is the public trust doctrine (Geist and Organ 2004). With origins in Greek 

and Roman law, the Magna Carta, and the 1842 Martin 

v. Waddell U.S. Supreme Court decision, the public 

trust doctrine as it applies to wildlife conservation is 

the principle that wildlife belongs to no one; it is held 

in trust for all by government. 

The seven pillars of the North American Model of 

Wildlife Conservation follow: 

■■ wildlife as a public trust resource 

■■ elimination of markets for game 

■■ allocation of wildlife by law 

■■ wildlife only killed for a legitimate purpose 

■■ wildlife considered an international resource 

■■ science as the proper tool to discharge wildlife policy 

■■ democracy of hunting 

For more than 100 years, these pillars have stood the 

test of time despite significant changes in approaches to 

wildlife conservation. The original conservation movement championed by Theodore Roosevelt, George Bird 

Grinnell, and others emphasized stemming wildlife 

population declines through implementing programs 

that restricted take and protected lands. During the 

1920s, conservationists realized that greater efforts 

were needed, and a committee including Aldo Leopold, 

A. Willis Robertson, and other leading conservationists of the time authored the 1930 American Game 

Policy. This policy called for a restoration program 

for habitats and populations based on scientific research and supported with stable, equitable funding. 

Within a decade, many needs of this program were 

fulfilled through landmark legislation, including the 

Duck Stamp Act, to fund land acquisition for national 

wildlife refuges. In addition, the Pittman–Robertson 

Wildlife Restoration Act shifted excise taxes imposed 

on firearms and ammunition to fund wildlife restoration 

through cooperation between the Service and State 

fish and wildlife agencies. To use this money, States 

were required to pass laws that prevented diversion 

of hunting license revenues to any purpose other than 

administration of the State fish and wildlife agency. 

In recent decades, wildlife management has placed 

greater emphasis on overall wildlife diversity. All wildlife species have benefited from the North American 

Model of Wildlife Conservation pillars, not just game 

animals. The Refuge System has evolved along with 

the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation— 

it today provides refuge for virtually all species found 

in the United States and recreation for all Americans. 

It is a realization of the North American Model of 

Wildlife Conservation to provide for science-based 

management of international wildlife resources held 

in trust for all. The importance of this system to 

American society can best be appreciated if we were 

to contemplate its loss. Wildlife connects us to the heritage of this country and our ancestors who built our 

society. It connects us as well to the natural world of 

which we are a part, but from which we have become 

so disconnected. To lose this connection is to lose the 

basis of our humanity. 
4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

1.3 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Refuge 

System 

The Service is the principal Federal agency responsible 

for fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. The Refuge 

System is one of the Service’s major programs. 

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 fish 

and wildlife and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the 

American people. 

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, America’s 

fish and wildlife resources were declining at an alarming rate, largely due to unrestricted market hunting. 

Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting and angling 

groups joined together and generated the political 

will for the first significant conservation measures 

taken by the Federal Government. These actions included the establishment of the Bureau of Fisheries 

in the 1870s and, in 1900, passage of the first Federal 

wildlife law—the Lacey Act—which prohibited interstate transportation of wildlife taken in violation 

of State laws. Beginning in 1903, President Theodore 

Roosevelt established more than 50 wildlife refuges 

across the Nation. 

Over the next three decades, the United States 

ratified the Migratory Bird Treaty with Great Britain, 

and Congress passed laws to protect migratory birds, 

establish new refuges, and create a funding source 

for refuge land acquisition. In 1940, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service was created within the Department 

of the Interior, and existing Federal wildlife functions 

including law enforcement, fish management, animal 

damage control, and wildlife refuge management were 

combined into a single organization for the first time. 

Today, the Service enforces Federal wildlife laws, 

manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores vital 

wildlife habitat, protects and recovers endangered 

species, and helps other governments with conservation efforts. In addition, the Service administers 

a Federal aid program that distributes hundreds of 

millions of dollars to States for fish and wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter education, and related 

programs across the United States. 

SERvICE ACTIvITIES IN SoUTH DAKoTA 

Service activities in South Dakota contribute to the 

State’s economy, ecosystems, and education programs. 

The following list describes the Service’s presence 

and activities statewide in South Dakota each year: 

■■ employs 173 people in South Dakota 

■■ coordinates 191 volunteers donating more than 

8,000 hours in the following areas: 

➤■more than 4,000 hours for wildlife and habitat 

➤■nearly 1,500 hours for maintenance work 

➤■1,350 hours for wildlife-dependent recreation 

➤■1,165 hours in miscellaneous other activities 

related to Service work 

■■ manages two national fish hatcheries encompassing 591.79 acres 

■■ manages one fish and wildlife management assistance office 

■■ manages seven national wildlife refuges encompassing 103,884.85 acres 

■■ manages six wetland management districts across 

50 South Dakota counties; these districts comprise 

the following: 

➤■ 160,432.41 fee acres (waterfowl production areas) 

➤■591,308.44 wetland easement acres 

➤■705,532.59 grassland easement acres 

➤■ 712.23 flowage and miscellaneous easement acres 

➤■ 40,875.90 Farmers Home Administration easements 

■■ hosts more than 202,000 annual visitors to Servicemanaged lands: 

➤■more than 93,000 hunting visits and an unknown 

number of trapping visits 

➤■nearly 45,000 fishing visits 

➤■more than 57,500 wildlife observation visits 

➤■environmental education programs for nearly 

7,000 students 

■■ provides $4,668,784 to SDGFP for sport fish restoration and $8,793,314 for wildlife restoration and 

hunter education 

■■ employs eight Partners for Fish and Wildlife program managers who have helped private landowners restore wetland and upland habitats as 

shown below: 

➤■195 wetlands restored (654 acres)
 

➤■136 wetlands established (589 acres)
 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 5 

➤■53 upland sites (grazing systems) enhanced 

(26,300 acres) 

➤■31 grassland restorations (1,798 acres) 

■■ makes payments to counties through the Refuge 

Revenue Sharing Act (Public Law [P.L.] 95–469, 

amended 1978); payments for fee-title lands are 

based on the greatest of three-quarters of 1 percent of the fair market value (appraisals are completed every 5 years), 25 percent of net receipts, 

or $0.75 per acre 

NATIoNAL WILDLIFE REFUgE SySTEM 

In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated 

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

first wildlife refuge for the protection of native nesting 

birds. This was the first time the Federal Government 

set aside land for wildlife. This small but significant 

designation was the beginning of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. 

One hundred years later, the Refuge System has 

become the largest collection of lands in the world 

specifically managed for wildlife, encompassing more 

than 150 million acres within 553 refuges and more than 

3,000 waterfowl production areas providing breeding 

and nesting habitat for migratory birds. Today, there is 

at least one refuge in every State as well as in Puerto 

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

The Improvement Act of 1997 established a clear 

mission for the Refuge System. 

The mission of the System is to 

administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant 

resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present 

and future generations of Americans. 

The Improvement Act states that each national 

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

which also includes wetland management districts) 

shall be managed to: 

■■ fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
 

■■ fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge and 


district; 

■■ consider the needs of fish and wildlife first; 

■■ fulfill the requirement of developing a CCP for each 

unit of the Refuge System, and fully involve the 

public in the preparation of these plans; 

■■ maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System; 

■■ recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are legitimate and priority public uses; 

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

In addition to the mission for the Refuge System, the 

wildlife and habitat vision for each unit of the Refuge 

System stresses the following principles: 

■■ Wildlife comes first. 

■■ Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital 

concepts in refuge and district management. 

■■ Habitats must be healthy. 

■■ Growth of refuges and districts must be strategic. 

■■ The Refuge System serves as a model for habitat 

management with broad participation from others. 

Following passage of the Improvement Act, the Service 

immediately began to carry out the direction of the 

new legislation, including preparation of CCPs for all 

national wildlife refuges and wetland management 

districts. Each refuge and district is required to complete its CCP within the 15-year schedule (by 2012). 

As directed by the Improvement Act, the Service involves the public in preparing all CCPs. 

PEoPLE AND THE REFUgE SySTEM 

The Nation’s fish and wildlife heritage contributes to 

the quality of American lives and is an integral part of 

the country’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places have 

always given people special opportunities to have fun, 

relax, and appreciate the natural world. 

Whether through bird watching, fishing, hunting, 

photography, or other wildlife pursuits, wildlife recreation contributes billions of dollars to local economies. 

In particular, money generated from the taxing of 

sporting arms and ammunition and of fishing equipment that is authorized by the Pittman–Robertson and 

Dingell–Johnson Acts, respectively, has generated tens 

of billions of dollars. Distributed by the Service, this 

money has been used by States to increase wildlife 

and fish populations, expand habitat, and train hunters 

across the Nation. Approximately 35 million people 

visited the Refuge System in 2006, mostly to observe 

fish and wildlife in their natural habitats (Carver and 

Caudill 2007). Visitors are most often accommodated 

through nature trails, auto tours, interpretive programs, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Local 

communities that surround the refuges and wetland 

management districts derive significant economic 

benefits. Economists report that Refuge System visitors contribute more than $1.7 billion annually to local 

economies (Carver and Caudhill 2007). 
6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

1.4 National and Regional 

Mandates 

National wildlife refuges and wetland management districts are managed to achieve the mission and goals of 

the Refuge System, along with the designated purpose 

of the refuge or district (as described in establishing 

legislation, Executive Orders, or other establishing 

documents). Key concepts and guidance of the Refuge 

System are in the Refuge System Administration Act 

of 1966 (Administration Act), Title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), “The Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual,” and the Improvement Act. 

The Improvement Act amends the Administration 

Act by providing a unifying mission for the Refuge 

System, a new process for determining compatible 

public uses on refuges and districts, and a requirement 

that each unit of the Refuge System be managed under a CCP. The Improvement Act states that wildlife 

conservation is the priority of Refuge System lands 

and that the Secretary of the Interior will ensure that 

the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of refuge lands are maintained. Each refuge or 

district must be managed to fulfill the Refuge System’s 

mission and the specific purposes for which it was established. The Improvement Act requires the Service 

to monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and 

plants in each unit of the Refuge System. 

Detailed descriptions of these and other laws and 

Executive Orders that may affect the CCP or the 

Service’s implementation of the CCP are in appendix 

A. Service policies on planning and day-to-day management of a refuge are in the “Refuge System Manual” 

and “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.” Region 

6 Service guidance on complying with the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act (appendix B) will be followed. 

1.5 Refuge Contributions to 

National and Regional Plans 

The Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

contributes to the conservation efforts described below. 

FULFILLINg THE PRoMISE 

A 1999 report, “Fulfilling the Promise, The National 

Wildlife Refuge System” (USFWS 1999), is the culmination of a yearlong process by teams of Service 

employees to evaluate the Refuge System nationwide. 

This report was the focus of the first national Refuge 

System conference (in 1998), which was attended by 

refuge managers, other Service employees, and representatives from leading conservation organizations. 

The report contains 42 recommendations packaged 

with three vision statements dealing with wildlife and 

habitat, people, and leadership. This CCP deals with 

all three of these major topics, and the planning team 

looked to the recommendations in the report for guidance during CCP planning. 

Western Grebe 

© John Jave 

BIRD CoNSERvATIoN 

During the past few decades, there has been growing 

interest in conserving birds and their habitats. This 

trend has led to the development of partnership-based 

bird conservation initiatives that have produced international, national, and regional conservation plans. 

“All-bird” conservation planning in North America 

is being achieved through the North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative. Formed in 1999, the North 

American Bird Conservation Initiative committee is 

a coalition of government agencies, private organizations, and bird initiatives in the United States working to advance integrated bird conservation based 

on sound science and cost-effective management to 

benefit all birds in all habitats. Conservation of all 

birds is being accomplished under four planning initiatives: the “U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan,”

 the “North American Landbird Conservation Plan” 

(Partners in Flight), the “North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan,” and the “North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan.” 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan 

Partners from State and Federal agencies and nongovernmental organizations from across the country 

pooled their resources and expertise to develop a conservation strategy for migratory shorebirds and the 

habitats on which they depend. The resulting plan, 

the “U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan,” provides a 

scientific framework to determine species, sites, and 

habitats that most urgently need conservation action. The main goals of the plan, completed in 2000, 

are to ensure that adequate quantities and qualities 

of shorebird habitat are maintained at local levels 

and to maintain or restore shorebird populations 

at the continental and hemispheric levels. Separate 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 7 

technical reports were developed that focused on a 

conservation assessment, comprehensive monitoring 

strategy, research needs, and education and outreach. 

These national assessments were used to step down 

goals and objectives into 11 regional conservation 

plans. Although some outreach, education, research, 

monitoring, and habitat conservation programs are 

being implemented, accomplishment of conservation 

objectives for all shorebird species will require a coordinated effort among traditional and new partners. 

Figure 3. Map of the bird conservation regions of North America. 

North American Landbird Conservation Plan 

(Partners in Flight) 

The “North American Landbird Conservation Plan,” 

developed through the Partners in Flight program, 

began in 1990 with the recognition of declining population levels of many migratory bird species. The challenge, according to the program, is managing human 

population growth while maintaining functional natural 

ecosystems. To meet this challenge, Partners in Flight 

worked to identify priority landbird species and habitat types. Partners in Flight activity has resulted in 

52 bird conservation plans covering the continental 

United States. 

The primary goal of Partners in Flight is to provide for the long-term health of landbird life on this 

continent. The first priority is to prevent the rarest 

species from going extinct. The second priority is 

to prevent uncommon species from descending into 

threatened status. The third priority is to “keep common birds common.” 

For planning purposes, Partners in Flight splits 

North America into seven groups of birds by ecological area—avifaunal biomes—and 37 bird conservation 

regions (BCRs) (figure 3). The Lake Andes National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex is within the prairie avifaunal biome in BCR 11, the Prairie Pothole Region. 

BCR 11 is the most important waterfowl production 

area in the North America, despite extensive wetland 

drainage and tillage of native grasslands. The density 

of breeding dabbling ducks commonly exceeds 100 

pairs per square mile in some areas during years with 

favorable wetland conditions. The area constitutes the 

core of the breeding range of most dabbling duck and 

several diving duck species. BCR 11 provides critical breeding and migration habitat for more than 200 

other bird species, including such species of concern 

as Franklin’s gull and yellow rail, as well as piping plover, federally listed as threatened. In addition, Baird’s 

sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, chestnut-collared longspur, 

Wilson’s phalarope, marbled godwit, and American 

avocet are among the many priority nonwaterfowl 
8 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

species that breed in BCR 11. According to the North 

American Bird Conservation Initiative, wetland areas 

also provide key spring migration sites for Hudsonian 

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

Partners in Flight conservation priorities in the 

prairie avifaunal biome focus on protection of remaining prairies; management of existing grasslands using 

fire and grazing; and control of invasive plants, including woody plant encroachment. 

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan 

The “North American Waterbird Conservation Plan” 

provides a contiguous framework for conserving and 

managing colonial-nesting waterbirds including 209 

species of seabirds, coastal waterbirds (gulls, terns, 

and pelicans), wading birds (herons and ibises), and 

marshbirds (certain grebes and bitterns). The overall 

goal of this conservation plan is to make sure that the 

following are sustained or restored throughout the 

waterbirds’ ranges in North America: (1) the distribution, diversity, and abundance of waterbird populations; (2) waterbird habitats (breeding, migratory, and 

nonbreeding); and (3) important sites for waterbirds. 

The geographic scope of the plan covers 28 countries 

from Canada to Panama as well as islands and nearshore areas of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the 

Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. This waterbird 

partnership consists of Federal, State, and Provincial 

wildlife agencies; individuals; and nonprofit conservation organizations. 

Waterbird planning regions were identified to allow for planning at a practical, landscape-level scale. 

Planning region boundaries are based on a combination of political considerations and ecological factors. 

Sixteen planning regions were identified within North 

and South Americas. Lake Andes National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex is located within the Northern Prairie 

and Parkland Conservation Region. The Northern 

Prairie and Parkland Region is an area comprised 

primarily of mixed-grass prairie. The region offers 

waterbirds a tremendous variety and often a high 

density of small wetlands or “potholes,” which range 

from wet meadows to saline lakes, marshes, and fens. 

Widely regarded as the most important waterfowl 

production area in North America, the region boasts 

24 colonial and 15 noncolonial species of waterbirds 

including the endangered least tern. Several species reach their highest densities or have breeding 

ranges contained largely within the region, notably 

the American white pelican, eared grebe, California 

gull, black tern, Forster’s tern, and Franklin’s gull. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

The “North American Waterfowl Management Plan” 

was originally written in 1986. The plan envisioned a 

15-year effort to achieve landscape conditions that could 

sustain waterfowl populations. Specific objectives are 

to increase and restore duck populations to the average levels of the 1970s—62 million breeding ducks and 

a fall flight of 100 million birds. 

By 1985, waterfowl populations had plummeted to 

record lows. Habitat on which waterfowl depend was 

disappearing at a rate of 60 acres per hour. Recognizing 

the importance of waterfowl and wetlands to North 

Americans and the need for international cooperation 

to help in the recovery of a shared resource, the governments of the United States and Canada developed 

a strategy to restore waterfowl populations through 

habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. 

Mexico became a signatory to the plan in 1994. 

The plan is innovative because of its international 

scope and its implementation at the regional level. 

Its success depends on the strength of partnerships 

called joint ventures, which involve Federal, State, 

Provincial, tribal, and local governments; businesses; 

conservation organizations; and individual citizens. 

Joint ventures are regional, self-directed partnerships that carry out science-based conservation 

through a wide array of community participation. 

Joint ventures develop implementation plans focusing 

on areas of concern identified in the plan. The Lake 

Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex lies within 

the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV). 

RECovERy PLANS FoR FEDERALLy LISTED 

THREATENED oR ENDANgERED SPECIES 

Where federally listed threatened or endangered species occur on the refuge complex, management goals 

and strategies in their respective recovery plans will 

be followed. The list of threatened or endangered species that occur on the refuge complex will change as 

species are listed or delisted, or as listed species are 

discovered on refuge complex lands. 

At the time of plan approval, the refuge complex 

is following the draft recovery plan for: 

■■ Piping plover (threatened) in the northern Great 

Plains (USFWS 1994a); 

■■ Whooping crane (endangered) (USFWS 1994b); 

■■ Interior least tern (endangered) (USFWS 1990); 

■■ Western prairie fringed orchid (threatened) (USFWS 

1996). 

STATE CoMPREHENSIvE CoNSERvATIoN 

WILDLIFE STRATEgy 

Over the past several decades, documented declines 

of wildlife populations have occurred nationwide. 

Congress created the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) 

program in 2001. This program provides States with 

Federal dollars to support conservation aimed at preventing wildlife from becoming endangered and in need 

of protection under the Endangered Species Act. The 

SWG program represents an ambitious endeavor to 

take an active hand in keeping species from becoming 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 9 

threatened or endangered in the future. According to 

the SWG program, each State and territory as well as 

the District of Columbia must complete a comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (CWCS) by October 

1, 2005, to receive money in the future. 

The strategies promulgated under the SWG program will help define an integrated approach to the 

stewardship of all wildlife species, with additional emphasis on species of concern and habitats at risk. The 

goal is to shift focus from single-species management 

and highly specialized individual efforts to a geographically based, landscape-oriented fish and wildlife conservation effort. The Service approves CWCSs and 

administers SWG program funding. 

The CWCS for the State of South Dakota was reviewed and information was used during development 

of the CCP. Implementation of CCP habitat goals 

and objectives will support the goals and objectives 

of the CWCS. 

The CWCS is South Dakota is guided by SDGFP’s 

mission: “to perpetuate, conserve, manage, protect, and 

enhance South Dakota’s wildlife resources, parks, and 

outdoor recreational opportunities.” This statement 

sets the framework for the State’s actions. 

SDGFP has opted to apply a coarse filter/fine filter 

strategy to its public land management needs. The 

CWCS emphasizes ecosystem diversity as the primary 

means to address habitat needs for biodiversity, with 

a secondary focus on nonhabitat concerns regarding 

species of greatest conservation need. The program 

staff establishes a schedule for the development of recovery objectives for State-listed species. A threats 

assessment, identification of recovery goals, and species recovery actions provide a coordinated approach 

and give guidance for cooperating agencies to assist 

in recovery of these species. Management actions directed toward species are designed using an adaptive 

management framework. 

South Dakota’s list of “Species of Greatest Conservation 

Need” includes 28 birds, 10 mammals, 7 freshwater 

mussels, 4 gastropods, 9 insects, 20 fishes, and 12 

reptiles and amphibians. There are three primary 

criteria for inclusion in the list: State- and federally 

listed species for which the State has a mandate for 

recovery, species for which South Dakota represents 

a significant portion of the species’ overall range, and 

species that are indicative of or depend on a declining 

or unique habitat in South Dakota. 

American Avocet 

© John Jave 

1.6 Strategic Habitat 

Conservation 

A BRoADER vISIoN 

In the face of escalating challenges such as land use 

conversion, invasive species, water scarcity, and complex issues that have been amplified by accelerating 

climate change, the Service has evolved from its ecosystem approach to conservation toward developing 

a broader vision. 

A cooperative effort by the Service and the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) culminated in a report by 

the National Ecological Assessment Team (USGS 

2006). The report outlines a unifying adaptive resource 

management approach for conservation at a landscape 

scale—the entire range of a priority species or suite 

of species. This is strategic habitat conservation—a 

way of thinking and doing business by incorporating 

biological goals for priority species populations, making strategic decisions about the work needed, and 

constantly reassessing. 

Since 2006, the Service has taken significant steps 

to turn this vision into reality and has defined a framework of 22 geographic areas. Experts from the Service 

and USGS developed this framework through an aggregation of bird conservation regions (figure 3). The 

refuge complex lies in the Plains and Prairie Potholes 

Region (figure 1). Key species and species groups 

targeted in this geographic area are paddlefish, pallid sturgeon, waterfowl, shorebirds, grassland birds, 

and black-footed ferret. 

The Service is using this framework of geographic 

areas as the basis to locate the first generation of landscape conservation cooperatives. These cooperatives 

are conservation–science partnerships between the 

Service and other Federal agencies, States, tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, universities, and other 

entities. Designed as fundamental units for planning 

and science, the cooperatives have the capacity to 

help the Service carry out the elements of strategic 

habitat conservation—biological planning, conservation design and delivery, and monitoring and research. 

Coordinated planning and scientific information will 

strengthen the Service’s strategic response to accelerating climate change, land use conversion, invasive 

species, water scarcity, and a host of other challenges. 
10 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

CLIMATE CHANgE 

The Service believes that any rapid acceleration in 

climate change could affect the Nation’s fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources in profound ways. While many species would continue to thrive, some may decline and in 

some instances go extinct. Others would survive in the 

wild only through direct and continuous intervention 

by managers. In 2010, the Service drafted a strategic 

plan to address climate change for the next 50 years 

entitled “Rising to the Challenge—Strategic Plan for 

Responding to Accelerating Climate Change” (USFWS 

2010). The strategic plan employs three key strategies: 

adaptation, mitigation, and engagement. In addition, 

the plan acknowledges that no single organization or 

agency can address climate change without allying 

itself with others across the Nation and around the 

world (USFWS 2010). This draft plan is an integral 

part of the Department of the Interior’s strategy for 

addressing climate change as expressed in Secretarial 

Order 3289 (September 14, 2009). 

The Service will use the following guiding principles from the draft strategic plan (USFWS 2010) in 

responding to climate change: 

■■ priorities setting—continually evaluate priorities 

and approaches, make difficult choices, take calculated risks, and adapt to climate change 

■■ partnership—commit to a new spirit of coordination, collaboration, and interdependence with others 

■■ best science—reflect scientific excellence, professionalism, and integrity in all the Service’s work 

■■ landscape conservation—emphasize the conservation of habitats within sustainable landscapes, 

applying the Service’s strategic habitat conservation framework 

■■technical capacity—assemble and use state-of-theart technical capacity to meet the climate change 

challenge 

■■ global approach—be a leader in national and international efforts to meet the climate change challenge 

1.7 Planning Process 

The Service prepared this CCP in compliance with 

the Improvement Act, Part 602 of “The Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual,” NEPA, and the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations that implement 

NEPA. Additional requirements and guidance are 

contained in the Refuge System’s planning policy, issued in 2000. This policy established requirements 

and guidance for refuge and district plans—including 

CCPs and stepdown management plans—to make sure 

that planning efforts follow the Improvement Act. The 

planning policy identified several steps of the CCP and 

environmental analysis process (figure 4). 

Figure 4. Steps in the planning process. 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 11 

The planning team consists of Service staff from 

national wildlife refuges, SDGFP, and the Yankton 

Sioux Tribe (see appendix C). During pre-planning, 

the team developed a mailing list, identified planning 

issues, drafted a list of special qualities that characterized the refuge complex, and drafted vision statements 

and goals that will guide the management of the refuge 

complex over the next 15 years. The planning team 

identified current status of each refuge complex program and compiled and analyzed relevant data. Table 

1 summarizes the CCP planning process. 

PUBLIC INvoLvEMENT 

Scoping is the process of obtaining information from 

the public for input into the planning process. Public 

involvement, which is required by NEPA, helped ensure that substantive public comments (those that are 

within the authority and management capabilities of 

the Service) were addressed in this CCP. 

During preplanning, a mailing list was prepared 

that included private citizens; local, regional, and 

State government representatives and legislators; 

other Federal agencies; and interested organizations 

(see appendix D). On November 27, 2006, a planning 

update was sent to recipients on the mailing list; this 

update included information on the history of the refuge complex, an overview of the CCP process, and a 

comment form and postage-paid envelope to give the 

public an opportunity to provide written comments. 

The planning update also included an invitation to attend public scoping meetings. 

The three public scoping meetings, which were also 

announced by local media, were held in November 

2006. At each meeting, a presentation was given about 

the refuge complex, the CCP and EA, and the NEPA 

process. Attendees were encouraged to ask questions 

and offer comments during the meeting, and each attendee was given a comment form to submit additional 

thoughts or questions in writing. The 23 attendees included local citizens and members of the White Lake 

Sportsmen’s Club and Pheasants Forever. 

A notice of intent to prepare the draft CCP and EA 

was published in the Federal Register in May 2007. 

Comments were received throughout the public 

scoping process. Input obtained from meetings and 

correspondence, including emails, was considered in 

development of the draft CCP and EA. In October 

2012, a notice of availability was published in the 

Federal Register that announced that the draft CCP 

and EA was available for public review. A planning 

update was issued and sent to all recipients on the 

refuge complex’s mailing list. This update summarized the management alternatives developed by the 

Service; it also announced an open house public meeting where the public could learn about the draft CCP 

and EA and provide comments. This meeting took 

place in the town of Lake Andes, South Dakota, in late 

October 2012. The draft CCP and EA was released 

to the public for comments, and the comment period 

lasted until November 30, 2012. The Service reviewed 

all comments received during the public meeting as 

well as those comments sent by mail or email during 

the public comment period. These comments and the 

Service’s responses are included in appendix D of this 

final CCP. 

STATE CooRDINATIoN 

The SDGFP is responsible for managing natural resource lands owned by the State, in addition to enforcement responsibilities for the State’s migratory 

birds and endangered species. 

On August 25, 2006, an invitation letter to participate in the CCP process was sent by the Service’s 

Region 6 Director to the SDGFP director, and two 

representatives from SDGFP were assigned to the 

planning team. Local SDGFP wildlife managers and 

the staff of the refuge complex maintain excellent and 

ongoing working relations that predate the start of 

the CCP process. 

TRIBAL CooRDINATIoN 

On August 25, 2006, the Service’s Region 6 Director 

sent letters to six Native American tribal governments 

with aboriginal interests in the planning area: Omaha 

Tribal Council, Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, Santee Sioux, 

Winnebago Tribal Council, Yankton Sioux, and OtoeMissouria Tribe. Each letter included information 

about the CCP and invited tribal recipients to serve 

on the planning team. In turn the Service received one 

inquiry and, after receiving clarification on the CCP 

process, the Yankton Sioux tribal government designated a tribal member as the representative for its 

nation in the planning process. This member participated in the initial planning meetings and site visits 

but later left the tribal government and stopped participating in the planning process. The Yankton Sioux 

tribal government was unable to find a replacement. 

RESULTS oF SCoPINg 

Table 1 summarizes all scoping activities. Public input 

collected from scoping meetings and correspondence, 

including comment forms and emails, was used in the 

development of a final list of refuge complex issues to 

be addressed in the draft CCP and EA. 

The Service determined which alternatives could 

best address these issues. The planning process ensures that issues with the greatest effect on the refuge 

complex are resolved or given priority over the life of 

the final CCP. Identified issues, along with a discussion 

of effects on resources, are summarized in chapter 2. 

In addition, the Service considered suggested 

changes to current refuge complex management presented by the public and other groups. 
12 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

Table 1. Planning process summary for the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota. 

Date Event	 Outcome 

September 2006 Initial meeting with the proposed planning team Developed the CCP overview; finalized the planning 

team; developed an initial list of refuge complex issues 

and qualities; initiated the development of the CCP 

mailing list 

October 23–25, 2006 Kickoff meeting	 Updated the refuge complex issues and qualities list; 

identified biological and mapping needs; planned public 

scoping process 

November 27, 2006 Mailing of the first planning update	 Mailed a planning update (a short document describing 

the CCP process), comment form, and a postage-paid 

envelope to each recipient on the mailing list 

November 2006 Public scoping planning Finalized the scoping meeting schedules and formats 

November 28, 2006 Public meeting—Plankinton, South 

Dakota 

Offered the public an opportunity to learn about the 


CCP and to provide comments
 

November 29, 2006 Public meeting—Parker, South Dakota Offered the public an opportunity to learn about the 

CCP and to provide comments 

November 30, 2006 Public Meeting—Lake Andes, South 

Dakota 

Offered the public an opportunity to learn about the 


CCP and to provide comments
 

February 21–22, 

2007 

Purpose, vision, and goals workshop Identified the purposes and developed the draft visions 

and goals for the refuge complex 

May 16–17, 2007 Alternatives workshop Drafted a comprehensive range of alternatives for management of the refuge complex 

October 2008 Environmental consequences and election of the proposed action workshop Assessed the environmental consequences of implementing each alternative and selected the proposed action (preferred alternative) 

September 2011 Objectives and strategies workshop Drafted the objectives, strategies, and rationales for 

the proposed action 

December 2011 Draft CCP and EA preparation Prepared sections of the preliminary draft CCP and EA 

April 2012 Review of the draft CCP and EA Reviewed the first draft of the CCP and EA and provided comments 

April–May 2012 Internal Service review of the draft 

CCP and EA 

Staff from the Service’s regional office and others reviewed the draft CCP and EA and provided comments 

May–October 2012 Preparation of public draft CCP and 

EA 

Reviewed internal comments and updated the draft 

CCP and EA 

October 2012 Preparation and distribution of second 

planning update 

Prepared and mailed second of two planning updates 

for the CCP and EA 

October–November 

2012 

Public review of draft CCP and EA Released the public draft of the CCP and EA 

December 2012 Planning team review of public 

comments 

Compiled and considered public comments and recommended changes to the CCP 

December 2012 Briefing of the Service’s Regional 

Director 

Service’s Regional Director and deputy regional director reviewed and addressed a summary of public 

comments 

December 2012 Briefing of the Service’s National 

Director 

Made necessary changes to the final CCP; the Service’s 

National Director was briefed on public comments and 

the Service’s responses 

December 2012 CCP approval The Service’s Regional Director approved the final 

CCP 

December 2012– 

January 2013 

CCP and summary trifold printing and 

distribution 

Finalized, printed, and distributed final CCP and planning summary trifold 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 13 

DRAFT PLAN 

The Service considered all input during development of 

the draft CCP and EA, including suggestions from the 

public, partners, and other groups about changes to the 

refuge complex’s current management. The planning 

process ensures that issues with the greatest effects 

on the refuge complex are resolved or given priority. 

After scoping and detailed analysis, the Service 

developed three management alternatives that best 

addressed the issues that had been identified. The 

Service identified alternative B as the proposed action. 

In October 2012, the Service published a notice of 

availability announcing that the draft CCP and EA 

was available for a 30-day public review period. A 

summary of written comments gathered during the 

review period, along with the Service’s responses, is 

in appendix D. 

FINAL PLAN 

After reviewing public comments, the Regional Director 

of the Mountain–Prairie Region selected alternative 

B as the preferred alternative. Subsequently, the 

Service produced this final CCP, which is based on 

the draft CCP and includes minor changes. The biological evaluation for the final CCP determined that 

there would likely be no adverse effect on threatened 

or endangered species or critical habitats as a result 

of the actions of the CCP (appendix E). The Regional 

Director approved the final CCP in December 2012 

after a finding of no significant impact (appendix F). 

“Chapter 4–Management Direction” outlines the 

long-term guidance for management decisions; sets 

forth objectives and strategies to accomplish refuge complex purposes and goals; and identifies the 

Service’s best estimate of future needs. The CCP details program levels that are sometimes substantially 

above current budget allocations and, consequently, 

are primarily for Service strategic planning purposes. 

CHAPTER 2—The Refuge Complex
 

Wood ducks are commonly seen on refuge complex lands. 

© John Eriksson 

2.1 Establishment, 

Acquisition, Management 

History, and Use 

The Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

consists of three units: Lake Andes National Wildlife 

Refuge (which serves as the refuge complex headquarters) (Lake Andes Refuge), the Karl E. Mundt 

National Wildlife Refuge (Karl E. Mundt Refuge), 

and the Lake Andes Wetland Management District 

(Lake Andes District). 

The refuge complex shares a common staff that 

currently consists of the wildlife refuge manager, 

wildlife refuge specialist, wildlife biologist, administrative officer, and two maintenance workers. The 

refuge complex also supports a wildlife biologist from 

the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife program. 

LAkE AndEs nATionAL WiLdLifE REfUgE 

Authorized by Executive Order in 1936, the Lake 

Andes National Wildlife Refuge (figures 5 and 6) was 

formally established in 1939 when the State of South 

Dakota granted an easement allowing the Service to 

operate a refuge for migratory birds and other wildlife. 

This 5,639-acre refuge includes Lake Andes, a 4,700­

acre lake created by the last ice age. The lake’s shallow 

waters are very attractive to migrating and nesting 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds. Water 

levels in the lake vary from 0 to 12 feet depending entirely on climatic conditions and precipitation, and the 

lake supports a boom-and-bust fishery that depends 

on water quality and water quantity. Grasslands surrounding the lake provide optimal habitat for nesting 

waterfowl and grassland songbirds, and in this area 

nesting densities are very high (greater than 300 nests 

per square mile). 

Lake Andes Refuge is divided into four units. The 

lake itself comprises three of these units—the North 

Unit, Central Unit, and South Unit—and the fourth, 

the Owens Bay Unit, lies at the southeastern bank of 

Lake Andes. 

Water level manipulation, grazing, prescribed fire, 

invasive plant control, and prairie restoration are used 

on the refuge to provide optimal habitat for migratory 

birds. Approximately 2,000 people—mostly birdwatchers—visit this refuge each year. A foot trail provides 

public access to a series of small wetlands that attract 

migrating waterfowl and shorebirds in great numbers. 

kARL E. MUndT nATionAL WiLdLifE REfUgE 

Named for a former South Dakota senator, the Karl 

E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge is located below 

the Fort Randall Dam and encompasses a portion of 

the Missouri National Recreational River (figures 

7 and 8). This refuge was established in 1974 when 
16 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

figure 5. Map of the Lake Andes national Wildlife Refuge, south dakota. 
CHAPTER 2—The Refuge Complex 17 

figure 6. Land status map for the Lake Andes national Wildlife Refuge, south dakota. 
18 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

the National Wildlife Federation and the Southland 

Corporation donated 700 acres of land and 300 acres 

of easement to the Service for the primary purpose of 

bald eagle conservation. At that time, loss of habitat, 

the widespread use of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, 

and poaching had thinned the bald eagle population in 

the lower 48 states to 1 percent of its former size. The 

Karl E. Mundt Refuge was the first national wildlife 

refuge established for the conservation of bald eagles, 

and since establishment the refuge has also provided 

important habitat for neotropical migratory birds that 

require riparian forests to migrate and nest. 

Haying, grazing, prescribed fire, invasive plant 

control, and prairie restoration are used to maintain 

riparian and upland habitats. The refuge is closed to 

public use to reduce disturbance to bald eagles; however, guided tours are provided annually for approximately 50 visitors. 

Pheasant 

© John Jave 

LAkE AndEs WETLAnd MAnAgEMEnT disTRiCT 

The 104,242-acre Lake Andes Wetland Management 

District was established in 1958 and protects 18,782 

acres of habitat in waterfowl production areas (figures 

9–14). These waterfowl production areas are public 

lands open to hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

and other forms of wildlife-dependent recreation. The 

district protects an additional 80,000 acres of habitat 

through easements that prevent loss of wetlands and 

grasslands on private land. Acquisition of additional 

easements is ongoing. 

Grazing, haying, prescribed fire, invasive plant 

control, and prairie restoration are used to provide 

optimal waterfowl and other migratory bird habitat. 

Approximately 15,000 people visit the district each 

year to hunt, observe wildlife, or fish on waterfowl 

production areas. Most of these visitors are hunters 

pursuing ring-necked pheasants. 

2.2 special Values of the 

Refuge Complex 

Early in the planning process, the planning team and 

public identified the outstanding qualities of Lake 

Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex. These qualities are the characteristics and features of the refuge 

complex that make it special, valuable for wildlife, and 

worthy of inclusion in the Refuge System. Such qualities can be unique biological values as well as simple 

values like providing a quiet place to enjoy nature or 

view wildlife. It was important to identify these special 

values to recognize the refuge complex’s worth and 

to ensure that its special values are preserved, protected, and enhanced through the planning process. 

The following summarizes the qualities that make the 

refuge complex unique and valued: 

■■ The refuge complex protects and manages nationally significant nesting and migration habitat for 

waterfowl and other migratory birds. 

■■ The refuge complex conserves and restores wetlands 

and grasslands for the benefit of wildlife and people. 

■■ The refuge complex provides the public with opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and 

a place to reconnect with nature. 

■■ The refuge complex contributes to local economies, 

the preservation of open space, and the quality of 

life of area residents and visitors. 

2.3 Purposes 

Every unit in the Refuge System has a purpose for 

which it was established. This purpose is the foundation on which to build all programs, from biology and 

public use programs to maintenance and facilities programs. No action taken by the Service or public may 

conflict with this purpose. The purposes are found in 

the legislative acts or administrative orders that authorize either the transfer or acquisition of land for the 

units. Over time an individual unit may contain lands 

that have been acquired under a variety of transfer 

and acquisition authorities, giving the unit more than 

one purpose. 

The goals, objectives, and strategies identified in 

this CCP are intended to support the purposes for 

which the Lake Andes Refuge, Karl E. Mundt Refuge, 

and Lake Andes District were established. 
CHAPTER 2—The Refuge Complex 19
 

figure 7. Map of the karl E. Mundt national Wildlife Refuge, south dakota. 
20 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

figure 8. Land status map of the karl E. Mundt national Wildlife Refuge, south dakota. 
CHAPTER 2—The Refuge Complex 21
 

figure 9. Lake Andes Wetland Management district waterfowl production areas in davison and Hanson Counties, 

south dakota. 
22 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

figure 10. Lake Andes Wetland Management district waterfowl production areas in Brule and Aurora Counties, 

south dakota. 
CHAPTER 2—The Refuge Complex 23
 

figure 11. Lake Andes Wetland Management district waterfowl production areas in Charles Mix and douglas 

Counties, south dakota. 
24 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

figure 12. Lake Andes Wetland Management district waterfowl production areas in Bon Homme and Hutchinson 

Counties, south dakota. 
CHAPTER 2—The Refuge Complex 25
 

figure 13. Lake Andes Wetland Management district waterfowl production areas in Turner, Yankton, and Lincoln 

Counties, south dakota. 
26 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

figure 14. Lake Andes Wetland Management district waterfowl production areas in Clay and Union Counties, 

south dakota. 
CHAPTER 2—The Refuge Complex 27 

LAkE AndEs nATionAL WiLdLifE REfUgE 

Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge was authorized on February 14, 1936, by President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt through Executive Order 7292, under the 

authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 

United States Code [U.S.C.] 715d): 

“as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

“for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for 

any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 

kARL E. MUndT nATionAL WiLdLifE REfUgE 

Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge was authorized on April 17, 1975, under the authority of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531–1543): 

“to conserve fish, wildlife, or plants which are 

listed as endangered or threatened species.” 

LAkE AndEs WETLAnd MAnAgEMEnT disTRiCT 

Lake Andes Wetland Management District was authorized on August 1, 1958, under the authority of P.L. 

85–585, which amended the Migratory Bird Hunting 

and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718c). 

Official purposes are from a number of sources: 

Regional Guidance, 2004: “to ensure the longterm viability of the breeding waterfowl population and production, through the acquisition 

and management of Waterfowl Production 

Areas, while considering the needs of other 

migratory birds, threatened and endangered 

species, and other wildlife.” 

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

718c): “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): “or for any other management purpose, 

for migratory birds.” 

Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 

(7 U.S.C. 1924): “for conservation purposes.” 

2.4 Visions 

At the beginning of the planning process, the Service 

developed a vision for each unit in the refuge complex. 

These vision statements describe the focus of management, including what will be different in the future, 

and form the essence of what the Service is trying to 

accomplish at the refuge complex by the end of the 

15-year life of the CCP. These vision statements appear below. 

Vision sTATEMEnT foR THE LAkE AndEs 

nATionAL WiLdLifE REfUgE 

Migratory birds thrive on wetlands and 

grasslands comprised of native plants. 

Visitors enjoy walking the foot trails, 

watching and photographing wildlife, 

and learning about Plains and Prairie 

Pothole Region habitat. Teachers bring 

their students to the refuge’s outdoor 

classroom. 

Vision sTATEMEnT foR THE kARL E. MUndT 

nATionAL WiLdLifE REfUgE 

Soaring bald eagles hunt, roost, and 

rear their young in this cottonwood 

forest where Lewis and Clark ventured 

up the Missouri River. Booming prairie 

chickens share the Missouri River 

bluffs with wild turkey, sharp-tailed 

grouse, quail, and songbirds. Careful 

observers, floating downstream along the 

refuge’s portion of the Missouri National 

Recreational River, may notice hunting 

bobcats, hovering raptors, or flying bats 

above placidly feeding deer. Wildlifedependent recreational opportunities on 

this refuge foster a greater understanding 

of the refuge’s resources and the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS 
28 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

Vision sTATEMEnT foR THE LAkE AndEs 

WETLAnd MAnAgEMEnT disTRiCT 

The waterfowl production areas and 

conservation easements of the Lake 

Andes Wetland Management District 

provide a network of wetland and 

grassland habitats that preserves the 

integrity of vital nesting and breeding 

grounds of North America’s migratory 

waterfowl. This mosaic of diverse 

and vigorous plant communities, 

interspersed with wetland complexes, 

supports a variety of marshbirds, 

shorebirds, songbirds, and colonial 

birds, as well as prairie grouse, upland 

plovers, sandpipers, and other resident 

wildlife species typical of the Plains and 

Prairie Pothole Region. District staff, 

landowners, cooperators, neighbors, 

and other partners work together to 

promote habitat conservation programs 

throughout the district and to control 

invasive plant species on public lands. 

Both consumptive and nonconsumptive, 

compatible, wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses are allowed on these 

public lands. 

2.5 goals 

The Service developed five management goals for 

the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

These goals will direct efforts toward achieving the 

vision and purpose(s) of each unit in the refuge complex. These goals are based on the Improvement Act, 

the purpose(s) of each unit in the refuge complex, and 

information developed during planning. 

WETLAnd HABiTAT goAL 

Acquire, restore, manage, and protect wetlands for 

the conservation of migratory birds and other waterdependent species endemic to the Plains and Prairie 

Pothole Region. 

RiPARiAn HABiTAT goAL 

Acquire, restore, manage, and protect riparian habitats endemic to the lower Missouri River for the 

conservation of bald eagles, other species of concern, 

and migratory birds. 

UPLAnd HABiTAT goAL 

Acquire, restore, manage, and maintain a diverse 

mix of native grassland habitats to support migratory birds and resident wildlife found in the northern 

mixed-grass prairie ecosystem. 

VisiToR sERViCEs goAL 

Provide opportunities for high quality and compatible 

hunting, fishing, environmental education, environmental 

interpretation, photography, and wildlife observation 

for persons of all abilities and cultural backgrounds 

by fostering an understanding and appreciation of the 

Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex and 

the missions of the Service and the Refuge System. 

oPERATions goAL 

Provide money, staff, infrastructure, protection of 

cultural resources, partnerships, and a safe working 

environment to achieve the purposes and objectives 

of the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

2.6 Planning issues 

Several key issues were identified following the analysis of comments collected from Service staff members 

and the public and a review of the requirements of the 

Improvement Act and NEPA. These key issues were 

considered in the development of alternatives and are 

summarized below. 

LAkE AndEs WATER QUALiTY And fisHERY 

Over the past 100 years Lake Andes has supported a 

boom-and-bust fishery that has been successful during 

wet periods (when fish are abundant) and unsuccessful 

during dry periods (when fish die out). Over the years 

several events and processes have affected the fishery 

as well as the water quality on which numerous plants, 

fish, and migratory birds depend. Responding to complaints of flooding, the U.S. Congress in 1921 ordered 

an artificial outlet constructed on the lake to reduce the 

maximum depth from 25 feet to 12 feet. Limiting the 

maximum depth results in a shallower lake that will be 

low or dry more frequently than before. Additionally, 

ongoing agricultural activities in the watershed have 

deposited phosphorus, nitrogen, and sediment in the 

lake. These deposits reduce levels of dissolved oxygen 

in the water, affecting fish, vegetation, and the fishery. 

As a result, rough fish—which can survive in oxygenpoor water—have became more prevalent and difficult 

to control in the lake and watershed. 
CHAPTER 2—The Refuge Complex 29 

During scoping, numerous comments were received asking that the restoration of Lake Andes be 

included in the CCP. 

Over the past 100 years Lake Andes has supported a boom-and-bust fishery that has been successful during wet periods 

(when fish are abundant) and unsuccessful during dry periods (when fish die out). 

USFWS 

inVAsiVE PLAnT ConTRoL 

Invasive plants are degrading the quality of refuge 

complex habitats. Canada thistle, leafy spurge, musk 

thistle, wormwood sage, Russian olive, smooth brome, 

and Kentucky bluegrass are the primary species of 

concern. Of these, Canada thistle occupies the greatest number of acres on the refuge complex and creates 

the biggest problem when its seeds become airborne 

in July. There is more thistle than can be treated in 

one growing season with the resources available to 

the refuge complex. 

Noxious weed infestations are particularly troublesome for neighboring landowners who are required by 

State and local laws to control those species of plants 

on their lands. Some of these landowners see refuge 

complex lands as the source of invasive plants colonizing their lands. Comments received during scoping 

indicated that the refuge complex’s neighbors desire 

more effective control of noxious weeds on refuge 

complex properties. 

MoniToRing And REsEARCH 

Additional surveys and research are needed to provide 

the science-based information necessary to improve 

management on the refuge complex. 

PRAiRiE REsToRATion 

Much of the native prairie that existed in this area 

before settlement has been lost through cultivation 

or degraded by invasive plants such as smooth brome 

or Kentucky bluegrass. Once broken, native prairie is 

essentially lost; however, restoration of native grasses 

and forbs can provide habitat that is very valuable to 

waterfowl and other migratory birds. During scoping 

for the CCP, a number of people expressed a desire 

for more prairie restoration on the refuge complex. 

PUBLiC ACCEss And oPPoRTUniTiEs foR 

WiLdLifE-dEPEndEnT RECREATion 

Much of Lake Andes Refuge and all of Karl E. Mundt 

Refuge are closed to public use. During scoping, a 

number of people commented that they would like 

the Service to explore the possibility of expanding 

public access opportunities on both of these refuges. 

MonEY, infRAsTRUCTURE, And PARTnERsHiPs 

Funding limits the staff, the infrastructure, and to a 

large degree the capability of the refuge complex staff 

to conserve wildlife and to provide wildlife-dependent 

recreation. Partnerships are an important way to help 

expand the staff’s capabilities to conserve wildlife and 

provide more and better recreation opportunities, especially when money is so limited. 

CHAPTER 3—Refuge Complex 

Resources and Description 

Grasslands characterize much of the Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge. 

USFWS 

This chapter describes the refuge complex’s environmental resources that may be affected by the implementation of the CCP. It describes the physical environment and biological resources of refuge complex 

lands as well as its fire and grazing history, cultural 

resources, visitor services, socioeconomic environment, and operations. 

3.1 Physical Environment 

Located in southeastern South Dakota, the Lake Andes 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex includes two refuges and 85 waterfowl production areas (within one 

wetland management district) scattered throughout 

14 counties (Aurora, Bon Homme, Brule, Charles Mix, 

Clay, Davison, Douglas, Gregory, Hanson, Hutchinson, 

Lincoln, Turner, Union, and Yankton). The refuge complex staff manages thousands of noncontiguous tracts 

of Federal and private land totaling 110,925 acres: 

21,193 acres of refuges and waterfowl production areas and 89,732 acres of conservation easements (figures are current as of September 2010). The geology, 

topography, soils, and climate of refuge complex lands 

are discussed below. Unless otherwise noted, information in this section has come from Bryce et al. (1998). 

GEoloGy AnD ToPoGRAPHy 

The Lake Andes Refuge is situated in a partially buried 

bedrock valley (Kume 1977). All refuge complex lands 

are part of the Northern and Northwestern Glaciated 

Plains, whose landscape was created by the most recent continental glaciation event, the Late Wisconsin, 

which occurred 25,000–20,000 years ago. Glaciation left 

the landscape rich in moraine and numerous wetlands. 

The refuge complex consists of grasslands; riparian 

forests; upland habitat; native prairie; and temporary, 

seasonal, and semipermanent and permanent wetlands. 

The majority of the refuge complex’s waterfowl 

production areas and grassland and wetland easements fall within the Southern Missouri Coteau and 

Southern Missouri Coteau Slope ecoregions. The 

Southern Missouri Coteau ecoregion, the southern 

fringe of continental glaciation, exhibits gentle undulations in topography, smaller areas of wetland 

density, and more stream erosion. The Southern 

Missouri Coteau Slope ecoregion has a good amount 

of rock-free loess. The remaining waterfowl production areas and easements exist in the eastern portion 

of the Lake Andes District within the James River 

Lowland ecoregion. This ecoregion exhibits a flat to 

gently rolling topography, high density of wetlands, 

and warmer temperatures. 

Karl E. Mundt Refuge in Gregory County is the 

only part of the refuge complex that lies west of the 

Missouri River. As such, the landscape of the refuge 

differs from that of the other refuge complex lands. 

This area falls in the Southern River Breaks ecoregion characterized by more temperate conditions with 

heavily wooded deciduous forests. The topography 

is characterized by dissected hills and canyons with 
32 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

slopes of high relief bordering the Missouri River and 

its alluvial plains. Cretaceous Pierre Shale is the primary surface geology. 

The refuge complex lies within the westernmost 

extent of continental glaciation (Pre-Late Wisconsin 

Glaciation and Late Wisconsin Glaciation). The melting ice from this glacial stagnation and retreat formed 

most of the prairie potholes found throughout the 

refuge complex. The geological materials underlying 

the refuge complex lands consist of Wisconsinan glacial till and loess over Cretaceous Pierre Shale (exposed bedrock is present throughout the city of Lake 

Andes and along the bluffs of the Missouri river) and 

sandstone of Niobrara Formation (primary bedrock 

of the refuge complex lands in the eastern portion of 

the Lake Andes District) (Johnson and Higgins 1997). 

SoilS 

Soils differ in the four ecoregions—the Southern 

Missouri Coteau, Southern Missouri Coteau Slope, James 

River Lowland, and the Southern River Breaks—in 

which refuge complex lands lie. The main soil series 

in the Southern Missouri Coteau ecoregion are Eakin, 

Highmore, Java, Beadle, Dudley, DeGrey, and Zahl. 

These soils are deep and moderately to well drained 

and formed in silty or clayey material over glacial till 

with permeability ranging from slow to moderate. 

The main soil series in the Southern Missouri 

Coteau Slope ecoregion are Highmore, Mobridge, 

Houdek, and Ethan. Deep, well drained soils formed 

in loamy glacial till, silty glacial drift, or silty alluvium 

on uplands. Permeability ranges from moderate to 

moderately slow. 

The James River Lowland ecoregion is made up 

of the Beadle, Dudley, Hand, Bonilla, Houdek, and 

Prosper soil series. These soils are generally deep, 

moderately to well-drained, loamy, or silty soils on 

uplands. These soils range in permeability from very 

slow to moderate. 

The Southern River Breaks ecoregion mainly consists of the Tuthill, Sansarc, Okaton, and Manter soil 

series. With the exception of Manter (a deep soil), these 

soils are generally shallow, well drained and formed 

in clayey shale residuum on uplands. Permeability 

ranges from slow to moderately rapid. 

ClimATE 

Relative to the rest of the Northern and Northwestern 

Glaciated Plains, the southern location of the refuge 

complex results in milder winters with longer, warmer 

summers. Temperatures range from –16 °F to 104 °F 

and average 51 °F. Annual rainfall varies from 17 inches 

to 24 inches while annual evaporation can amount to 

36 inches, resulting in some years of marginal to poor 

wetland conditions. Precipitation on Karl E. Mundt 

Refuge averages 20–22 inches, and average snowfall 

is 60 inches. 

3.2 Water Resources 

SuRfACE WATER 

Lake Andes and the Missouri and James Rivers are 

the primary sources of water supply for the refuge 

complex. Two roadway dikes separate Lake Andes 

into the North Unit, Center Unit, and South Unit. 

Lake Andes has a drainage area of about 230 square 

miles. Andes Creek flows into the North Unit and is 

the largest contributor of inflow into the Lake Andes 

Basin. The remaining units receive inflow from sev

eral unnamed tributaries. Tributaries to Lake Andes 

are ephemeral (Sando and Neitzert 2003). The water 

level of Lake Andes is solely dependent on watershed 

runoff, thus fluctuations between flooding and a com

pletely dry lake bed are common. 

Agriculture is widespread throughout the fourteencounty region of the refuge complex. Unfortunately, 

some agricultural activities—especially feedlot opera

tion and crop production—cause nutrient enrichment, 

siltation, and algal growth that, together with other 

causes, have impaired the quality of water basins, 

streams, and Lake Andes over the years. Poor water 

quality significantly degrades the quality of fish and 

wildlife habitat in the lake. Refuge complex staff are 

participating in meetings with CMCLRO and sup

porting and guiding its efforts to improve water qual

ity and quantity in Lake Andes. CMCLRO seeks to 

improve water quality through the following actions: 

1. Sediment removal. CMCLRO seeks to remove 

sediments from Lake Andes that are laden with 

high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus—nutrients 

that lead to frequent algae blooms that cloud the 

water and block sunlight penetration to a degree 

that many species of aquatic plants cannot grow. 

When the algae decompose, the oxygen content of 

the lake water is reduced to a level at which sport 

fish species and other aquatic animals and plants 

cannot survive. 

2. Supporting soil conservation practices. CMCLRO 

is supporting ongoing government efforts to clean 

up the Lake Andes watershed through cost-shared, 

voluntary soil conservation practices (for example, 

planting buffer strips to reduce agricultural runoff, 

fencing livestock out of seasonal drainages, costsharing agricultural waste containment systems). 

3. Controlling the rough fish population. CMCLRO 

intends to remove carp and bullhead species of 

rough fish that persist in oxygen-poor waters. The 

feeding behaviors of these fish agitate the water 

to the degree that sunlight penetration is blocked, 

thereby reducing aquatic vegetation. 

­

­

­

­

­
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Complex Resources and Description 33 

GRounD WATER 

The Lake Andes Basin and Choteau Creek Basin 

reach across the following counties: Aurora, Charles 

Mix, Gregory, Davison, Douglas, Hutchinson, and Bon 

Homme (Sando and Neitzert 2003). 

The Dakota Aquifer, one of the classic artesian 

aquifers, covers most of central North America and is 

part of the Great Plains Aquifer System (Bredehoeft 

et al. 1983). The Dakota Aquifer in southeastern South 

Dakota consists of Dakota Formation overlain by 

Cretaceous shales (Gosselin et al. 2003). 

In 1985, an artesian well was placed 960 feet into 

the Dakota sandstones of the Dakota Aquifer. This 

free-flowing well drains ground water into Owens 

Bay. When first installed, this well pumped 900 gallons 

per minute. Today, this rate has decreased by about 

70 percent to 250 gallons per minute. 

WETlAnDS 

Wetlands are lands where saturation with water is 

the dominant factor determining the nature of soil 

development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface (Cowardin 

et al. 1979). Wetlands are extremely productive and 

important as breeding and nesting habitat for migratory birds and as wintering habitat for many resident 

wildlife species. 

Wetlands are classified using a number of attributes 

including vegetation, water regimes (the length of time 

water occupies a specific area), and water chemistry. 

Prairie potholes are described using the following nontidal water regime modifiers (Cowardin et al. 1979): 

■■ Temporarily flooded: surface water is present for 

brief periods during the growing season. The water table usually lies below the soil surface most 

of the season, so plants that grow in both uplands 

and wetlands are characteristic. 

■■ Seasonally flooded: surface water is present for 

extended periods especially early in the growing 

season, but is absent by the end of the season in 

most years. 

■■ Semipermanently flooded: surface water persists 

throughout the growing season in most years. When 

surface water is absent, the water table is usually 

at or very near the land surface. 

■■ Permanently flooded: water covers the land throughout the year in nearly all years. Vegetation comprises obligate hydrophytes, such as cattails. 

Even though drainage and other wetland-decimating factors have taken their toll, wetlands are still a 

prominent feature of the landscape within the refuge 

complex. Wetlands on the refuge complex range from 

temporarily flooded to permanently flooded. Surface 

hydrology of these wetlands is influenced by a combination of precipitation, surface runoff, surface water, 

and ground water inputs. 

WATER RiGHTS 

The following is a summary of water rights associated 

with refuge complex lands: 

■■ Lake Andes holds water rights filed April 22, 1940, 

for a total of 20,534 acre-feet, of which 13,721 acrefeet are for storage and 6,813 acre-feet are for 

seasonal use. 

■■ Owens Bay Well holds water rights filed July 

6, 1956, for 2.22 cubic feet per second from the 

Dakota Sandstone artesian aquifer to be stored 

in Owens Bay. 

■■ Varilek Waterfowl Production Area holds water 

rights filed December 27, 1988, for 139 acre-feet 

of storage. 

■■ Sherman Waterfowl Production Area holds water 

rights filed December 27, 1988, for 271 acre-feet 

of storage. 

■■ Broken Arrow Waterfowl Production Area holds 

water rights filed October 7, 1985, to impound 131.2 

acre-feet of storage from Joubert Drain through 

the means of Dam #7. 

■■ Roth Waterfowl Production Area holds water rights 

filed July 30, 1997, for 323 acre-feet of storage and 

212 acre-feet of seasonal use. 

■■ The Lake Andes District holds 904 wetland easement contracts protecting 37,985 acres of naturally 

occurring wetlands. 

3.3 Vegetation Communities 

Vegetation communities associated with the refuge 

complex’s wetland, upland, and riparian areas are 

discussed below. Figures 15–18 show the various land 

cover types found on and around refuge complex lands. 

WETlAnDS AnD ASSoCiATED VEGETATion 

CommuniTiES 

Wetlands throughout the refuge complex provide both 

resting cover and food resources for migratory birds. 

Substantial emergent and submergent aquatic vegetation occurs in freshwater wetlands. Sago pondweed, 

coontail, and duckweed occur in the deeper, more 

permanently flooded zones, while cattail, bulrush, 

bur-reed, and smartweed grow in shallow areas that 

may go dry due to a drawdown. Poor water quality is 

a limiting factor for aquatic vegetation in individual 

wetlands scattered throughout the refuge complex. 

The poor quality can lead to algae blooms, reducing 

sunlight penetration and thus restricting growing 

potential for aquatic plants. 

Most palustrine basins exhibit concentric zones of 

vegetation that are dominated by different plant species (Kantrud et al. 1989). The terms commonly used 
34 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

figure 15. national land Cover Data for the lake Andes national Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota. 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Complex Resources and Description 35
 

figure 16. national Vegetation Classification Standard vegetation on the lake Andes national Wildlife Refuge, 

South Dakota. 
36 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

figure 17. national land Cover Data for the Karl E. mundt national Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota. 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Complex Resources and Description 37
 

figure 18. national Vegetation Classification Standard vegetation on the Karl E. mundt national Wildlife Refuge, 

South Dakota. 
38 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

in reference to these zones are, in decreasing order 

of water permanency, deep marsh, shallow marsh, 

and wet meadow (Kantrud et al. 1989). The water regime in a deep marsh zone is usually semipermanent. 

Dominant plants include cattail, bulrush, submersed 

or floating plants, and submersed vascular plants, but 

this zone also may be devoid of vegetation if bottom 

sediments are unconsolidated. Shallow marsh zones are 

usually dominated by emergent grasses, sedges, and 

some forbs, but submersed or floating vascular plants 

also may occur. Wet meadow zones also are typically 

dominated by grasses, rushes, and sedges, whereas 

submersed or floating plants are absent. 

Management of wetlands in the refuge complex 

where facilities have been developed (Owens Bay and 

Broken Arrow Waterfowl Production Area) simulates 

natural (that is, historical) wet–dry cycles by raising 

and lowering water levels to meet specific management objectives. This encourages emergent and submergent aquatic vegetation growth, increases invertebrate biomass, improves water clarity, breaks down 

and cycles accumulated nutrients in bottom sediments, 

and augments control of common carp. Extensive 

mudflats are created when wetlands are in the initial 

drawdown phase. Mudflats provide optimal feeding 

opportunities for migrating shorebirds, wading birds, 

and other waterbirds. 

The wetland easement program has provided 

perpetual protection for 37,985 acres of wetlands on 

private lands in the wetland management district. A 

current total of 54 Farmers Home Administration 

easements protect 3,834 acres of wetlands. This has 

secured a landscape-level habitat base for migratory 

birds. While normal farming practices may have erased 

some of the smaller, temporary, and seasonal wetland 

basins, most of the habitat here remains intact. 

uPlAnDS AnD ASSoCiATED VEGETATion 

CommuniTiES 

Upland vegetation is essential in providing nesting habitat for migratory and resident bird species. 

Upland habitats also provide necessary habitat requirements for resident wildlife throughout the year. 

The Lake Andes District holds 199 grassland easement 

contracts, providing perpetual protection for 38,103 

acres of privately owned grasslands within the district. The program continues to expand the acreage 

protected annually. 

The refuge complex currently uses a variety of management techniques to maintain and enhance upland 

habitat conditions on fee-title uplands including the 

use of prescribed fire, grazing, haying, native grass 

seeding, and invasive species management. 

During the 1930s, large fields formerly planted to 

crops were planted with nonnative grasses, including 

smooth brome, crested wheatgrass, and Kentucky 

bluegrass species, to minimize soil erosion. 

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 tall and intermediate wheatgrass, sweet clover, and alfalfa. These fields initially 

provided good cover for nesting birds; however, over 

time they deteriorated and were prone to invasion 

by Canada thistle and other problem species (for 

example, smooth brome). The refuge complex has 

begun the process of restoring these grasslands to 

native grasses and forbs. The native grass restoration process generally involves cropping the field for 

3 or more years to eliminate exotic cool-season grass 

seeds and rhizomes, control Canada thistle and other 

noxious weeds, and prepare a seedbed for planting 

native grass seed. 

Uplands historically were comprised of warmseason grasses characteristic of the shortgrass prairie 

to the west and the cool- and warm-season grasses 

characteristic of the tallgrass prairie to the east 

(Samson et al. 1988); thus, the area represented a 

zone of ecotonal mixing that included a diversity of 

short grass, intermediate grass, and tallgrass species 

(Bragg and Steuter 1996). The most common mixedgrass prairie grass species within the refuge complex 

include western wheatgrass, slender wheatgrass, 

witchgrass, blue grama, sideoats grama, needle and 

thread, Indiangrass, switchgrass, big bluestem, little 

bluestem, and Canada wildrye. Smooth brome and 

Kentucky bluegrass are nonnative, invasive species 

that are dominant throughout many refuge complex 

lands. Chemical, mechanical, and biological control of 

these species is of high priority. Common upland forbs 

include American licorice, annual sunflower, Canada 

goldenrod, curlycup gumweed, heath daisy, hemp dogbane, leadplant, Maximilian sunflower, meadow anemone, Missouri goldenrod, showy milkweed, silverleaf 

scurfpea, smartweed, stiff goldenrod, stiff sunflower 

and woolly verbena. Prairie rose and prickly rose are 

the most prevalent shrubs found throughout refuge 

complex uplands. 

Many native prairie uplands (grasslands without 

a farming history) on the refuge complex have been 

invaded by non-native grasses, especially smooth 

brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and crested wheatgrass. 

These monotypic stands are less attractive to nesting 

grassland birds including waterfowl. Grassland management (burning, grazing and haying) is necessary 

to restore the quality of these habitats. 

In efforts to emulate these natural regimes that sustained wildlife populations before pioneer settlement, 

land managers must attempt to simulate the ecological 

processes that maintained the habitat before settlement. A strategy to improve competitive advantages 

of native herbaceous plants should match the types, 

timing, and frequencies of prescribed disturbances 

to those under which these plants evolved. Several 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Complex Resources and Description 39 

sources indicate that native grasslands devoid of grazing and fire deteriorate quickly (Anderson et al. 1970, 

Kirsch and Kruse 1973, Kirsch et al. 1978, Schacht and 

Stubbendieck 1985). The grasslands function similarly 

to living organisms in that they respond to activities 

within the ecosystem. Specifically, the forbs and grasses 

covering the landscape have developed biological adaptations to thrive in the presence of herbivory and 

fire. Wildlife managers use various tools—including 

prescribed fire and prescribed grazing—to emulate the 

defoliation process with which prairie plants evolved. 

The frequency of certain activities depends on the 

particular habitat components. For instance, a pristine native prairie tract may require a burn every 3–5 

years and intermittent, prescribed grazing of domestic 

cattle, whereas areas that are heavily invaded require 

more frequent management treatments. Prescribed 

fire, mowing, and herbicide application can reduce the 

abundance of smooth brome, but without sustained 

control efforts, the species is remarkably persistent 

(Willson and Stubbendieck 2000). 

In determining restoration actions, vegetation 

composition is considered along a habitat continuum, 

where plant communities can be separated by degree 

of invasion by undesirable plants. A continuum for native prairie in eastern South Dakota (beginning with 

the least desirable vegetation) could be shown as: 

noxious weeds (for example, Canada thistle or leafy 

spurge) → nonnative, woody species (for example, 

Russian olive or Siberian elm) → invasive, volunteer 

woody species (for example, eastern red cedar) → 

smooth brome → Kentucky bluegrass → native low 

shrubs (for example, western snowberry) and native 

herbaceous vegetation. With management, less desirable plant species are replaced by more desirable 

plant groups. For example, it is acceptable in the short 

term to increase Kentucky bluegrass in areas where 

leafy spurge is reduced. Conversely, replacement of 

Kentucky bluegrass by smooth brome is undesirable. 

Therefore, restoration management should focus 

more on strategies to reduce smooth brome. Smooth 

brome generally seems more difficult to control than 

other introduced cool-season grasses (Murphy and 

Grant 2005). Smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and 

crested wheatgrass are all “strong invaders” (Ortega 

and Pearson 2005), able to become community dominants and form nearly monospecific stands. However, 

smooth brome more significantly alters the quality 

and structure of native prairie than does Kentucky 

bluegrass (Blankespoor 1987); may have a competitive advantage over native grasses, particularly in 

high nitrogen soils (Vinton and Goergen 2006); and 

can modify soil microbiota to directly facilitate its own 

invasion and subsequently impede restoration of native communities (Jordan et al. 2008). 

A strategy to decrease the competitive abilities of 

Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome should focus 

on the combined use of prescribed fire and prescribed 

grazing. Kentucky bluegrass responds well to fire, 

decreasing in abundance as fire frequency increases 

until it is nearly absent in annually or biannually 

burned plots in both low-productivity (Knops 2006) 

and high-productivity prairies (Smith and Knapp 

1999, Towne and Owensby 1984). Fire has the greatest 

negative effect on Kentucky bluegrass during stem 

elongation or in dry years (Murphy and Grant 2005). 

Conversely, Kentucky bluegrass tends to increase 

under prolonged rest or with grazing (Murphy and 

Grant 2005). Smooth brome also increases under rest 

but, in contrast to Kentucky bluegrass, appears sensitive to repeated grazing but unaffected or variably 

affected by prescribed fire (also reviewed in Murphy 

and Grant 2005). Periodic monitoring will ensure that 

the appropriate management treatment is applied for 

the invasive species and severity of the infestation on 

the given management unit. 

Historically, the prairie was a treeless landscape. 

Trees and tall shrubs can diminish the survival of 

nests of grassland birds by harboring potential nest 

predators. They also provide perches from which 

brown-headed cowbirds can find other species’ nests in 

which to lay eggs. Relatively small areas of tall woody 

vegetation can effectively fragment grassland habitats and cause many grassland bird species to avoid 

entire landscapes. Based on these findings, elimination 

of tall woody cover is a logical strategy for restoration 

of landscape structure and plant community composition, as well as a means to improve the attractiveness 

and security of the habitat for a variety of grasslandbreeding bird species. 

Although the focus of this objective is the restoration and maintenance of floristic composition in native 

prairie, wildlife will also benefit. The contemporary 

breeding bird community on waterfowl production 

areas in eastern South Dakota is characterized by 

species that tolerate introduced, cool-season grasses 

and relatively tall, dense, herbaceous cover. Habitat 

for a broader array of northern prairie birds (including 

several endemics and other species characteristic of 

the historical native prairie community) may be significantly increased by providing frequent disturbance 

and the resulting increases in early successional stages.

 Nevertheless, there are often tradeoffs in wildlife 

response to consider when reintroducing major habitat disturbances such as fire and grazing; short-term 

losses should be weighed against net gains over longer 

periods. For example, management treatments might 

influence the survival of grassland bird nests—directly 

by burning nests or through livestock trampling, or 

indirectly through increased predation or brood parasitism rates—when nest site vegetation is modified 

by fire or grazing. 
40 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

Despite declines in densities during the first growing season following a prescribed burn, Murphy et al. 

(2005) found that most species of grassland-breeding 

birds in northern mixed-grass prairie are adapted to 

recurring fire (every 4–6 years) by nesting in unburned 

patches and returning to pre-burn levels of abundance 

and nest density after the first growing season. Further, 

the authors found that fire had almost no discernible 

impact on nest survival for all species of grassland 

birds examined, with the exception of the Savannah 

sparrow in the first post-burn growing season. 

Murphy et al. (2005) found similar results for waterfowl; duck nest densities were reduced during the 

first growing season following a fire, but recovered 

2–3 years post-fire. Similarly, Kruse and Bowen (1996) 

found that grazing alone reduced nest densities during 

the grazing years, but the vegetation and ducks recovered quickly after grazing ended. However, studies 

of nesting success have reported neutral to positive 

responses of waterfowl to grazing and prescribed fire. 

Murphy et al. (2005) found greater nest survival for 

mallards and gadwalls during the first post-fire growing season than in subsequent years and no fire effects 

on nest survival in other duck species, regardless of 

how recently fire had occurred. Kruse and Bowen 

(1996) found that waterfowl nest success was not influenced by prescribed fire and grazing treatments, 

while several studies have reported greater nesting 

success in grazed grasslands than in other habitats 

in the Plains and Prairie Pothole Region (Barker et 

al. 1990, Greenwood et al. 1995). Warren et al. (2008) 

found that nesting females were most successful at 

sites with above-average vegetation density that 

are in fields with increased grazing intensity (that is, 

nesting in clumps of vegetation in areas more generally characterized by low levels of residual cover). 

Grazed areas may attract fewer predators because 

of low densities of some types of prey, such as small 

mammals (Grant et al. 1982, Runge 2005), less cover 

for concealment, or both. Higher nesting success in 

grazed fields may occur because predators respond 

negatively to low prey density (Clark and Nudds 1991, 

Lariviére and Messier 1998). 

South Dakota upland plant associations are shown 

in appendix G. 

RiPARiAn AREAS AnD ASSoCiATED VEGETATion 

CommuniTiES 

The riparian areas of the refuge complex fall mostly 

within the Karl E. Mundt Refuge, located along the 

Missouri River. The broken topography of the river 

breaks provide valuable riparian habitat. Draws and 

northern aspects are heavily wooded with deciduous 

forests that provide essential roosting and nesting 

sites for bald eagles and many other migratory birds. 

Cottonwood forests were historically a major component of the floodplains of the Missouri River. Floods 

supported a healthy ecosystem by offering moisture 

to sustain trees and wetland plants, depositing sediment and nutrients to enhance soils and providing 

seedbeds for establishing new cottonwood stands. The 

use of flow-regulating facilities (for example, levees 

and dams) has led to major cottonwood declines with 

existing cottonwood stands aging and being replaced 

by later-successional species. Bald eagles are highly 

dependent on mature cottonwoods for roosting and 

nesting. A cottonwood restoration plan is essential 

for the restitution of riparian diversity and habitat for 

bald eagle and other migratory bird species. 

Dominant trees of the riparian woodlands include 

prairie cottonwood, green ash, American elm, box elder, 

hackberry, peach-leaved willow, bur oak, white mulberry, common hackberry, and honey locust. Russian 

olive and eastern red cedar are invasive tree species 

that are beginning to dominate the landscape. The 

presence of these species can reduce the integrity of 

the riparian habitat. Emphasis is placed on the eradication of these species on refuge complex riparian lands. 

Common shrubs include roughleaf dogwood, riverbank grape, woodbine, narrowleaf willow, and sandbar 

willow. Riverbottom grasses and forbs are primarily 

Canada wildrye, prairie sandreed, big bluestem, switchgrass, dogbane, milkweed, white snakeroot, Downy 

brome, sand dropseed, sedge, ragweed, sweetclover, 

and prairie cordgrass. Canada thistle has infested 

almost all riparian margins in eastern South Dakota, 

including those that lie within the refuge complex. 

Leafy spurge and musk thistle are also becoming 

widespread invaders in these areas. This is particularly troublesome because invasive plants in riparian 

areas provide a constant supply of seed to downstream 

areas through water movement. Chemical, mechanical, and biological control of Canada thistle and other 

herbaceous weed infestations are of high priority. 

Dominant plants of the uplands of riparian areas 

include switchgrass, big bluestem, little bluestem, 

sideoats grama, western wheatgrass, green needlegrass, silver buffaloberry, and yucca. Invasive species 

such as Canada thistle, musk thistle, and leafy spurge 

are also invading these uplands and are being targeted 

with control methods. 

3.4 Wildlife 

mAmmAlS 

A total of 57 mammals have been recorded in South 

Dakota (appendix H); of these, 48 mammal species have 

been recorded on the refuge complex. Representative 

species include coyote, red fox, white-tailed jackrabbit, white-tailed deer, thirteen-lined ground squirrel, 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Complex Resources and Description 41 

badger, raccoon, mink, muskrat, striped skunk, deer 

mouse, masked shrew and meadow vole. 

BiRDS 

Numerous bird species occur in South Dakota (appendix H); more than 220 bird species have been 

documented throughout the refuge complex. There 

are 85 bird species known to breed within the refuge 

complex, 13 of which are waterfowl species. The six 

most abundant of the breeding duck species include 

mallard, blue-winged teal, northern pintail, gadwall, 

American widgeon, and northern shoveler. When habitat conditions are favorable, breeding duck densities 

exceed 60 pairs per square mile in several portions 

of the refuge complex. The Service began conducting annual breeding waterfowl population surveys 

throughout North Dakota, South Dakota, and northeastern Montana in 1987, focusing on 13 duck species 

that are the primary breeding species in the Plains 

and Prairie Pothole Region. Based on survey data, a 

strong positive relationship exists between wetland 

condition (that is, wet area or number of wet ponds) 

and both breeding pairs and duck recruitment. 

Twenty-eight species of shorebirds have been documented throughout the refuge complex. Three shorebird species are regular breeders on refuge complex 

lands: killdeer, spotted sandpiper, and upland sandpiper. 

Regionally rare species such as marbled godwits are 

commonly observed on the refuge complex. A number 

of songbirds migrate through or nest on the refuge 

complex. Declining species, such as grasshopper sparrow, bobolink, western meadowlark, and dickcissel, 

are commonly observed on refuge complex grasslands. 

The Karl E. Mundt Refuge was established after 

discovering nearly 300 endangered bald eagles—the 

largest population of wintering bald eagles at that 

time—spending the winter below the Fort Randall 

Dam. In 1992, the refuge became the site of the first 

successful nesting attempt in South Dakota in over 

a century. Since that time more than 30 eaglets have 

been recruited to the population from the refuge. 

Beginning with that first nest 20 years ago, the bald 

eagle nesting population in South Dakota has expanded 

to more than 20 active nests. The high recruitment 

rate and the close proximity of nests on the refuge 

are testimony to the quality of the habitat. 

fiSH 

Most of the wetlands on the refuge complex are too 

shallow to support a fishery. However, there are wetlands in the Schaeffer Waterfowl Production Area and 

Scheffel Waterfowl Production Area in Bon Homme 

County that are typically deep enough to support a fishery. These wetlands are regularly stocked for fishing. 

Historically, Lake Andes was one of the best bass 

fishing lakes in South Dakota. It was a well-stocked 

fishery supporting species such as northern pike, 

largemouth bass, yellow perch, bluegill, black crappie, 

walleye, and channel catfish. Today, the lake suffers 

from low dissolved oxygen levels and high concentrations of algae. The poor water quality of Lake Andes 

has reduced the high species richness that once characterized the lake. Carp and black bullhead are the 

only species that can tolerate the poor quality of the 

lake. These species are further degrading the water 

quality through their aggressive feeding behavior 

that agitates the water to the degree that sunlight 

penetration is blocked, which impairs aquatic vegetation growth. 

THREATEnED AnD EnDAnGERED SPECiES 

Endangered whooping cranes sometimes use refuge 

complex lands for feeding and resting during their 

spring and fall migrations. Additionally, there are 

two federally delisted species commonly observed 

on Service lands within the refuge complex. Recently 

delisted from the endangered species list, bald eagles 

and peregrine falcons frequently use the refuge complex lands. Bald eagles regularly use the mature cottonwood habitat of Karl E. Mundt Refuge for roosting 

and nesting. Peregrine falcons benefit from the abundance of prey such as small birds and ducks. 

The American burying beetle, which was listed 

as an endangered species in 1989, has recently been 

discovered inhabiting Gregory County; however, none 

have been documented on the Karl E. Mundt Refuge, 

which lies within Gregory County, nor on any other 

unit of the refuge complex. 

3.5 Visitor Services 

The refuge complex offers a variety of recreational 

opportunities to local residents and other visitors 

centered on the wildlife resources. Opportunities on 

the refuge complex include wildlife-dependent and 

wildlife compatible uses legislated by Congress and 

outlined in the Improvement Act. These uses include 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation. 

HunTinG 

The Center Unit of Lake Andes and all waterfowl 

production areas are open to hunting for white-tailed 

deer, ring-necked pheasant, and other State game. The 

peak period for hunting is during ring-necked pheasant hunting season in the fall. 

fiSHinG 

Fishing is permitted year-round on the Center and 

South Units of Lake Andes and on the wetlands of 

Schaeffer and Scheffel Waterfowl Production Areas 

in Bon Homme County. The water level of the lake 
42 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

and wetlands are highly dependent on surface runoff. 

Thus, cycles of wet and dry periods commonly affect 

fishing opportunities. 

The wetlands at Schaeffer and Scheffel Waterfowl 

Production Areas are typically deep enough to support 

a fishery and are regularly stocked with yellow perch. 

The poor water quality of Lake Andes today (low dissolved oxygen levels and high algal growth) can only 

support carp and black bullhead during dry cycles. 

Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters 

USFWS 

EnViRonmEnTAl EDuCATion AnD 

inTERPRETATion 

Refuge complex staff members provide educational 

talks and tours for schools and other groups on request. 

Informational brochures and refuge complex maps are 

available at the refuge complex headquarters and at 

information kiosks located outside of the headquarters 

and at the beginning of the nature trail. Throughout 

the Atkins Wetland Interpretive Trail interpretive 

signs illustrate the importance of conserving wetlands 

and restoring native grasslands. An estimated 1,058 

environmental education and interpretation participants visit the refuge complex each year. 

WilDlifE oBSERVATion AnD PHoToGRAPHy 

The refuge complex provides great opportunities for 

viewing and photographing wildlife, particularly views 

of migrations of waterfowl, shorebirds, and neotropical 

migratory birds. Ducks and geese begin concentrating in large numbers in October, and numbers generally peak in December. The abundance and variety of 

wildlife species combined with relatively low visitation 

provides many opportunities to view wildlife close up. 

Lake Andes Refuge offers a 1-mile foot trail that 

winds around the Prairie Ponds (four small ponds about 

1–4 acres in size) and runs along Owens Bay. The trailhead is next to the refuge complex headquarters, and 

an observation platform provides an elevated view of 

the ponds, which are managed to provide attractive 

habitat for migratory birds during spring and fall migration. Waterfowl, shorebirds, grassland birds, and 

white-tailed deer are common along this route. 

The 1-mile Atkins Wetland Interpretive Trail offers self-guided opportunities to observe 160 acres of 

wetlands and native prairies on the Atkins Waterfowl 

Production Area. Interpretive signs along the trail 

present information about the importance of conserving wetlands and restoring native grasslands as well 

as describing some of the birds visitors may encounter. 

The trail leads to an overlook where visitors can admire native prairies. Waterfowl, grassland birds, and 

white-tailed deer can easily be spotted on this trail. 

3.6 Socioeconomics 

The 14-county area of the Lake Andes National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex is home to over 154,000 persons. Since 

1990, the population has grown by 1.1 percent per year 

(BBC Research & Consulting 2008). This 14-county 

area employs over 70,000 workers mostly in trades, 

transportation, utilities, government, education and 

health services, and manufacturing (BBC Research 

& Consulting 2008). 

The refuge complex employs six full-time equivalent 

employees and one part-time employee, for a total of 

6.7 full-time equivalents (appendix I). The most current budget totaled $687,400, of which about $544,000 

went toward salaries. 

An estimated 15,000 hunting visits occur on the 

refuge complex each year—about 81 percent of all 

visitations to the refuge complex. It is estimated that 

total expenditure by hunters at the refuge complex is 

about $570,400 per year (BBC Research & Consulting 

2008). An estimated 741 fishing visits occur each year 

on the refuge complex. The expenditure from these 

visits has been estimated to generate about $12,800 

per year (BBC Research & Consulting 2008). There 

are an estimated 2,800 wildlife observation and photography visits to the refuge complex each year. Total 

expenditure by these nonconsumptive recreational 

activities—including environmental education and 

interpretation—is estimated to be $36,800 per year 

(BBC Research & Consulting 2008). A report titled 

“Banking on Nature” evaluated the impacts of refuges on local economies. Lake Andes National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex was estimated to generate about 

$620,000 per year in total visitor expenditures (BBC 

Research & Consulting 2008). 

3.7 operations 

Operations includes infrastructure and staff, cultural 

resources, partnerships, law enforcement, and fire and 

grazing history and management. 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Complex Resources and Description 43 

infRASTRuCTuRE AnD STAff 

The refuge complex includes three government residences. Other buildings on the refuge complex include 

a headquarters building that provides office space 

for staff and a small visitor contact area with a public 

restroom and a maintenance building that provides 

office space for staff, vehicle maintenance facilities, 

a woodworking area, a metalworking area, a wash 

bay, and some heated vehicle storage. Two unheated 

garages with concrete floors provide additional motor vehicle storage. The remaining buildings include 

a dirt floor garage and an open pole shed. Expanding 

visitor services on the refuge complex would require 

an expansion of the headquarters to provide a visitor 

center and to support additional staff. 

Grass seed used in native prairie restoration efforts 

is currently stored in a portion of the wash bay in the 

maintenance building. The area is inadequate in size 

to store seed or equipment needed to prepare grass 

and forb seeds for planting. It is also prone to mouse 

invasion. Expanding prairie reconstruction would require additional equipment and infrastructure. 

An artesian well adjacent to Owens Bay is the 

primary water source for the prairie ponds—a series 

of small wetlands that are managed for wildlife observation, environmental education, and interpretation. The current well was developed in 1985. Upon 

completion it flowed at 900 gallons per minute. Since 

that time much of the casing has collapsed, and the 

flow has diminished to 250 gallons per minute, which 

barely provides enough water to adequately manage 

the prairie ponds. To maintain the prairie ponds for 

visitor services, a new well will need to be developed. 

The refuge complex staff totals 6.7 full-time equivalent positions. The staff includes a wildlife refuge 

manager, a deputy wildlife refuge manager, a station 

wildlife biologist, a Partners for Fish and Wildlife biologist, a budget analyst (administrative officer), and 

two maintenance workers. The current staff is reduced 

from previous years and is not adequate to manage 

habitat or provide appropriate visitor services. 

CulTuRAl RESouRCES 

Humans have occupied central North America for 

more than 12,000 years and have left a diverse cultural 

material legacy on the landscape. Several researchers 

have summarized our understanding of the prehistory 

and history of the northeastern plains (DeMallie, R. 

J. 2001, Jackson and Toom 1999, Lehmer, D. J. 1971, 

Schneider, M. J. 2002, Gregg, Michael L., David Meyer, 

Paul R. Picha, and David G. Stanley 1996; Wedel 1961, 

Winham and Hannus 1989; Wood 1998), and only a 

brief review will be provided here. 

The cultural chronology can be divided into six 

basic periods: 

■■ Paleoindian (ca. 9500–5500 B.C.) 

■■ Plains Archaic (ca. 5500–500 B.C.) 

■■ Plains Woodland (ca. 500 B.C.–A.D. 1000) 

■■ Plains Village (ca. A.D. 1000–1780) 

■■ Protohistoric and Early Historic Period (ca. A.D. 

1780-1880) 

■■ Modern Historic (ca. A.D. 1880–) 

The first three periods refer to prehistoric nomadic 

and seminomadic cultural traditions with the fourth 

period defined by a semisedentary horticultural Plains 

Village Tradition which extends into historical times. 

Next, for many peoples the Protohistoric and Early 

Historic Periods encompass the decline of the Plains 

Village Tradition and the rise of the Plains Equestrian 

Tradition which developed as a consequence of the introduction of the domestic horse and European manufactured trade goods into the northeastern plains. At 

the end of the Plains Equestrian Tradition, ca. A.D. 

1880, the modern Euro-American Tradition becomes 

the dominant tradition. 

Portions of five archeological regions, the Big Bend, 

Fort Randall, Lower James, Vermillion Basin, and 

the Lower Big Sioux and the Yankton region in its 

entirety are included within the Lake Andes Wetland 

Management District. These regions, based on drainage 

units, are defined in the ‘South Dakota State Plan for 

Archeological Resources: Introduction and Overview to 

Study Units and Archeological Management Regions’ 

(Winham and Hannus 1989). This State plan identifies, 

with more specificity, information about the known 

archeological resources, cultures, and gaps in our current understanding (Winham and Hannus 1989) of the 

past of the resources within the wetland management 

district than this summary. 

Cultural developments are often influenced by 

movements of people or ideas from adjacent areas. 

The Big Sioux and James Rivers accessed the Lower 

Missouri River Valley lifeways, while hunters followed 

the bison onto the plains from the eastern woodlands, 

and peoples and ideas trailed up the Missouri River. 

Gregg, Meyer, Picha, and Stanley document the central portion of the wetland management district, the 

lower James River Valley, as prominent in the origin 

and development of the Plains Village cultures in both 

the northeastern plains and the middle Missouri, while 

the eastern portion of the wetland management district exhibits strong ties to the central plains cultural 

area in later prehistoric times (Gregg, Meyer, Picha, 

Stanley 1996). 

Paleoindian Period (9500–5500 B.C.) 

The first inhabitants of the area arrived during the 

Paleoindian period which has been provisionally dated 

to approximately 9500–5500 years B.C. The age range 

of this period is based mainly on Paleoindian finds 

elsewhere in the Great Plains because the Paleoindian 
44 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

artifacts identified in Southeast South Dakota have 

been surface finds where the age cannot be defined 

by other means. This period began with the initial 

entry of humans into the northeastern plains following the retreat of the last of the Pleistocene glaciers. 

These Paleoindian peoples exhibited highly nomadic 

settlement patterns and subsistence economies based 

on hunting now-extinct species of mammoth and bison and gathering plants that were adapted to late 

Pleistocene and early Holocene climates. 

Plains Archaic Period (5500–500 B.C.) 

The Plains Archaic period followed the Paleoindian 

period from approximately 5500 B.C. to 500 B.C. 

Relatively few Plains Archaic sites have been identified in the Lake Andes area, and even fewer have been 

extensively investigated. This period is characterized 

as an extension of the nomadic hunting and gathering adaptation from the preceding period, but it was 

adapted to essentially modern (Holocene) climate, 

fauna, and flora. Bison remained the principal quarry 

of these people, although deer and elk were exploited 

along the prairie–woodland transition. There is also 

evidence of intensified seed and plant gathering and 

processing during the Plains Archaic period. Other 

changes included the adoption of the atlatl and dart 

and an overall decline in the quality of flint knapping 

from the Paleoindian period. 

Plains Woodland Period (500 B.C.–A.D. 1000) 

Plains Woodland lifeways are thought to have shared 

many similarities with those of the Plains Archaic 

period, particularly subsistence economies based on 

hunting and gathering. However, the practice of mound 

burial, possibly indicative of more complex ceremonialism; the production and use of ceramic vessels; and the 

first use of the bow and arrow all appear to have been 

developments that distinguish the Plains Woodland 

period. It is also possible that horticulture made its 

first appearance during Plains Woodland times, but 

direct evidence of this is lacking in the Northern Plains 

(Jackson and Toom 1999). It also has been suggested 

that Plains Woodland peoples enjoyed a somewhat 

more settled lifeway, shifting from the fully nomadic 

settlement pattern of the Plains Archaic period to a 

seminomadic pattern. 

The appearance of the Plains Woodland Tradition 

in the northeastern plains is an extension or diffusion of the general woodland lifeway that flourished 

throughout the Midwest (to the east and southeast) 

during this period. Artifact assemblages of the Plains 

Woodland Tradition reflect the introduction of ceramic 

technology and the acquisition of exotic trade materials. Late in the tradition, the transition from dart or 

spear points to arrow points can be seen in weapons 

technology. The lifeway is characterized by increased 

sedentism, population growth, and the construction of 

earthen burial mounds. Again, adaptation to the plains 

or prairie environment of the eastern woodland influences resulted in a distinctive subsistence pattern that 

relied heavily on bison hunting. Plains Woodland campsites are generally identified where river and stream 

valleys extended into the plains proper, affording a 

riparian setting for the establishment of base camps 

(Jackson and Toom 1999). 

Plains Village Period (A.D. 1000–1780) 

In the Northern Plains a semisedentary horticultural 

way of life, the Plains Village Tradition, is best known 

from its many village sites that have been found along 

the Missouri River trench in the Dakotas. The Plains 

Village Tradition first appeared in the middle Missouri 

about A.D. 1000. It flourished there throughout most 

of the late prehistoric period and persisted in attenuated form well into historic times. Direct links 

or continuums have not been identified between the 

local Plains Woodland folks and these Plains Village 

peoples (Gregg, Meyer, Picha, Stanley 1996). 

Some Tribal groups, such as the Middle Dakota, 

Assiniboine, and Plains Ojibwa continue the previous 

woodland adaptations into historic times while others, 

such as the Awaxawi Hidatsa and Ioway, lived as Plains 

Villagers. Others, such as the Cheyenne, had people 

living both woodland and Plains Villager adaptations 

(Gregg, Meyer, Picha, Stanley 1996). The Plains Village 

period is brought to a close at A.D. 1780 following the 

decimation of the Plains Village population base along 

the Missouri River by a smallpox epidemic. 

Plains Village culture was distinctly different from 

its Plains Woodland antecedent. It was characterized 

by the construction of substantial, permanent dwellings known as earth lodges arranged into villages along 

major streams with the broad valley floors required 

for gardening. Later these villages became fortified 

as drought conditions apparently reduced the extent 

of limited amounts of arable land and there were food 

shortages. Plains Village sites in southeastern South 

Dakota were abandoned at this time (Gregg, Meyer, 

Picha, Stanley 1996). 

Subsistence was based on a mixed strategy of horticulture, or garden agriculture, including the cultivation of maize, beans, squash, and sunflowers; bison 

hunting; and generalized hunting and gathering, or 

foraging. Continued elaboration and sophistication in 

ceramic manufacture also typify the period, with wellmade, globular-shaped and shouldered pots exhibiting 

a wide variety of stylistic variability typifying most 

village collections. 

The Plains Village settlement pattern is interpreted 

as semisedentary, with people residing in their villages 

at various times of the year, especially during times 

of important horticultural activity, and leaving their 

villages at other times to go on extended hunts. A key 

element in the Plains Village adaptation was the production of a dependable, storable, surplus food supply. 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Complex Resources and Description 45 

This surplus consisted of both meat and garden produce that was usually stored in subterranean storage 

pits, commonly called cache pits, another identifying 

attribute of the tradition. 

Considerable archeological and ethnohistorical evidence indicates direct connections between the prehistoric Plains Village Tradition; the related Oneota 

settlements that may have included the Ioway, Oto, 

and Omaha; the related Coalescent Tradition in the 

Northern Plains; and the historically known Mandan, 

Hidatsa, Arikara, and Cheyenne peoples. 

Protohistoric And Early Historic Period (A.D. 

1780–1890) 

Protohistoric refers to the time of initial Euro-American 

cultural impact on native cultures prior to actual 

contact. European cultural influence may have come 

as early as A.D. 1650 with the introduction of trade 

goods filtering into the area via native trade networks. 

Horses were introduced from the south by the mid1700s. By the end of the eighteenth century and the 

beginning of early historical times, fur trade expansion 

had profoundly influenced Native American lifeways 

in the Dakotas. Participation in the fur trading system 

brought changes in material culture and subsistence 

practices just as interaction with Euro-Americans 

intensified. 

The Plains Equestrian Tradition, also referred to 

as the Equestrian Nomadic Tradition, evolved during 

the Protohistoric Period and early historical times following the introduction of the domestic horse via trade 

networks extending into the Spanish Southwest. In 

the Northern Plains, acquisition of the horse by Native 

American peoples was well underway by about A.D. 

1750. The Plains Equestrian Tradition represents the 

well-known nomadic bison hunters of early historical 

times who spent much of the year in tipi camps. During 

this period, there was greater cultural interaction 

among native groups due to improved transportation 

by horse and an ever increasing trade influenced by 

Euro-American trade. 

When Lewis and Clark traveled through the Lake 

Andes area in the summer of 1804 they were met by 

the Yankton Sioux. Further upstream on the Missouri 

River were the Dakota and Lakota and downstream 

were the Ponca (South Dakota Archeological Research 

Center 1977). Fifty years later, by 1858, the Yankton 

were confined to a four hundred thousand-acre reservation that exists today (Nesheim 2009, Schneider 2002). 

By A.D. 1880, Euro-American cultural domination 

of what was to become North and South Dakota was 

complete. Permanent non-Indian settlement of the 

States came about with the construction of railroads 

and the security of military protection. Military occupation of the Dakotas accelerated in response to the 

1862 Sioux Uprising in Minnesota. The establishment 

of permanent forts in the Dakota Territory prepared 

the way for increased settlement by Europeans. In addition to the military complement and their families, a 

civilian population was employed to supply goods and 

services to the army. Railroads penetrated the territory in the 1870s, and homesteaders immigrated to 

the area partly because transportation and military 

protection were assured. Settlers acquired land from 

the railroads or from the government through the 

Homestead, Pre-emption, and Timber Culture acts in 

the 1870s and 1880s. Agricultural settlement followed 

a cyclical pattern of boom and decline. Settlement 

spread generally from east to west, and in 1889 the 

Dakotas achieved statehood. 

modern Historic (ca. A.D. 1880–) 

The refuge complex’s early 20th century history is 

tied to the Works Progress Administration, which was 

the program responsible for building the two roadway dikes that split Lake Andes into three separate 

units. These dikes are considered historic resources. 

Many of the old homesteads that existed on Lake 

Andes Refuge, Karl E. Mundt Refuge, and several waterfowl production areas have been removed. Before 

any groundbreaking activities, such as removing these 

homesteads, the refuge complex staff complies with 

Federal and State laws and regulations, specifically 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966. Under these provisions, local archeologists 

inspect and record the area of interest to determine 

if the groundbreaking disturbance would affect any 

historic properties. 

Wetland management District Archeological 

investigations 

Approximately sixteen linear archeological surveys 

have crossed Service lands within the Lake Andes 

wetland management district. The surveys followed 

the path of proposed telephone lines, power lines, 

water pipelines and road and bridge projects (South 

Dakota Archaeological Research Center 2011). Many 

small block surveys have been conducted on the wetland management district and the refuges by Service 

and contracted archeologists. Two major surveys were 

for the Lake Andes-Wagner Irrigation Project and 

the survey of the headquarters and residence at Lake 

Andes Refuge and Karl E. Mundt Refuge (Church, 

McCallister, and Williams 1984; Zimmerman, Werner, 

Park, and Tudehope 1978). Additionally, the Broken 

Arrow WPA was surveyed in 1985 (Winham 1985). 

Reporting of sites from the archeological surveys 

within Service lands has been disappointing, with only 

eight sites being reported. Four isolated finds, two 

artifact scatters, and two historic farmsteads have 

been recorded. The isolated finds include stone flakes, 

choppers, and knife fragments. The two artifacts scatters of undated antiquity are prehistoric campsites. 
46 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

PARTnERSHiPS 

The refuge complex does not have a friends group to 

support and advocate for its conservation and visitor 

services programs. Such groups have almost become a 

necessity to help a refuge program achieve its potential. In rural areas it is a challenge to find individuals 

interested in volunteering their own time to support 

a refuge; however, the planning process has made 

identifying such individuals easier. 

lAW EnfoRCEmEnT 

Law enforcement officers monitor the many conservation easements managed by the refuge complex to 

ensure that wetlands and grasslands critical to wildlife are protected. They also perform the more traditional role of checking visitors to ensure compliance 

with conservation laws. Two officers are required 

when contacting individuals regarding a conservation 

easement violation. The current refuge complex staff 

only includes one member whose position is eligible 

for law enforcement authority. An additional law enforcement officer is needed to efficiently enforce and 

protect conservation easements. 

fiRE AnD GRAzinG HiSToRy AnD mAnAGEmEnT 

Before European settlement, wildfires, grazing (primarily by bison, prairie dogs, and insects), and drought 

were the primary ecological disturbances that revitalized grasslands. Ignitions for these wildfires were 

caused by both lightning and Native Americans, with 

most wildfires likely occurring during the summer and 

fall. Depending on weather conditions, a wildfire could 

burn thousands of acres, creating a mosaic of burned, 

unburned, and grazed areas. Historical fire frequency 

was probably highly variable but has decreased since 

settlement (Umbanhowar 1996); however, little information is available on the presettlement occurrence 

of fire within the refuge complex area. For the mixedgrass prairie, fire-return interval evidence seems to 

point to about every 5–10 years on the moist portions 

of mixed-grass prairie and around 25 years on dry portions (Frost 1998, Wright and Bailey 1982). In general, 

where precipitation is limited, such as in the western 

and central grasslands, a long-term decline in grass 

production occurs when burning is more frequent than 

every 5–10 years. This fire frequency may be best for 

natural fire management of grasslands, such as the 

short- or mixed-grass prairies, although fire exclusion may be best for other purposes (Bragg 1995). 

Tallgrass prairie tends to have a quicker fire-return 

interval than mixed-grass prairie. Science seems to 

indicate roughly a 3- to 7-year fire-return interval for 

most of the tallgrass prairie. 

After settlement by Europeans, wildfires were 

suppressed. Today, most local fire departments and 

area farmers and ranchers still aggressively suppress 

wildfires. It has also been the policy on Service lands 

within the refuge complex to aggressively suppress 

wildfires. 

The refuge complex uses prescribed fire to simulate 

the historical influence fire had on plant communities. 

Burning removes layers of residual cover; this action 

can reduce plant species diversity and increase a wildfire’s resistance to control. Even though prescribed fire 

can occur at any time of year, most prescribed fires 

are currently applied in April and May, depending 

on the prescribed fire’s objectives and the associated 

impacts on flora and fauna. The refuge complex’s use 

of this tool is limited by many factors including plan 

development, staff availability, and weather. Because 

of these limiting factors, prescribed fire is rarely used 

on refuge complex lands. Since 2001, the refuge complex has treated about 3,800 acres with prescribed fire. 

Although prescribed fires are infrequent on the 

refuge complex, air quality is still an issue when burns 

do occur. 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 can 

be breathed into the lungs. Carbon from automobiles 

and diesel engines, prescribed fire activities on refuge 

complex lands, and dust associated with wind-blown 

sand and dirt from roadways and fields contribute to 

particulate matter. 

Similar to fire, grazing greatly influences the structure and composition of grassland communities. 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. 

Refuge complex staff work with cooperators to 

mimic grazing disturbances such as grazing by bison. 

Grazing is generally conducted during the spring and 

early summer for about 6 weeks, and again in the fall 

in upland habitats, to stress exotic cool-season grasses 

and favor native warm-season grasses and forbs. In 

this instance, overgrazing is beneficial as it damages 

invasive grasses to the point where native seeds have 

a better chance to grow with less competition. 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction
 

A snowy owl perches on a sign in the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge. 

USFWS 

The Service developed objectives in support of goals 

identified in chapter 2 to carry out the proposed action 

(alternative B) for management of the Lake Andes 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. This chapter 

presents suggested strategies to achieve objectives; 

rationale supporting the goals, objectives, and strategies; and assumptions used in developing the CCP. 

Biological goals and objectives emphasize management of plant communities as habitat for wildlife, 

especially migratory birds, and are organized by major habitat types that occur on the refuge complex. 

Goals and objectives are habitat-based (rather than 

wildlife-based) because wildlife often responds to 

factors beyond control of local refuge management. 

(For example, disease outbreaks or habitat conditions on important staging or wintering sites can affect populations of migratory birds.) Furthermore, 

management practices such as fire, grazing, haying, 

tree removal, and water level manipulation focus on 

plant communities rather than wildlife populations. 

Habitat-based objectives emphasize monitoring of 

important vegetation attributes such as community 

composition and vegetation structure over time. In 

most cases, wildlife population responses to habitat 

changes are not directly monitored. Rather, site-specific 

inventories, applied research, and literature reviews 

allow for reasonable predictions of wildlife responses 

to habitat management. 

Important to note is that in South Dakota, the 

Service places highest priority on two groups of 

species—together known as trust species—and holds 

special responsibility in managing and conserving 

these species. The first group contains those species 

that are State or federally listed as endangered or 

threatened. Some listed species pass through the refuge complex (for example, whooping crane) or occur 

in the general area (for example, least tern and piping 

plover); however, the refuge complex does not provide 

significant habitat (for example, breeding habitat) for 

any listed species. 

The second group contains those species listed as 

migratory birds, a long list of birds that can be found 

in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. For the most part, 

migratory birds include all bird species that occur in 

the U.S. with the exception of nonnative birds (for 

example, European starling, English sparrow, and 

Eurasian collared dove) and nonmigratory birds (for 

example, sharp-tailed grouse and greater prairie 

chicken). According to Section 7 of Service Director’s 

Order 172, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to 

Protect Migratory Birds” (USFWS 2004): 

Many Service programs are actively involved 

in bird conservation activities. Our objective 

for migratory bird management and conservation is to minimize the potential adverse 

effects of migratory bird take, with the goal 

of striving to eliminate take, while implementing our mission. All Service programs strive 

to take an ecosystem approach to protection 

and restoration of species and their associated 
48 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

habitats. As migratory birds is one of our trust 

resources, all programs must emphasize an 

interdisciplinary, collaborative approach to 

migratory bird conservation in cooperation 

with other Service programs, in addition to 

other governments, State and Federal agencies, and non-Federal partners. However, 

we recognize that direct or indirect actions 

taken by Service employees in the execution 

of their duties and activities as authorized by 

Congress may result in the take of migratory 

birds. In many instances, short-term negative 

impacts on migratory birds are balanced by 

long-term benefits. We will incorporate ecosystem integrity, reduction of invasive species, and long-term adaptive management in 

migratory bird management, using the best 

available scientific information. 

Objectives in this chapter are written with trust species in mind. 

4.1 Identification of the 

Proposed Action 

The planning team has identified alternative B as the 

proposed action after determining that it accomplishes 

the following: 

■■ best achieves the purposes, vision, and goals for 

the refuge complex 

■■ helps fulfill the Refuge System mission 

■■ maintains and, where appropriate, restores the 

ecological integrity of the refuge complex and the 

Refuge System 

■■ addresses the significant issues and mandates 

■■ is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management 

Under the selected alternative, management of the 

refuge complex will emphasize developing and implementing an improved, science-based priority system 

to restore prairie habitats for the benefit of waterfowl, 

State and federally listed species, migratory birds, and 

other native wildlife. Refuge complex staff will focus 

on high-priority tracts and, when possible, on lowerpriority tracts. The focus will be to restore ecological 

processes and native grassland species to the greatest extent possible within the parameters of available 

resources and existing constraints. Refuge complex 

staff will seek to maintain and in some cases expand 

the existing levels and types of public use programs, 

ensuring that programs offered to the public are of 

consistently high quality. 

4.2 Goals, Objectives, 

Strategies, and Rationale 

The terms goal, objective, strategy, and rationale are 

defined below: 

■■ A goal is a descriptive, broad statement of desired 

future conditions that conveys a purpose but does 

not define measurable units. 

■■ An objective is a concise statement of what is to 

be achieved, how much is to be achieved, when and 

where it is to be achieved, and who is responsible 

for achieving it. 

■■ A strategy is a way to achieve an objective. 

■■ A rationale presents the background details used 

to formulate an objective. The rationale provides 

context to enhance comprehension and facilitate 

future evaluations. 

The management direction presented in this chapter 

meets the purposes, visions, and goals of the refuge 

complex. Objectives and strategies to carry out the 

goals will support both resource needs and public use. 

4.3 Prioritization for 

Waterfowl Production Areas 

For its waterfowl production areas, the Lake Andes 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex primarily emphasizes habitat protection and restoration. Strategic planning enables the Service to make decisions on what 

habitats need protection and what landscapes have the 

greatest value to the health of waterfowl populations. 

Based in Bismarck, North Dakota, the Habitat 

and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET) conducts 

research and develops predictive models. Through 

HAPET’s research and modeling of the Plains and 

Prairie Pothole Region of South Dakota, the Service 

can predict duck pair density. This modeling tool provides the Service with information needed to conserve 

and restore wetland and grassland landscapes that will 

benefit waterfowl and other bird species. The Service 

bases its protection priority for wetland and grassland 

habitat on this modeling effort. The Service’s conservation goal is to protect habitat capable of supporting 25 

or more breeding duck pairs per square mile. Figure 

19 shows the predicted concentrations of duck pairs 

throughout the refuge complex. 

A 2007 report by the U.S. Government Accountability 

Office analyzed the effectiveness of Service acquisitions under the waterfowl production area program. 

As a consequence of this analysis, the Service recently 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 49
 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Figure 19. Predicted concentrations of duck pairs throughout the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota. Source: HAPET 2008. 

CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 51 

completed a decision tree matrix (figure 20) that outlines how to set priorities for grassland and wetland 

acquisitions. Strategic planning increases the likelihood of making cost-effective decisions by avoiding 

misapplications of management treatments or investing 

in areas with limited potential to affect populations. 

PRIORITIzATION ObjECTIvE 

Implement the standardized, science-based prioritization decision tree developed for the CCP (figure 

20) so that limited money and management resources 

are objectively allocated to waterfowl production areas according to the potential for that unit to benefit 

waterfowl and grassland birds. Focus allocation of 

limited resources to high priority units as discussed 

in selected objectives below. Refine the prioritization 

system as additional biological information becomes 

available; reevaluate the prioritization system 5 years 

and 10 years after CCP approval. 

Strategies 

■■

waterfowl production areas according to the decision tree (figure 20) and as summarized below. 

1. Primary Criterion—Duck Pairs per Square Mile or 

Native Sod Tract Size. Duck Pairs per Square Mile 

is divided into two levels of priority: more than or 

equal to 60 and fewer than 60. Native Sod Tract 

Size is divided into two levels of priority: larger 

than 70 acres and smaller than 70 acres. 

2. Secondary Criterion—Waterfowl Production Area 

Tract Size or Planted Native Grass Tract Size. 

Waterfowl Production Area Tract Size is divided 

into two levels of priority: larger than 160 acres 

and smaller than 160 acres. Planted Native Grass 

Tract Size is divided into two levels of priority: 

larger than 100 acres and smaller than 100 acres. 

3. Tertiary Criterion—Land Protection within 1 Mile 

of Waterfowl Production Area. There are two levels of priority: larger than 160 acres and smaller 

than 160 acres. 

The result of objectively applying these three criteria 

using the decision tree (figure 20) is the assignment 

of a priority level for each waterfowl production area 

in the wetland management district (table 2). In all, 

there are eight priority levels. The highest priorities 

will receive the greatest focus when resources are 

limited. A range of priorities have been applied to 

selected objectives later in this chapter. 

Apply multiple selection criteria for prioritizing 

Most northern mixed-grass and tallgrass prairie has 

been destroyed. Key roles of the Refuge System include conservation of biological integrity, diversity, 

and ecological health (USFWS 2001). Accordingly, the 

Rationale 

refuge complex should contribute to the conservation 

of native prairie communities. 

However, Service-owned native prairie is badly 

deteriorated, mainly through extensive invasion by 

introduced, cool-season grasses. Recent inventory data 

suggest that relatively intact native herbaceous flora 

is uncommon on Service-owned land in the Dakotas, 

with few remaining large tracts dominated by native 

grasses and forbs (Grant et al. 2009). Current inventory data for the refuge complex (2009) indicate that 

native grasses and forbs are evident on 20 percent of 

the native prairie (figure 21). As of April 2012, there 

are 5,793 acres of native prairie on the refuge complex. 

It is likely that some native prairie vegetation has 

already passed a degradation threshold—in other words, 

restoration of a diverse, native herbaceous flora in such 

areas is an unrealistic and impractical goal. Multiple 

experiments in the northern Great Plains have found 

that fire and other control methods such as herbicide 

applications depend heavily for their success on the 

presence of a minimum of 20 percent of native species 

in the matrix (Dill et al. 1986, Willson and Stubbendieck 

2000). A grass matrix dominated by a few introduced 

species inhibits the germination, establishment, and 

persistence of most native species. However, restoration may be possible on some tracts, especially where 

native grasses, sedges, and forbs are more common 

and widespread. Such tracts need to be identified by 

objective criteria that focus on (1) the diversity and 

prevalence of existing native plants and (2) landscape 

area and connectivity. 

Both criteria underlie the quality of nesting habitat for grassland birds, a species guild of significant 

conservation concern. Grassland birds have become 

the fastest and most consistently declining guild of 

birds in North America (figure 22) (Herkert 1995, 

Knopf 1994, Peterjohn and Sauer 1999, Samson and 

Knopf 1994, Vickery and Herkert 2001); 48 percent of 

grassland species are of conservation concern and 55 

percent show significant declines (North American 

Bird Conservation Initiative 2009). As a result, a multitude of grassland-dependent birds are of conservation concern (table 3). Johnson (2006) found that at 

current rates of decline, within 40 years only 10–25 

percent of the population of these grassland bird species will remain. Accordingly, because South Dakota 

constitutes the central portion of many grasslandobligate bird species’ geographical ranges (Sauer et 

al. 2008), managing habitat for grassland birds is of 

critical importance. The refuge complex staff has developed a list of focal species it is best positioned to 

help protect and maintain on the basis of the species’ 

geographic ranges and specialized habitats; these species are identified in habitat management discussions 

throughout this chapter. 

A recent evaluation of habitat use and requirements 

for grassland bird species of greatest conservation 
More than 160 

acres protected 

lands within 

1 mile of WPA 

More than 160 

acres protected 

lands within 

1 mile of WPA 

More than 

60 duck pairs 

per square mile or 

more than 70 acres 

native prairie 

More than 

60 duck pairs 

per square mile or 

more than 70 acres 

native prairie 

Larger than 

160-acre WPA or 

more than 100 acres 

planted natives 

Larger than 

160-acre WPA or 

more than 100 acres 

planted natives 

Priorities 

Priorities 

Yes 1

Yes

No 2

Yes

Yes 3

No

No 4

Yes 5

Yes

No 6

No

Yes 7

No

No 8

WPA = waterfowl production area 

Figure 20. Decision tree for prioritizing management of waterfowl production areas. 

52 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 53 

Table 2. Priorities for management of waterfowl production areas according to the decision tree (figure 20). 

Waterfowl Waterfowl 

production area County Priority production area County Priority 

Boggs Hanson 1 VanZee Charles Mix 3
 

Broken Arrow Charles Mix 1 Vogel Davison
 3 

Coler Douglas 1 Zehnpfennig Davison 3 

Crystal Lake Aurora 1 Diede Yankton 4 

DeVelder Douglas 1 Huizenga Douglas 4 

Hieb Bon Homme 1 Koch Aurora 4
 

Humphrey Aurora 1 Kurtenbach Davison 4
 

King Douglas 1 Mayer Hutchinson 4
 

Krell Aurora 1 Novotny Charles Mix 4
 

Lutz Aurora 1 Pipal Brule 4
 

Maine Aurora 1 Ziebart Hutchinson 4
 

New Holland Douglas 1 Atkins Lincoln 5
 

Nielsen Aurora 1 Bertels Hanson 5
 

Plucker Turner 1 Black Thunder Charles Mix 5
 

Putnam Charles Mix 1 Bucholz Bon Homme 5
 

Raysby Charles Mix 1 Edelman Yankton 5
 

Sherman Charles Mix 1 Huber Charles Mix 5
 

Sorenson Aurora 1 Roth Hutchinson 5
 

Stanley Aurora 1 Youngstrom Charles Mix 5
 

Star Douglas 1 Fousek Charles Mix 6
 

Trout Charles Mix 1 Hohn Hutchinson 6
 

DeCook Douglas 2 Kafka Charles Mix 6
 

Green Charles Mix 2 Miller Turner 6
 

Koss Brule 2 Scheffel Bon Homme 6
 

Miller Aurora 2 Scott Aurora 6
 

Somek Douglas 2 Welker Hanson 6
 

Varilek Charles Mix 2 Delger Hanson 7
 

Althen Aurora 3 Dubes Douglas 7
 

Cosby Bon Homme 3 Henke Hutchinson 7
 

Delange Douglas 3 North Unit Charles Mix 7
 

Denning Douglas 3 Schaefer Bon Homme 7
 

Foster Aurora 3 Soulek Charles Mix 7
 

Fuchs Charles Mix 3 Anderson Clay 8
 

Korevaar Douglas 3 Collar Union
 8 

Lindeman Davison 3 Freese Lincoln 8 

Overweg Aurora 3 Hansen Yankton 8 

Plooster Douglas 3 Juran Charles Mix 8 

Schneider Hanson 3 Kayser Hanson 8 

Schute Aurora 3 Koupal Charles Mix 8
 

Stanek Brule 3 Kuil Douglas 8
 

Tucek Charles Mix 3 Peterson Turner
 8 

Vanderpol Charles Mix 3 White Lake Aurora 8 
Grass types (native; cool- and warm-season 

grasses and forbs) = 4.76% 

Lake Andes National Wildlife 

Grass types (nonnative; Kentucky bluegrass, Refuge Complex Native Sod smooth brome, crested wheatgrass) = 65.85% (5,793 acres [2,339 hectares]) 

Low shrubs (native) = 0.54% 

Tall shrubs (native) = 0.04% 

Tall shrubs (nonnative) = 0.01% 

Trees (native; cottonwood, green ash, 

bur oak) = 0.21% 

Trees (nonnative; Siberian elm, Russian olive) 

= 0.17% 

Weeds (leafy spurge, Canada thistle, kochia) 

= 6.34% 

Other (native; reed canarygrass, cactus) 

= 15.32% 

Figure 21. Dominant vegetation community types on native prairie on the Lake Andes National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, South Dakota. 

54 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

Figure 22. North American bird population indicators based on trends for obligate species in four major habitats. 

Source: North American Bird Conservation Initiative 2009. 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 55 

Table 3. birds of conservation concern or priority species. 

Prairie Pothole Region Region 6 Birds 

Birds of Conservation of Conservation 

Species Concern1 Concern1

South Dakota 

Priority Species2

Threatened or 

Endangered 

Species 

American bittern X X X
 

Bald eagle X X
 

Bell’s vireo X
 

Black tern X X
 

Black-billed cuckoo X X X
 

Black-crowned night-heron X
 

Bobolink 

Burrowing owl X X
 

Chestnut-collared longspur X X X
 

Dickcissel X
 

Ferruginous hawk X X
 

Franklin’s gull X
 

Golden eagle X
 

Grasshopper sparrow X X X
 

Greater prairie-chicken X
 

Horned grebe X X X
 

Lark bunting X
 

Least bittern X X
 

Least tern X
 

Loggerhead shrike X
 

Long-billed curlew X X
 

Marbled godwit X X X
 

Northern harrier X
 

Piping plover X
 

Red-headed woodpecker X X
 

Savannah sparrow X
 

Sedge wren 

Sharp-tailed grouse X
 

Short-eared owl X X X
 

Swainson’s hawk X X
 

Upland sandpiper X X X
 

Virginia rail X
 

Western meadowlark X
 

Willet X
 

Willow flycatcher X
 

Wilson’s phalarope X
 

1

 USFWS 2008 

2

 Bakker 2005 
56 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

need in central and western South Dakota provided 

the following recommendations to managers for preservation and restoration of grassland habitat to help 

maintain populations of grassland-obligate bird species. To maintain current populations and species diversity, it is critical that managers preserve as much 

native grassland as possible. Due to the diverse habitat 

requirements of these species of concern, grasslands 

should be under varying management regimes including rest, grazing (in varying intensities), haying, and 

prescribed fire. Reduction and removal of exotic plant 

species should be a key element in establishing habitat 

for grassland-obligate species as many are negatively 

affected by increases in exotic plant coverage. Preserved 

patches should be large in size as some species are areasensitive and prefer patches between 618 and 3,954 

acres or larger. Grassland patches should also have 

little to no woody edge. Finally, these patches should 

be located near one another, or in areas of little fragmentation, to help increase the amount of grassland 

habitat in the landscape, as many of these grassland 

bird species were positively associated with landscape 

variables, some up to 10,500 feet distant (Greer 2009).

 A fundamental assumption is that, under current 

management—which lacks an objective, science-based 

system of identifying and prioritizing restoration of 

native prairie tracts—native herbaceous flora would 

continue to decline and disappear. Implementation of 

the prioritization objective and its supporting strategy will improve the chances that some native prairie 

will be restored. 

4.4 Wetland Habitat Goal 

Acquire, restore, manage, and protect wetlands for 

the conservation of migratory birds and other waterdependent species endemic to the Plains and Prairie 

Pothole Region. 

WETLAND HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 1: IMPROvE 

WATER QUALITy IN LAkE ANDES 

Over the next 15 years, refuge complex staff will work 

with partners to improve the water quality of Lake 

Andes to sustain healthy fish and wildlife populations, 

in part by reducing phosphorus to less than 0.25 milligrams per liter and increasing dissolved oxygen to 

greater than 4 milligrams per liter. 

Strategies 

■■ Support the efforts of CMCLRO to improve water 

quality in the Lake Andes watershed. 

■■ Support conservation programs that will reduce 

phosphorus, nitrogen, and sediment levels in the 

Lake Andes watershed. 

The black-crowned night-heron is a South Dakota 

Priority Species. 

© John Jave 

■■ Provide information to landowners in the watershed that explains the importance of water quality 

to fish and wildlife. 

■■ Monitor levels of phosphorus and dissolved oxygen 

in Lake Andes. 

■■ Investigate ways to control populations of common 

carp in Lake Andes. 

Rationale 

Studies have revealed that Lake Andes suffers from 

excessive levels of nutrients, especially phosphorus 

and nitrogen (Larson 2009, South Dakota Department 

of Environment and Natural Resources 1992). These 

nutrients cause robust algae blooms that reduce sunlight penetration through the water column. When the 

algae die, a chemical process results that significantly 

reduces oxygen in the water. The nutrient overload 

and the subsequent lack of oxygen kills fish and native 

aquatic plants that are important to fish and wildlife. 

These same studies indicate that nutrients continue 

to be deposited into the lake from the surrounding 

watershed. Larson (2009) recommended cleaning 

up the watershed before undertaking the costly and 

time-consuming process of removing nutrient-laden 

sediment from the lake. Livestock waste and fertilizer are the most significant sources of excess nutrients in the watershed (South Dakota Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources 1992). 

Larson (2009) established water quality goals for 

Lake Andes. The primary goal is to maintain a dissolved 

oxygen level of greater than 4 milligrams per liter. 

The secondary goal is to maintain a total phosphorus 

level of less than 0.25 milligrams per liter. Modeling 

efforts indicate that this goal can be reached by reducing total phosphorus loads from the watershed by 

approximately 36 percent. 

The feeding behavior of common carp contributes 

to the reduction of sunlight penetration into the water column. This limits the diversity and distribution 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 57 

of beneficial aquatic plants. These fish also compete 

with sport fish (for example, yellow perch and northern pike) and migratory birds for food (Swanson and 

Nelson 1970). Carp have much lower requirements 

for dissolved oxygen than perch or pike, so they can 

more easily persist during periods of poor water quality. Controlling populations of carp in Lake Andes will 

improve water quality; however, it will be a considerable challenge. Tributaries to Lake Andes will have 

to be gated in such a way that carp will not recolonize the lake during runoff events. Reduction of carp 

populations within the lake might have to wait until 

drought dries the lake completely. 

WETLAND HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 2: IMPROvE 

WATER QUANTITy AND WATER LEvEL 

MANAGEMENT IN LAkE ANDES 

Over the next 15 years, refuge complex staff will work 

with partners to improve the water quantity and water 

level management of Lake Andes to benefit fish and 

wildlife populations. Water quantity enhancements 

will target additions greater than 5,000 acre-feet per 

year. Water levels in the Center Unit will average approximately 3 feet in depth. Improving water quantity and quality will depend on (1) developing a clean 

water source and (2) constructing a pump station, respectively. Each will require a significant amount of 

money that will likely be difficult to obtain. 

Strategies 

■■ Support the efforts of CMCLRO to develop a reliable source of clean water for Lake Andes. 

■■ Investigate and, if feasible, construct a pump system that will allow water levels to be increased in 

the South Unit for sport fishing while decreasing 

water levels in the Center Unit for waterfowl. 

Rationale 

Lake Andes has no perennial water supply. It is dependent on runoff in the watershed. Currently there is no 

way to significantly vary the water depth between the 

lake’s South Unit and Center Unit. It will be beneficial 

to fish to create deeper water levels in the South Unit 

and beneficial to migratory birds to create shallower 

water levels in the Center Unit. When water levels 

are moderate, pumping water from the Center Unit to 

the South Unit will provide better habitat for fish and 

wildlife. Given the size of Lake Andes, it is not known 

if a pump station could move enough water from the 

Center Unit to the South Unit to create a significant 

difference in depth. 

American bittern, blue-winged teal, and American 

avocet are wetland focal species for this plan. Collectively 

their preferred water depths range from 0 inches to 15 

inches (Dechant et al. 2002, 2003; Sousa 1985). During 

most years much of Lake Andes is far deeper than this. 

If a pump station proves practical, then water depths 

in the Center Unit and North Unit can be managed 

for migratory birds. 

WETLAND HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 3: CONTROL 

INvASIvE PLANTS ON REFUGE COMPLEx 

WETLANDS THROUGH EARLy DETECTION–RAPID 

RESPONSE 

Over the life of this plan, refuge complex staff will 

identify and strive to eradicate all infestations of new 

and emerging invasive and noxious plant species (for 

example, nonnative phragmites, purple loosestrife, 

and saltcedar) that are not well established on refuge 

complex wetlands. 

Strategies 

■■ Survey for presence of invasive plant species and use 

Global Positioning System (GPS) and Geographic 

Information System technologies to map and monitor infestations of invasive plants. 

■■ On discovery, attempt eradication of highly invasive 

plants that are not well established on the refuge 

complex (for example, saltcedar, purple loosestrife, 

and nonnative phragmites). 

■■ Use all appropriate methods (for example, herbicides, mechanical removal, biological control, and 

fire) to eradicate invasive and noxious plants. 

Rationale 

Identifying infestations early and eradicating them 

while they are small is the most efficient way to control invasive and noxious plants. 

Exotic species are a major threat to native ecosystems in the United States and considered second only 

to habitat destruction in significance. Control of invasive species is a management priority because they 

have a direct negative effect on the ability of refuges 

to fulfill their wildlife conservation mission, including 

migratory waterfowl and songbird production, species 

recovery, biological diversity, biological integrity, and 

ecosystem function. 

Prevention is considered the highest priority under a successful integrated invasive plant management program. Public and private landowners work 

very hard to address the spread of invasive plants yet 

rarely have sufficient resources to manage all populations. When prevention fails, rapidly responding to 

new invaders is critical to limiting impacts and costs 

of new invasions. This process—termed early detection–rapid response (EDRR)—involves surveying 

land, identifying new invaders to an area, and pursuing treatment as quickly as possible. 

The “USFWS Invasive Species Strategic Plan” 

(USFWS 2003) recommends focusing on early detection and completely eradicating smaller infestations 

rather than trying to control large, well established 

infestations. It has been shown to be far less costly 

to control invasive plants through eradicating new 
58 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

invasions or small patches than by trying to control 

well established invasions (Chippendale 1991 in Hobbs 

and Humphries 1995, Frid et al. 2011, Keller et al. 

2007, Leung et al. 2002). Small satellite populations of 

invasives often expand more rapidly and potentially 

cover more area than the front of a source population (Cousens and Mortimer 1995, Moody and Mack 

1988). (A fitting analogy is fire: many spot fires may 

occupy or “fill” an area more quickly than the advancing front of the fire.) Additionally, since most invasive 

plants have a long lag period following introduction, 

they can usually be eradicated at this early stage if 

recognized. Rejmanek and Pitcairn (2004) note that 

early detection can make the difference between employing feasible offensive strategies and retreating 

to defensive strategies that usually require ongoing 

financial commitments. 

For example, treating two new small patches of a 

species when discovered would most likely result in 

successful eradication, preventing them from spreading and adding to the existing management burden. 

On the other hand, treating a large existing patch with 

all available resources for years may only result in a 

slight decrease in patch size or density—moreover, 

during that time the two new invasions would continue to grow and spread, creating an even greater 

need for more resources. 

Resources must be directed at detecting early invasions in cooperation with refuge complex partners 

and responding rapidly to new invasions. If resources 

are not directed to EDRR, then invasions are allowed 

to outpace management efforts, leading to greater areas of infestations that are costly and time-consuming 

to treat. 

Although prevention and EDRR are important components of an integrated invasive species management 

strategy, certain large, well established infestations 

should also be targeted at least for containment. For 

these species, prioritization by species or area must 

occur first to determine which species have the greatest impact on trust resources and whether infestations 

are in areas of high conservation value. Containing 

those infestations will maximize the effectiveness of 

limited resources. 

WETLAND HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 4: PROTECT 

WETLANDS THROUGH EASEMENT ACQUISITION 

Provided adequate money is available, the refuge complex’s wetland district manager will lead annual efforts 

to secure perpetual conservation easements on more 

than 300 acres of unprotected, high priority wetland 

acres to benefit migratory birds, to provide water 

storage for flood protection, to improve water quality, 

and to recharge ground water—all of which benefit 

indigenous plant and animal species and State- and 

federally listed species throughout the life of the CCP. 

Strategies 

■■ Focus the protection of wetlands (and associated 

grasslands) with conservation easements in areas of high waterfowl nesting densities. Use the 

current Upland Accessibility for Breeding Duck 

Pairs in the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex map (figure 23) to geographically guide 

acquisition priorities. 

■■ Use the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program as 

a way to inform prospective sellers of the Service’s 

conservation easement program. 

■■ Use the Service’s strong partnerships with Ducks 

Unlimited, North American Wetlands Conservation 

Act, and other conservation organizations to generate non–Duck Stamp money to buy conservation 

easements. 

■■ Examine data from HAPET, The Nature Conservancy, 

Ducks Unlimited, and others to identify geographic 

areas valuable to waterfowl and other migratory 

birds. 

Rationale 

Wetland drainage and filling continues to be a conservation issue in eastern South Dakota. Approximately 

20,000 acres are drained or filled annually in the Plains 

and Prairie Pothole Region (Dahl 2000). Acquisition 

of an easement on private land rather than outright 

fee purchase results in more conservation “bang for 

the buck.” In short these easements protect wetlands 

from draining, filling, or nonpermitted burning. The 

primary source of money for easement purchases is 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund from the sale 

of Duck Stamps. All migratory bird hunters 16 years 

of age and over must annually purchase and carry a 

Federal Duck Stamp. Many collectors, art enthusiasts, 

and other conservationists (especially bird watchers) also buy duck stamps to support migratory bird 

conservation. Approximately 98 cents of every duck 

stamp dollar goes directly into the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund to purchase wetlands and wildlife habitat for inclusion into the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. 

In most cases acquisition of wetland easements will 

be in concert with grassland easements on the same 

tract of land. Protecting the nesting habitat that surrounds wetlands is critically important. 

HAPET has identified wetlands that are especially 

at risk of drainage. These are temporary and seasonal 

wetlands, 1 acre in size, that are completely or partially embedded in cropland. The pressure to drain 

and fill these wetlands to support tillage agriculture 

puts these basins at higher risk of conversion than 

those in grasslands. At the same time, these wetlands have important value for waterfowl. Based on 

predictive models developed by HAPET, the Service 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 59
 

Figure 23. Upland accessibility for breeding duck pairs in the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota. Source: HAPET 2008. 

CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 61 

has prioritized conservation easement acquisitions to 

focus on the following: 

■■ wetlands that are not protected 

■■ wetlands capable of supporting more than 25 breeding duck pairs per square mile 

■■ wetlands embedded in cropland, where the risk of 

degradation is especially high 

■■ wetland types at greatest risk of degradation: seasonal and temporary basins 

■■ semipermanent and permanent wetlands less than 

1 acre in size 

According to HAPET, waterfowl pairs in the Plains 

and Prairie Pothole Region are supported on 7.33 million wetland acres, of which 1.49 million acres are currently protected by wetland easements or waterfowl 

production areas. An estimated 1.15 million duck pairs 

reside in these wetlands, leaving the majority of pairs 

(3.10 million, or 73 percent) dependent on wetlands 

that are currently unprotected (except through the 

“Swampbuster” provision of the Farm Bill). Using the 

criteria above, HAPET identified 1.4 million acres of 

priority wetlands within the area encompassed by the 

Plains and Prairie Pothole Region that are in greatest 

need of protection; these wetlands would support 1.5 

million duck pairs. This number has been adopted as 

a protection goal by both the Dakota Working Group 

(a team consisting of refuge managers and project 

leaders from refuges and districts in South Dakota 

and North Dakota) and the PPJV (Ringelman 2005). 

Established in 1987 as one of the original six priority 

joint ventures under the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan, the PPJV protects, restores, and 

enhances high priority wetland and grassland habitats 

to help sustain populations of waterfowl, shorebirds, 

waterbirds, and prairie landbirds. 

The “North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan,” an international agreement developed in 1986, 

recognizes the recovery and perpetuation of waterfowl 

and other wetland wildlife that depend on the restoration of wetlands and associated ecosystems throughout 

North America. As a result, it established cooperative initiatives (joint ventures) to reverse declines in 

wetland habitats and associated wildlife. 

The PPJV is a dynamic partnership that functions 

as a network and seeks partners at the local, regional, 

national, and international levels. The partnership involves Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental 

conservation groups, private landowners, scientists, 

universities, policy makers, resource managers, corporations interested in conservation, communicators, 

tribes, resource conservation districts, and land trusts, 

among others. The PPJV is constantly seeking additional talent and organizations or private individuals 

interested in prairie habitat conservation. 

Protection of priority wetlands with conservation 

easements will not only benefit waterfowl but will 

also have benefits for other migratory waterbirds. 

Niemuth et al. (2006) demonstrated the importance 

of temporary and seasonal wetlands embedded in 

agricultural landscapes to migrant shorebirds in the 

Plains and Prairie Pothole Region. 

To calculate offers for a conservation easement, 

the Service uses the assessed value of the land and 

a multiplier derived from the relationship between 

the sale price and assessed values of similar properties in the area. This acquisition process works most 

efficiently, then, when the Service focuses its acquisition efforts in one area before moving onto other areas. Accordingly, targeting areas with high waterfowl 

nesting densities not only ensures that conservation 

easements have high value for wildlife, it also reduces 

administrative burden because the Service can focus 

its efforts in one area. 

To inform prospective sellers of the Service’s conservation easement program, the Service will use the 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. Often times, 

a biologist from this program is the first point of contact for landowners who would otherwise be unaware 

of the available conservation programs. 

WETLAND HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 5: RESTORE 

WETLANDS 

Over the next 15 years, the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife biologist and refuge complex staff will strive 

to restore 300 drained wetland basins on private lands 

(either Partners for Fish and Wildlife projects or easements) and refuge complex lands to provide more 

wetland habitat for blue-winged teal, American bittern, and American avocet (the three focal species for 

wetland habitats) and other migratory birds. 

Strategies 

■■ Use refuge complex staff and equipment or private 

contractors to restore drained wetlands. 

Rationale 

When eastern South Dakota was settled, many wetland basins were drained for agricultural purposes. 

Today many landowners are interested in the values 

that wetlands provide such as erosion control, flood 

prevention, water table recharge, and wildlife habitat. 

As a result many drained wetlands are being restored, 

primarily through Partners for Fish and Wildlife, 

which uses grant money to cost-share wildlife habitat improvements on private lands. Restoration typically involves placing an earthen plug in the ditch that 

drains a wetland. The site is surveyed and the ditch 

plug constructed to restore the natural hydrology of 

the wetland basin without exceeding its natural depth. 

Restored wetlands provide additional habitat for migratory birds and all the other values mentioned above. 
62 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

WETLAND HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 6: MANAGE 

WETLAND WATER ON THE PRAIRIE PONDS 

Over the next 15 years, refuge complex staff will 

manage the water levels of the Prairie Ponds to provide ideal habitat for a great diversity of migratory 

birds. In particular, from March through July levels 

will be managed for blue-winged teal and American 

bittern, which prefer water depths of 2–15 inches and 

hemimarsh conditions. From mid-July through early 

October, levels will be managed for American avocet, 

which prefers water depths of 0–4 inches and sparsely 

vegetated mudflats. Water levels will vary between 

years and within years depending on water depths in 

Owens Bay and Lake Andes. 

Strategies 

■■ Use the Owens Bay artesian well to provide water 

to the Prairie Ponds as needed. 

■■ Conduct periodic drawdowns using water control 

structures to provide ideal habitat for migratory 

birds. 

■■ Use an adaptive management process to evaluate 

and improve management treatments. 

■■ Control cattails as needed to provide hemimarsh 

habitat. 

■■ Develop and implement monitoring protocols to 

gather baseline data on wetlands, such as information on plant communities, invertebrate populations, 

and water quality on wetland habitats throughout 

the refuge complex. 

■■ Use the floristic quality assessment and vegetation 

transects to inventory wetland vegetation. 

■■ Use invertebrate traps to inventory species and 

populations. 

■■ Conduct a critical thinking process that lists, describes, and prioritizes biological information needs 

for wetlands on the refuge complex that will be 

best addressed through outside research to inform 

and improve refuge management. This information 

will be provided to potential research partners 

and the research community. Use resources such 

as the zone biologist, past research partners, and 

other research contacts to develop the biological 

information needs list. 

Rationale 

The Prairie Ponds are four small ponds approximately 

1–4 acres in size within the Owens Bay Unit of Lake 

Andes Refuge. They are managed to provide attractive habitat for migratory birds during spring and 

fall migration. Water control structures provide some 

control of water levels in the ponds. The Owens Bay 

artesian well is the only source of water for the Prairie 

Ponds. The well was drilled in 1985 and on completion 

was flowing at 900 gallons per minute. As is typical 

for artesian wells in this area, flows have gradually 

decreased as the well casing has collapsed. Currently 

the well flows at 250 gallons per minute, a rate that is 

barely adequate to manage water in the ponds. The 

well is nearing the end of its useful life and needs to 

be replaced. 

The chief value of the Prairie Ponds is wildlife-dependent recreation in the form of wildlife observation 

and photography and environmental education and 

interpretation. Management of water levels and the 

interspersion of emergent vegetation (like cattails) 

with open water are to provide ideal conditions during migration. Blue-winged teal, American bittern, 

and American avocet are focal species for wetlands 

on the refuge complex. These species were selected 

in part for their diverse habitat preferences. Bluewinged teal prefers water depths between 2 and 10 

inches and a 50:50 mix of emergent vegetation and 

open water (that is, hemimarsh). American bittern 

prefers a water depth of 4 inches and dense emergent 

vegetation 3–5 feet in height; it also prefers a block of 

this habitat less than 7 acres in size. American avocet 

prefers shallow wetlands with a water depth less than 

4 inches and sparse vegetation. Habitat needs cannot 

be provided for each of these three focal species on 

the same pond at the same time; however, these conditions can be provided as water supply and vegetation 

conditions change year to year. 

Developing and implementing monitoring protocols, inventorying wetland vegetation, and identifying and prioritizing biological information needs for 

wetlands will enable the refuge complex staff to use 

the best available science to inform management decisions. Knowledge gaps regarding natural resources 

the refuge complex has been entrusted with managing 

and protecting are many and varied. 

WETLAND HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 7: CONTROL 

AvIAN DISEASE IN WETLANDS 

During spring and fall migration periods, the refuge 

complex biologist will continue to lead avian disease 

surveillance and response efforts to outbreaks (for example, avian botulism or avian cholera) as necessary 

to limit wildlife losses throughout the life of this plan. 

Strategies 

■■ Annually review and ensure that the refuge complex’s wildlife disease contingency plan is up to date. 

■■ Follow the monitoring and response protocols outlined in the wildlife disease contingency plan and 

the “Field Manual of Wildlife Diseases” (Friend 

and Franson 1999). 

■■ Maintain a supply of staff protective equipment 

for emergency cleanup operations. 

■■ Cooperate with U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 63 

Wildlife Services and SDGFP for highly pathogenic 

avian influenza monitoring when necessary. 

■■ Consult with the Service’s Region 6 Wildlife Health 

Office for advice on wildlife health issues. 

Rationale 

Lake Andes Refuge suffered a duck virus enteritis 

outbreak in 1973 that led to the death of 40,000 migratory birds. At the time, refuge management was 

attempting to provide wintering habitat for waterfowl 

and this led to unusually high concentrations of birds. 

Disease passed easily from bird to bird in the close 

quarters. After the die-off, measures were taken to 

discourage birds from attempting to winter on the 

refuge. Disease outbreaks since 1973 have been few 

and far between (table 4). 

Routine surveillance has led to early detection 

and rapid response to outbreaks. Response includes 

collecting and sending a sample of dead birds to the 

USGS National Wildlife Health Center in Madison, 

Wisconsin, for diagnosis. Response also includes removal of dead birds from the environment. Such action 

has proven effective for controlling disease outbreaks 

on the refuge complex. Evelsizer (2002) has suggested 

that carcass removal did not appear to be an effective 

technique for managing botulism outbreaks on large 

wetlands where less than 30 percent of the dead birds 

could be found and collected. This is something to 

keep in mind when conditions significantly restrict 

the ability to remove dead birds. Avian botulism and 

avian cholera are the two most prevalent documented 

diseases that have occurred on the refuge complex. 

Bird disease response is a readily evolving process. 

Before 2006, districts dealt primarily with two diseases in the avian communities: West Nile virus and 

avian botulism. West Nile virus is a flavivirus with an 

enzootic cycle that involves primarily mosquitoes and 

birds. It was introduced into the Plains and Prairie 

Pothole Region in 2002. By 2003, West Nile virus had 

been shown to affect 162 species of birds. The ecology 

of the northern prairie seems to offer favorable conditions for its continued enzootic transmission (Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention 2003).

 Avian botulism is a disease that affects the peripheral 

nerves and results in paralysis of voluntary muscles. 

It is contracted when a bird ingests toxin produced 

by the bacterium Clostridium botulinum. Outbreaks 

of avian botulism have occurred in the United States 

since at least the beginning of the twentieth century. 

Botulism outbreaks are often characterized by lines of 

Table 4. History of documented wildlife disease outbreaks on the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

South Dakota. 

Date Disease Species affected Number of dead animals	 Location 

September 1947 Botulism Ducks	 300 Lake Andes area 

January 1973 Duck virus enteritis Geese and ducks 40,000	 Owens Bay and Missouri 

River below Fort Randall 

Dam 

Spring 1980 Avian cholera and 

botulism 

Mallard, redhead, lesser scaup, pintail, Canada goose, white-fronted 

goose 

1,515 Lake Andes 

October 1980 Botulism Not reported 4	 Lake Andes 

March 1981 Botulism Lesser scaup, shoveler, pintail, 

redhead, ring-necked 

286 Lake Andes 

August 1984 Botulism Coot, blue-winged teal, greenwinged teal, gadwall, mallard, pintail 

3,350 Lake Andes Refuge South 

and Center Units 

September 1985 Botulism Shoveler, gadwall, mallard, wood 

duck, ruddy, unknown, widgeon, 

blue-winged teal, green-winged teal 

614 Lake Andes Refuge Center 

Unit 

August 1987 Botulism	 Coot, shoveler, gadwall, mallard, 

pintail, widgeon, blue-winged teal, 

green-winged teal, yellowlegs, 

sandpiper species 

750 Owens Bay 

August 1987 Epizootic hemorrhagic disease 

White-tailed deer 13 Karl E. Mundt Refuge area 

March 2003 Avian cholera Mallard, Canada goose 5	 Owens Bay, Prairie Ponds 

August 2011 Botulism Blue-winged teal, pintail, shoveler, 

great blue heron, coot 

500 Sorenson Waterfowl 

Production Area, Koss 

Waterfowl Production Area 
64 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

carcasses on wetland peripheries during the summer 

when ambient temperatures are high and water levels 

are receding. Filter-feeding and dabbling waterfowl 

and probing shorebirds appear to be among the species at greatest risk (Friend and Franson 1999). With 

safe handling practices, birds affected by botulism and 

West Nile virus pose a relatively minor threat to the 

health of individuals directly handling the infected 

individuals (Domek 1998, Friend and Franson 1999). 

The most common causative agent of botulism is a 

type-C toxin produced by the bacterium Clostridium 

botulinum (Friend and Franson 1999). The disease 

appears to be exacerbated through what is commonly 

referred to as “the carcass–maggot cycle,” which includes the following events: 

1. Clostridium botulinum (from previously ingested 

spores) vegetates and produces toxin in response 

to biochemical changes associated with death and 

decomposition. 

2. Maggots feed on carcasses and concentrate toxin. 

3. Toxic maggots are ingested by birds. 

4. Toxicity leads to death, producing additional carcasses and perpetuating the cycle. 

Because of the toxin’s extremely high potency, these 

events lead to rapid acceleration in the rate of deaths 

due to botulism. Consumption of as few as one or 

two toxin-laden maggots may be adequate to kill an 

otherwise-healthy bird (Friend and Franson 1999). 

The presumed significant role of the carcass–maggot cycle in the epizootiology of botulism has been the 

central factor in development of field procedures for 

reducing impacts of the disease on migratory bird 

populations. Botulism management typically involves 

late-summer surveillance of lakes that are prone to 

botulism, and intensive carcass retrieval with the goal 

of removing dead birds from the affected lake as quickly 

as possible. Carcass pickup has been widely accepted 

as the best approach to minimizing botulism-induced 

mortality of waterbirds and has been recommended 

by wildlife health professionals based on knowledge 

of botulism epidemiology (Friend and Franson 1999). 

With each new disease presenting itself as a threat 

to Service staff and the public (for example, the highly 

pathogenic H5N1 strain of highly pathogenic avian influenza), concurrent disease responses are developed 

to coincide with each threat. Highly pathogenic avian 

influenza is a disease caused by a virus that infects 

both wild birds (such as shorebirds and waterfowl) 

and domestic poultry. Each year, there is a bird flu 

season just as there is an influenza season for humans 

and, like human influenza, some forms of avian influenza are worse than others (USGS 2006). Recently, 

the H5N1 strain of highly pathogenic avian influenza 

has been found in an increasing number of countries 

in Europe, Asia, and Africa. This strain is not present 

in the United States, but is likely to spread to this 

country (Dr. Thomas Roffe, veterinarian, USFWS, 

Montana, personal communication). There are a number of ways that the H5N1 strain could potentially 

reach the United States: (1) wild bird migration, (2) 

illegal smuggling of birds or poultry products, and 

(3) travel by infected people or people traveling with 

virus-contaminated articles from areas where H5N1 

already exists (USGS 2006).

 Avian cholera is widely distributed and poses a 

constant threat to migratory bird populations, especially where dense concentrations of birds occur. Avian 

cholera epizootics (diseases affecting large numbers of 

animals) were found to be inversely related to densities of semipermanent wetland basins. It is not known 

with certainty what environmental or physiological 

factors trigger an outbreak, but it appears to be associated with physiologically stressed birds that are 

concentrated on a limited number of wetlands (Smith 

and Higgins 1990). 

4.5 Riparian Habitat Goal 

Acquire, restore, manage, and protect riparian habitats characteristic of the lower Missouri River for the 

conservation of bald eagles, other species of concern, 

and migratory birds. 

RIPARIAN HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 1: MANAGE 

WOODLANDS FOR bALD EAGLES AND REDHEADED WOODPECkERS ON kARL E. MUNDT 

REFUGE 

Over the next 15 years, refuge complex staff will plant 

more than 5 acres of eastern cottonwoods (where 70 

percent of the total tree population is above 30 feet 

height with a canopy cover of less than 40 percent) 

to provide habitat for resident, nesting, and winter 

roosting bald eagles and maintain snags to provide 

suitable habitat for red-headed woodpeckers, equaling four or five snags larger than 8 inches diameter 

at breast height per acre. 

Strategies 

■■ Identify sites to plant cottonwoods that will benefit 

bald eagles and red-headed woodpeckers. Plant 

cottonwood seedlings at a density that will result 

in a canopy cover of less than 40 percent when the 

trees mature to a height of greater than 30 feet. 

■■ Inventory the density of snags per acre greater 

than 8 inches diameter at breast height within the 

woodlands of the Karl E. Mundt Refuge. Protect 

these snags from fire or cutting. Monitor snag density every 5 years over the life of the plan. Collect 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 65 

baseline information on canopy cover and compare 

native forest to planted forest. 

■■ Use the Floristic Quality Index and vegetation 

transects to inventory existing woodlands and 

monitor long-term vegetation changes. 

■■ When planting, use native genotypes when possible. 

■■ Protect planted seedlings from herbivory by enclosing them in deer- and rabbit-resistant fences. 

■■ Draft a habitat management plan for Karl E. 

Mundt Refuge to guide habitat restoration and 

reconstruction efforts. 

■■ Conduct a critical thinking process that lists, describes, and prioritizes biological information needs 

for the Karl E. Mundt Refuge that will be best addressed through outside research to inform and 

improve refuge management. This information will 

be provided to potential research partners and the 

research community. 

Birds at the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge. 

USFWS 

Rationale 

Two of the three focal species for riparian habitats, 

bald eagles and red-headed woodpeckers, rely on cottonwoods for suitable habitat on the Karl E. Mundt 

Refuge. The bald eagle was recently removed from the 

endangered and threatened species list. Red-headed 

woodpecker populations have suffered widespread 

rapid declines throughout their range for a number 

of years (4.6 percent per year since 1980) (Smith et al. 

2000). Cottonwoods are largely dependent on highly 

varying river flows and deposition of sediment to replace old dying trees with young trees that can survive 

to attain mature height and diameter. Cottonwoods 

evolved alongside the dynamic forces of rivers. An 

adequate level of natural cottonwood regeneration 

no longer occurs due to dams erected on the Missouri 

River. The dams strain out the sediments that form 

sandbars where cottonwood seeds germinate after a 

flood, and they attenuate the high flows that establish cottonwood seedlings high above the elevation 

of lesser floods in subsequent years. Under today’s 

conditions planting is necessary to reestablish cottonwoods in the riverbottom. Such mature trees are 

important to bald eagles and red-headed woodpeckers for roosting and nesting sites (Smith et al. 2000). 

Mature trees also provide the shade necessary for the 

establishment of other understory trees and shrubs 

on which Bell’s vireo, the third riparian habitat focal 

species, and other species of migratory birds depend. 

Planting cottonwoods and other riparian trees and 

shrubs is necessary to ensure availability of suitable 

habitat for these species in the future. In the past cottonwood restoration has been conducted in an opportunistic fashion as money and staff availability allowed. 

The refuge complex staff will develop a habitat management plan for restoration of native trees, shrubs, 

grasses, and forbs on Karl E. Mundt Refuge to provide 

ideal habitat for nesting and migrating birds and high 

quality wildlife observation opportunities. Such a plan 

will provide specific guidance and facilitate additional 

partnerships and supplementary money. Techniques 

will be used that protect young trees and shrubs from 

browsing and competition. 

RIPARIAN HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 2: RESTORE 

WOODLAND UNDERSTORy ON kARL E. MUNDT 

REFUGE 

Throughout the life of this plan, refuge complex staff 

will restore, protect, and enhance the native understory (especially 1–10 feet above ground) of the Karl 

E. Mundt Refuge cottonwood floodplain (for example, 

roughleaf dogwood, American plum, narrow-leaf willow, Missouri gooseberry, and black raspberry) by 10 

percent to provide high quality nesting and migration 

habitat for Bell’s vireo, yellow-billed cuckoo, spotted 

towhee, ovenbird, and other woodland migratory birds. 

Strategies 

■■ Restore native understory plants within established 

(higher than 30 feet and greater than 8 inches diameter at breast height) cottonwood plantings. 

■■ Diversify the existing understory by adding native shrub species. 

■■ Build species lists for restoration using current 

vegetation inventories conducted on the refuge by 

the University of South Dakota and the University 

of Nebraska–Lincoln. 

■■ When planting, use native genotypes when possible. 

■■ Draft a habitat management plan for Karl E. 

Mundt Refuge to guide habitat restoration and 

reconstruction efforts. 

■■ Protect existing understory plants from fire and 

domestic grazing. 

■■ Restore American plum thickets to both riverbottom and appropriate upland sites on the refuge. 
66 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

Rationale 

Many migratory birds rely on the forest understory 

for nesting, foraging, and migration. It is not enough to 

restore cottonwoods without restoring the plants that 

are commonly found in their understory. Reestablishing 

shrubs that can thrive without overhead shade (such as 

American plum) will also provide important foraging 

and nesting sites. Many of these plants were cleared 

for farming (along with cottonwoods) years ago. 

Bell’s vireo prefers a shrubby understory for nesting, foraging, and migration. 

RIPARIAN HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 3: CONTROL 

INvASIvE PLANTS ON kARL E. MUNDT REFUGE 

Over the next 15 years the refuge complex staff will 

attempt to annually treat 100 percent of invasive forb 

infestations (for example, Canada thistle, musk thistle, 

leafy spurge, and common mullein) on Karl E. Mundt 

Refuge to improve habitat for migratory birds. One 

hundred percent of nonnative invasive trees and shrubs 

(for example, Russian olive, Siberian elm, white mulberry, and saltcedar) will be removed over the next 

10 years. Eastern redcedar (an invasive native tree) 

will be controlled where it is invading grasslands on 

the refuge. Smooth brome and other invasive grasses 

will be controlled through grassland reconstruction on 

lands that were previously plowed and through restoration techniques on native sod over the life of the plan, 

as described in the grassland section of this chapter. 

Strategies 

■■ Use GPS and Geographic Information System 

technologies to map and monitor infestations of 

invasive plants. Document areas treated in the 

Service’s Refuge Lands Geographic Information 

System database. 

■■ Continue using grazing, haying, prescribed fire, 

herbicides, insects, cutting, and seeding as part of 

an integrated pest management strategy to control invasive plants. 

■■ Continue to work with cooperators to apply grazing, haying, and farming treatments 

■■ Use vendors to apply herbicide aerially where necessary to reach areas inaccessible to ground-based 

equipment. (Such use will be rare on the refuge.) 

■■ Conduct an annual riparian survey to detect and 

treat saltcedar and purple loosestrife. 

Rationale 

Invasive plants degrade the quality of habitats on 

refuge lands. Native migratory birds including Bell’s 

vireo, red-headed woodpecker, and bald eagle thrive in 

high quality habitats of native vegetation. Infestations 

of invasive forbs, trees, and shrubs are currently 

limited. Invasive plants degrade the quality of surrounding habitat. Typically they compete with native 

plants for nutrients and water. Treating all the known 

invasive forb infestations annually and all the known 

tree and shrub infestations over the next 10 years 

will clear the way for the much more intensive effort 

required to change grasslands from smooth brome to 

native grasses and forbs. Controlling invasive plants 

improves the quality of wildlife habitat on the refuge. 

RIPARIAN HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 4: PROTECT 

WOODLANDS AND RIvERbANkS ON kARL E. 

MUNDT REFUGE 

Throughout the life of this CCP, refuge complex staff 

will protect mature cottonwoods (including snags) 

from herbivory and riverine erosional effects to provide adequate habitat for resident, nesting, and winter 

roosting bald eagles, red-headed woodpeckers, and 

other woodland-dependent species. 

Strategies 

■■ Use trapping or shooting when necessary to control beaver damage. Enlist the services of experienced beaver trappers. Coordinate control efforts 

with SDGFP. 

■■ Experiment with the use of different materials on or 

around the trunks of selected cottonwoods alongside 

the Missouri River, to protect them from beaver 

herbivory and to provide a nonlethal alternative. 

■■ Conduct annual riverbank surveys on the refuge 

in the fall to monitor and document erosion and 

beaver damage. 

Cottonwoods are not replacing themselves in the riverbottom like they were before Fort Randall Dam was 

completed on the Missouri River in 1956. The dam has 

largely eliminated the natural flooding and deposition 

processes with which cottonwoods evolved. The result 

is riparian woodland that is slowly diminishing. Beaver 

fell mature cottonwoods every year, which makes 

these trees unavailable for bald eagles, red-headed 

woodpeckers, and other migratory birds. In a natural system, beaver herbivory would be compensated 

by numerous young cottonwoods replacing the older 

trees. Given the lack of regeneration, controlling beaver is sometimes necessary to protect the woodland. 

A significant issue on the Karl E. Mundt Refuge, 

which lies approximately 4 miles downstream of the 

Fort Randall Dam, is riverbank erosion. Approximately 

80 percent of the refuge’s riverbank is protected by 

rock riprap. During high-flow water releases from the 

dam, erosion is substantial where the bank is unprotected. Mature cottonwood trees, some of which are 

used by bald eagles, often fall into the river when the 

soil holding them erodes. Protecting these mature trees 

from loss is necessary to ensure there will be enough 

available as wildlife habitat in the future. Protection 

Rationale 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 67 

coupled with periodic replanting should ensure continuation of these important woodlands. 

Rock riprap can be considered a blessing or a curse 

depending on one’s perspective. When it is protecting the riverbank, it is a blessing for the landowner. 

However, research has shown that often the river’s 

energy is merely reflected downstream where it erodes 

another site. The Missouri National Recreational 

River includes the boundary of the Karl E. Mundt 

Refuge and the Missouri River corridor between Fort 

Randall Dam and Sioux City (100 river miles). This 

river is part of the National Wild and Scenic River 

System. Protecting the free-flowing condition of the 

Missouri River, including channel migration and stream 

bank erosion, is a mandate for the Missouri National 

Recreational River. Bank stabilization goes against 

this mandate. Given the recovery and delisting of 

the bald eagle, riprapping the remaining 20 percent of 

the riverbank is not currently justifiable; however, in 

the future, where trees along the riverbank are identified as critically important to eagles or some other 

species, bioengineering bank stabilization techniques 

will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The refuge 

complex staff will work closely with National Park 

Service staff who will annually monitor the riverbank 

to document erosion. 

Protecting and restoring woodlands on Karl E. Mundt 

Refuge will be a focus of management. 

USFWS 

RIPARIAN HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 5: FORM 

PROTECTION PARTNERSHIPS FOR kARL E. MUNDT 

REFUGE 

Over the next 15 years, the Karl E. Mundt Refuge 

manager will enhance the protection of the refuge 

from nearby development by seeking new and expanded partnerships with agencies and individuals 

(for example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

SDGFP, Yankton Sioux Tribe, the Missouri National 

Recreational River, and neighboring landowners) to 

conserve lands within and surrounding the refuge. 

Strategies 

■■ Work with agencies, tribes, and individuals who 

manage lands next to the refuge complex to manage 

their lands for protection from harmful development. 

■■ Continue to pursue acquisition of a conservation 

easement or fee-title purchase on approximately 

2,000 acres (within the approved refuge boundary) between the two units of the Karl E. Mundt 

Refuge, to protect the refuge from development 

that will negatively affect wildlife, wildlife habitat, 

and wildlife-dependent recreation. 

■■ Pursue acquisition of conservation easements 

or fee-title purchases next to the Karl E. Mundt 

Refuge (figure 8, chapter 2). 

■■ Facilitate woodland restoration on lands next to 

the Karl E. Mundt Refuge to protect wildlife habitat for bald eagle, red-headed woodpecker, Bell’s 

vireo, and other trust species. 

Rationale 

Many species of migratory birds and other wildlife 

prefer a block of appropriate habitat of a certain minimum size to meet their life needs. When that block of 

habitat is continuous and large, the local population 

will likely thrive. If that habitat is fragmented, the 

local population will likely suffer. 

Currently the Karl E. Mundt Refuge is fragmented. 

Its two units—the North Unit (677 acres) and South 

Unit (282 acres)—are considered relatively small for 

many wildlife species, and these tracts are separated 

by a tract of private land approximately 2,000 acres 

in size. 

Furthermore, within the last 10 years home construction has occurred next to the refuge, and such 

development could degrade the quality of the habitat 

on the refuge. Fortunately this development has occurred far from the riverbottom—the area of critical 

use for bald eagles, red-headed woodpeckers, and 

other migratory birds. 

Protection of neighboring lands is critical to the 

protection of the relatively small refuge. Given this 

circumstance, the refuge complex staff will continue to 

pursue conservation protection on neighboring lands 

through formal and informal partnerships, associated 

easements, or purchase in fee. 

4.6 Upland Habitat Goal 

Acquire, restore, manage, and maintain a diverse 

mix of native grassland habitats to support migratory birds and resident wildlife found in the northern 

mixed-grass prairie ecosystem. 
68 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

Controlling the spread of invasive species on refuge 

complex lands will help prevent these species from 

spreading to neighboring private lands. 

USFWS 

UPLAND HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 1: CONTROL 

INvASIvE PLANTS ON REFUGE COMPLEx 

GRASSLANDS (EARLy DETECTION–RAPID 

RESPONSE) 

Over the life of this CCP, the refuge complex staff 

will identify and strive to eradicate all infestations of 

noxious plant species (for example, yellow toadflax, 

Russian mallow, common mullein, knapweed species, 

houndstongue, and chicory) that are not well established on refuge complex grasslands. 

Strategies 

■■ Survey for presence of invasive plant species and 

use GPS and Geographic Information System 

technologies to map and monitor infestations of 

invasive plants. 

■■ Use EDRR principles. 

■■ Seek money for an invasive species strike team 

for South Dakota refuges and wetland management districts. 

Rationale 

Exotic species are a major threat to native ecosystems 

in the United States and considered second only to 

habitat destruction in significance. Control of invasive species is a management priority because these 

species have a direct negative effect on the ability of 

refuges to fulfill their wildlife conservation mission, 

including migratory waterfowl and songbird production, species recovery, biological diversity, biological 

integrity, and ecosystem function. 

Public and private landowners work very hard to 

address noxious weed spread yet rarely have sufficient 

resources to manage all populations of all nonnative 

species on their land. Prevention is considered the 

highest priority under a successful integrated invasive plant management program. Prevention of new 

infestations must occur to prevent threats to habitat 

and additional management burden. However, when 

prevention fails, quickly finding and responding to 

new invaders is critical to limiting costs and impacts 

of invasions. 

EDRR is a method of surveying areas, identifying 

new invaders, and pursuing treatment as quickly as 

possible. The “USFWS Invasive Species Strategic 

Plan” (USFWS 2003) recommends focusing on early 

detection and completely eradicating smaller infestations rather than trying to control large, well established infestations. It has been shown to be far less 

costly to control invasive plants through eradicating 

new invasions or small patches than by trying to control well established invasions (Chippendale 1991 in 

Hobbs and Humphries 1995, Frid et al. 2011, Keller 

et al. 2007, Leung et al. 2002). Small satellite populations of invasives often expand more rapidly and potentially cover more area than the front of a source 

population (Cousens and Mortimer 1995, Moody and 

Mack 1988). (A fitting analogy is fire: many spot fires 

may occupy or “fill” an area more quickly than the 

advancing front of the fire.) Additionally, since most 

invasive plants have a long lag period following introduction, they can usually be eradicated at this early 

stage if recognized. Rejmanek and Pitcairn (2004) note 

that early detection can make the difference between 

employing feasible offensive strategies and retreating 

to defensive strategies that usually require ongoing 

financial commitments. 

For example, treating two new small patches of a 

species when discovered would most likely result in 

successful eradication, preventing them from spreading and adding to the existing management burden. 

On the other hand, treating a large existing patch with 

all available resources for years may only result in a 

slight decrease in patch size or density—moreover, 

during that time the two new invasions would continue to grow and spread, creating an even greater 

need for more resources. 

Resources must be directed at detecting early invasions in cooperation with refuge complex partners 

and responding rapidly to new invasions. If resources 

are not directed for EDRR, then invasions are given 

time and allowed to outpace management efforts, leading to greater areas of infestations that are costly and 

time-consuming to treat. 

Although prevention and EDRR are important components of an integrated invasive species management 

strategy, certain large, well established infestations 

should also be targeted at least for containment. For 

these species, prioritization by species or area must 

occur first to determine which species have the greatest impact on trust resources and whether infestations 

are in areas of high conservation value. Containing 

those infestations will maximize the effectiveness of 

limited resources. 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 69 

UPLAND HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 2: CONTROL 

INvASIvE FORbS ON REFUGE COMPLEx 

GRASSLANDS 

Over the next 15 years, the refuge complex staff will 

annually treat invasive forb infestations (for example, 

leafy spurge, Canada and musk thistle, wormwood, 

and other State-defined noxious weeds) on the highest priority (Priorities 1 and 2) refuges and waterfowl 

production areas to improve habitat quality for mallard, upland sandpiper, grasshopper sparrow, and other 

migratory birds. Priority 3 and 4 units will be treated 

every 2–3 years. Priority 5–8 units will be treated as 

necessary or as dictated by county weed boards. 

Strategies 

■■ Run the prioritization model every 5 years as data 

are added to the duck upland accessibility model. 

■■ If money and staff availability allow, consider moving lower priority units (Priorities 3 and 4) to an 

annual treatment protocol. 

■■ Use GPS and the Refuge Lands Geographic Information 

System database to map and monitor infestations 

of invasive plants. 

■■ Continue using grazing, haying, prescribed fire, 

herbicides, insects, mowing, and seeding as part of 

an integrated pest management strategy to control 

invasive plants. 

■■ Continue to work with cooperators to apply grazing, haying, and farming treatments. 

■■ Use aerial application vendors to reach areas inaccessible to ground-based equipment. 

■■ Focus control efforts on non-EDRR areas with 

more than 5 percent invasive plant cover or infestations larger than 0.25 acre. 

■■ When appropriate, use Burned Area Rehabilitation 

funds to control and prevent the spread of invasive 

plant species. 

Rationale 

Typically invasive plants treated once every 3 years 

die the first year but recover to their former strength 

by the third year, resulting in no change in the number 

of acres occupied by invasive plants. Plants treated 

and then monitored and retreated annually in subsequent years can eventually reach a “maintenance 

level” where the time and cost to monitor and treat 

infestations is significantly reduced. This level is 

reached when weeds are reduced to a density where 

they are efficiently treated from sprayers mounted 

on off-road vehicles instead of large boom sprayers. 

Prioritizing refuge complex grasslands (and associated 

wetlands) and treating the highest priorities annually 

should result in reaching a maintenance level for this 

select group in approximately 15 years. Assuming 

funding is not significantly reduced, additional lands 

will be added to the annual treatment group until all 

grasslands are treated annually. The long-term goal 

is to reach a maintenance level for all invasive plant 

infestations on the refuge complex. 

UPLAND HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 3: CONTROL 

INvASIvE WOODy SPECIES ON REFUGE COMPLEx 

GRASSLANDS 

Over the life of this plan, refuge complex staff will annually remove invasive trees (for example, Russian 

olive, eastern red cedar, Siberian elm, and white mulberry) and shrubs on refuges and one of the highest 

priority waterfowl production areas (Priorities 1 or 

2) to improve nesting habitat for mallard, upland 

sandpiper, grasshopper sparrow, and other grassland 

migratory birds. 

Strategies 

■■ Use tree shears, chainsaws, and other heavy equipment to remove invasive trees and shrubs. Apply 

herbicide immediately to deciduous tree stumps 

to prevent resprouting. 

■■ Burn eastern red cedars when they are young and 

when suitable fuels exist to carry fire. Use backing fires to increase heat duration and intensity for 

more effective control. 

■■ Apply appropriate herbicide to saltcedar (leaf or 

basal bark application) without cutting and leave 

standing for two full growing seasons for optimal 

uptake and effective control. 

■■ Make wood available to the public through a permit process to reduce disposal costs. 

■■ Use fire crews to burn slash piles and reduce 

woody debris. 

■■ Map invasive trees on the refuge complex using 

GPS and the Refuge Lands Geographic Information 

System database. 

■■ Remove trees invading grasslands as the first 

priority. 

■■ Remove shelterbelts and planted trees as the second priority. Removal of shelterbelts on refuges 

and waterfowl production areas will be considered 

on a case-by-case basis using established regional 

guidelines. 

■■ Invasive trees (for example, Russian olive, Siberian 

elm, and eastern red cedar) may be removed regardless of their location. 

■■ When there is a choice between favoring tree-nesting and grassland-nesting migratory birds, in most 

cases manage for the grassland birds because of 

their declining populations and their dependency on 

the grassland habitat refuge complex lands provide. 
70 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

Rationale 

Historically, the northern Great Plains was a grasslanddominated ecosystem where fire and grazing restricted 

natural tree growth to riparian floodplains, wooded 

draws, islands in lakes, and small patches along leeward wetland edges (Higgins 1986). These patches and 

corridors of trees and shrubs were the only woodland 

features in the prairie landscape (Rumble et al. 1998). 

The prevalence of fire in the presettlement prairie 

created an environment inhospitable to trees (Higgins 

1986, Severson and Sieg 2006). The growing points of 

most grassland species are usually protected at the 

base of the plant. In contrast, woody vegetation possesses elevated growing points that are more vulnerable to injury or fatality from fire. Grassland plants 

persist and expand with frequent and repetitive burns, 

whereas woody plants tend to decrease (Vogl 1974). 

The tallgrass and mixed-grass prairie types that cover 

South Dakota produce large quantities of fuel that 

dry quickly and burn easily (Steuter and McPherson 

1995). Specifically, bluestem prairies recover quickly 

post-fire and can even provide enough fuel for multiple burns in a single growing season (Bragg 1982). 

Climate also played a pivotal role in the development of grasslands—particularly the limiting effect 

of periodic drought on the growth and expansion of 

trees (Weaver and Albertson 1936). Herbivory and 

hoof action of grazing animals also constrained the 

establishment and expansion of woody vegetation. 

The effects of ungulates, fire, and drought combined 

to inhibit tree growth and expansion across the grasslands of South Dakota. 

Presently, however, grassland fragmentation is escalating at an alarming rate. During 2008, in eastern 

South Dakota, the USDA and County Conservation 

Districts planted 255 miles of trees, covering 2,801 

acres of land with 1,115,780 trees (G. Yapp, USDA, 

personal communication, 2009). 

The response of grassland birds to unnatural tree 

conditions has received recent research emphasis. 

Grant et al. (2004a) determined that the probability 

of occurrence of breeding grassland birds decreased 

notably for 11 species as the percentage of woody 

vegetation increased. Further, negative effects on 

grassland bird communities increased as the height 

of woody plants increased (that is, brush giving way 

to tall shrubs giving way to trees). By most accounts, 

the grasslands became unsuitable for nine species of 

grassland birds as woodland cover exceeded 25 percent (Grant et al. 2004a). A recent study in North 

Dakota and South Dakota determined that bobolink, 

Savannah sparrow, and sedge wren specifically avoided 

tree plantings; however, these species would use the 

same areas after tree belts were removed (Naugle 

and Quamen 2007). 

Nest predators and nest parasite species increase 

near woody habitat edges (Burger et al. 1994, Johnson 

and Temple 1990); in other words, planting woody vegetation in previously treeless grasslands exacerbates 

these problems. Tree plantings in grasslands create 

den and foraging sites for predators historically uncommon to grasslands (Kuehl and Clark 2002, Pedlar 

et al. 1997, Sargeant 1972, Sargeant et al. 1987). Gazda 

et al. (2002) indicated that duck nest success decreases 

near planted woodlands as a result of increased predation by mammal and bird species associated with 

trees and shrubs. Waterfowl and waterbirds have been 

shown to avoid wetlands where trees and shrubs occur along wetland margins, presumably to evade predation (Rumble and Flake 1983, Shutler et al. 2000). 

Johnson and Temple (1990) determined that nest predation rates were lower for five species of grassland 

songbirds in areas where nests were more than 148 

feet from woody vegetation. 

Brown-headed cowbird is a nest parasite whose 

population has increased in recent decades to the detriment of other birds (Shaffer et al. 2003). Cowbirds 

lay eggs in the nest of other birds, and the host birds 

act as foster parents to the cowbird young, thus reducing survival of the host bird’s young (Lorenzana and 

Sealy 1999). Studies in mixed-grass prairie and tallgrass prairie determined that grassland birds nesting 

close (less than 541 feet) to wooded edges incur higher 

rates of brood parasitism from cowbirds than nests 

farther away (Johnson and Temple 1990, Patten et al. 

2006, Romig and Crawford 1995). Shaffer et al. (2003) 

documented that brown-headed cowbirds parasitize 

24 of the 36 North American grassland bird species. 

Service-owned lands in South Dakota are part 

of this historically grassland-dominated ecosystem, 

where fire, grazing, and drought restricted natural 

tree growth to limited areas (Higgins 1986). Now, 

planted or volunteer trees and shrubs occur in many 

waterfowl production areas. Although most woody 

plantings existed before Service ownership of these 

lands, the Service did establish tree planting after 

acquisition in attempts to improve wildlife habitat. 

Volunteer trees are prevalent primarily due to lack 

of fire. Planted trees and shrubs such as green ash, 

cottonwood, and buffaloberry are native to North 

America; however, many others, such as caragana, 

Russian olive, and Siberian elm, are nonnative species. The most troublesome species planted in South 

Dakota is eastern red cedar. The species’ extreme 

adaptability has enhanced its spread into areas where 

it was formerly rare or absent. Additional increases 

in its spread are due to tree plantings and the selection of the most aggressive cultivars (Ortman et al. 

1996). Most of these plantings are considered unnatural components of the historical habitat. Additionally, 

nonnative species such as Russian olive and Siberian 

elm are invasive and also readily spread from both 

Service-owned and non–Service-owned plantings 

into new areas. 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 71 

Preventing the encroachment and planting of woody 

vegetation into grassland ecosystems contributes significantly to the recovery of grassland bird populations (Herkert 1994). Recent research indicates that 

the elimination and reduction of invasive and planted 

woody vegetation will benefit most grassland-dependent bird species (Bakker 2003, Grant et al. 2004a, 

Johnson and Temple 1990, Naugle and Quamen 2007, 

Patten et al. 2006, Shaffer et al. 2003, Sovada et al. 

2005). Although many woodland bird species might 

nest in planted woodlands, few are of management 

concern (Kelsey et al. 2006), suggesting that the loss 

of planted woodlands will have negligible effects on 

woodland bird species whose populations are stable 

or expanding. 

In view of the research that has highlighted the 

negative effects of woody vegetation on prairie ecosystems, systematic removal of invasive and planted 

woody vegetation from Service lands is critical to 

the improvement of habitat for grassland-dependent 

birds. Sites for tree removal on waterfowl production 

areas are prioritized on the basis of landscape characteristics; the majority of removal is targeted in areas 

with the largest blocks of grassland, with emphasis 

on native prairie tracts and areas to be restored to 

planted native vegetation. Reducing fragmentation 

in these core areas has the potential to provide the 

most benefits to grassland-dependent birds. In addition, the removal of woody species more than 3.28 feet 

tall should target the removal of the larger shrubs 

and trees that pose the greatest ecological threat to 

grassland ecosystems on Service lands, rather than 

on small native shrubs, such as prairie rose, leadplant, 

and western snowberry, which are important components of grassland ecosystems. 

Before Euro-American settlement in South Dakota, 

woody vegetation primarily occurred in riparian or 

streamside areas in broken topography in the upper 

drainages of streams, as well as on escarpments and in 

sandhills. These areas often had increased soil and leaf 

moisture, standing water, and relatively steep topography that provided protection from fires (Severson 

and Sieg 2006). 

Although numerous patches of native woodlands 

still exist in the northern Great Plains, today, large 

expanses of once nearly treeless prairie are now intermixed with cropland and scattered small (less than 

5-acre) linear and block-shaped tree plantings (also 

commonly referred to as windbreaks, shelterbelts, and 

tree belts). Baer (1989) estimated that these plantings 

cover 3 percent of the landscape in the State. Tree 

plantings are designed to reduce soil erosion from 

croplands (Baer 1989) and to provide shelter for farm 

sites and livestock, and are viewed by many as striking 

landscape features that symbolize settlement of the 

western United States. However, they also further 

fragment remaining grasslands by creating abrupt 

boundaries that exacerbate edge effects (O’Leary 

and Nyberg 2000, Ribic and Sample 2001, Winter et 

al. 2000). Additionally, the suppression of ecological 

processes such as fire and grazing has allowed an increase in the encroachment of woody plants into grasslands (Bakker 2003). These factors have been linked 

to the deterioration of grassland bird populations, 

which are declining faster and more consistently than 

any other group of North American birds (Herkert 

1995, Samson and Knopf 1994). Research indicates 

that native grassland birds need large, contiguous 

tracts of treeless grasslands to maintain populations 

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

The literature overwhelmingly indicates that invasive and planted trees in prairie landscapes often adversely affect a variety of bird groups (Bakker 2003). 

Specifically, trees on the prairie are correlated with 

adverse consequences for ducks (Rumble and Flake 

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

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

2000), grassland songbirds (Grant et al. 2004a, Winter 

et al. 2000), and ring-necked pheasants (Schmitz and 

Clark 1999, Snyder 1984). 

UPLAND HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 4: MANAGE NATIvE 

PRAIRIE HAbITAT 

Over the next 15 years refuge complex staff will annually treat at least 500 acres of native mixed-grass 

prairie habitat that has been invaded by tame grasses 

(for example, smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, 

and crested wheatgrass) using habitat management 

treatments such as grazing, haying, prescribed fire, 

and interseeding to facilitate competition from native 

grasses and forbs and to enhance nesting and migration habitat for upland sandpiper, mallard, and grasshopper sparrow (the three focal species for upland 

and grassland habitats) and other migratory birds. 

Increase native plant groupings by 10 percent over 

15 years. Efforts will focus on Lake Andes Refuge, 

Karl E. Mundt Refuge, and Priority 1–4 waterfowl 

production areas. 

Strategies 

■■ Participate in the Service’s native prairie adaptive 

management study. Annually evaluate native prairie adaptive management units for the effectiveness of upland habitat management treatments. 

■■ Where necessary, interseed native grasses and forbs 

to restore native vegetation species to prairies. 

Use native genotypes where possible. (Note that 

Service policy regarding refuge management implicitly promotes seeding to reestablish native plants 

in native prairie where such plants have become 

rare or absent [National Wildlife Refuge System 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental 

Health, 601 FW 3, 2001]). 
72 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

■■ Use prescribed fire, in appropriate times and with 

appropriate patterns, to reinvigorate native prairie 

grassland habitat. 

■■ Develop a grassland habitat management plan that 

will guide prairie reconstruction and restoration 

on the refuge complex (figure 21). This plan will 

provide additional criteria for selecting and prioritizing refuge complex lands for reconstruction 

and restoration. 

Rationale 

One of the most important management standards 

of the Improvement Act is a provision directing the 

Secretary of the Interior to “ensure that the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the 

System are maintained for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans,” otherwise known as 

the ecological integrity provision. With the exception 

of the Refuge System mission, the ecological integrity 

provision is the most important and pervasive provision of the Improvement Act. Maintaining the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of 

protected lands is a fundamental concept widely recognized as basic to modern scientific resource management, and by virtue of the Improvement Act, the 

Service now has a fundamental legal duty to do so. 

This objective focuses on restoration and maintenance of the floristic composition on tracts identified as 

high priorities. A fundamental assumption is that, with 

continued management focused on vertical structure 

over other prairie qualities and values, native herbaceous flora would continue to decline and disappear 

on native prairie tracts. This objective improves the 

chance that some native prairie will be restored by 

applying frequent and precisely timed disturbance. 

Over the last several decades, rest or non-use (that 

is, lack of grazing, haying, and prescribed fire) was emphasized as a management approach to increase densities of duck nests in uplands on waterfowl production 

areas in North Dakota and South Dakota. In the short 

term (2–20 years), greater vertical structure may be 

maintained in northern grasslands that are rested. 

The structure of such idle vegetation is believed to be 

more important than plant species composition when 

the management goal is waterfowl production, in part 

because the density and survival of nests of prairie 

ducks are believed to be greatest on rested grasslands 

(Naugle et al. 2000, Schranck 1972). 

However, a management approach for upland-nesting duck habitat that emphasizes rest has long-term 

implications that are often overlooked in short-term 

management studies, because continuous idling without periodic defoliation disturbance fails to promote 

long-term grassland health (Naugle et al. 2000). With 

extended rest, introduced grasses, especially smooth 

brome and Kentucky bluegrass, may more rapidly 

displace native vegetation (Murphy and Grant 2005). 

Monotypic stands of smooth brome and Kentucky 

bluegrass are less attractive to upland-nesting ducks 

than other types of grass-forb cover (Nenneman 2003). 

Studies conducted on exotic plant species and 

habitat quality for grassland birds have shown that 

grassland bird species richness or abundance are 

lower in grasslands dominated by exotic species than 

in grasslands containing native species (Bakker and 

Higgins 2009, Greer 2009, Lloyd and Martin 2005, 

Pampush and Anthony 1993, Wilson and Belcher 1989). 

Recent South Dakota research reported that increasing coverage of grasslands by exotic plant species had 

a negative effect on the occurrence and densities of 

four of South Dakota’s species of greatest conservation 

need—chestnut-collared longspur, western meadowlark, grasshopper sparrow, and lark bunting (Greer 

2009). Bakker and Higgins (2009) found that intermediate wheatgrass monotypes and cool-season mixes 

of exotic species in South Dakota contained 40–60 

percent fewer grassland bird species than did native 

sod prairie. Ribic et al. (2009) found that grasshopper sparrows occurred in higher densities in native 

prairie remnants with greater native plant coverage 

than in the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s 

Conservation Reserve Program fields or hay fields containing greater amounts of exotic species. Increased 

vegetative heterogeneity in tracts of native sod prairie 

may support more arthropod prey for grassland birds 

(Hickman et al. 2006, McIntyre and Thompson 2003); 

arthropod prey diversity is positively associated with 

grassland bird richness (Hamer et al. 2006). 

Losses of plant, bird, and arthropod species diversity are not the only consequences when introduced 

plants invade northern prairie. The long-term effect of 

introduced perennials does more than simply determine 

species composition; it also affects ecosystem processes 

(Wilson 2002). Ecosystem processes such as nutrient 

cycling and water-use patterns in prairies dominated 

by smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass differ from 

those in native grasslands (Hunt et al. 1991, Trlica 

and Biondini 1990). Nutrient pools, energy flows, soil 

invertebrate and mycorrhizal relationships, and the 

water cycle can all be altered significantly (Christian 

and Wilson 1999, Seastedt 1995, Vinton and Goergen 

2006, Wilson 2002). 

UPLAND HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 5: RECONSTRUCT 

PRAIRIE ON PREvIOUSLy FARMED AREAS 

Annually and for the next 15 years, refuge complex 

staff will begin the process of prairie reconstruction 

on 200 acres of previously tilled lands, to recreate native grasslands (including native forbs) and provide 

high quality habitat for mallard, grasshopper sparrow, upland sandpiper, and other migratory birds. 

Focus efforts on Lake Andes Refuge, Karl E. Mundt 

Refuge, and waterfowl production areas that are 

within Priorities 1–4. 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 73 

Prescribed fire is one tool wildlife managers use to emulate the defoliation process with which prairie plants evolved. 

USFWS 

Strategies 

■■ Create partnerships with cooperative farmers to 

farm areas identified for reconstruction for two or 

more growing seasons to eliminate invasive grasses 

and provide a clean seedbed for replanting. 

■■ As needed, monitor refuge complex lands reconstructed to native prairie grasses and forbs to 

evaluate the effectiveness of upland habitat management and reconstruction efforts, especially in 

the early stages of reconstruction. 

■■ Develop a grassland habitat management plan that 

will guide prairie reconstruction and restoration 

on the refuge complex. This plan will provide additional criteria for selecting and prioritizing refuge 

complex lands for reconstruction and restoration. 

■■ Significantly reduce invasive plants before the reseeding phase of reconstruction. 

■■ Using the best available science, determine which 

plant species were native to individual tracts of 

each refuge complex unit. Replant a diverse mix 

of grasses and forbs using genotypes that are from 

the local area where possible. 

Rationale 

Prairie reconstruction and prairie restoration are two 

different processes. Prairie reconstruction refers to 

reestablishing (replanting) native plants (grasses, 

forbs, shrubs) on sites that were tilled. Typically sites 

are farmed for 2 or more years to eliminate invasive 

plants, and then reseeded with a mixture of native 

plant species. Prairie restoration involves applying 

management treatments to bring a native prairie remnant (never tilled) back to a point where native plants 

thrive. This objective concerns prairie reconstruction. 

Native migratory birds fare best in native vegetation (Bakker and Higgins 2009). Refuge complex 

grasslands have been invaded by nonnative grasses 

such as smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and crested 

wheatgrass. An intensive reconstruction effort is necessary to eliminate competition from invasive grasses 

and reestablish native plant species. 

The establishment of native-dominated perennial 

herbaceous cover, in concert with prescribed application of periodic fire and grazing, resists the encroachment and establishment of invasive species. Sources 

in the literature suggest that species-rich seed mixtures may reduce weed invasion on native seeded 

grasslands (Blumenthal et al. 2003, Carpinelli 2001, 

Pokorny 2002, Sheley and Half 2006, Tilman et al. 

1996). In a study by Pokorny et al. (2005), the investigators determined that indigenous forbs resisted 

invasion by spotted knapweed better than grasses 

did. The overall theory in the literature indicates 

that seeding a species-rich seed mixture increases 

the inclusion of various functional groups among plant 

species. The more species included in a mixture, the 

higher the probability of providing competition to 

resist invasion by nonnative plants. Moreover, native 

vegetation is preferred over nonnative vegetation by a 

number of grassland birds (Bakker and Higgins 2009). 

Mark Sherfy of USGS found that ducks nesting in 

Conservation Reserve Program fields in North Dakota 

and South Dakota showed no significant preference 

for tame grass–seeded fields—that is, dense nesting 

cover (DNC)—over native seeded fields. In addition, 

nest success was slightly higher in native seedings 

than in tame grass seedings. According to Klett et al. 

(1984), nest initiation rates for mallard, gadwall, and 

blue-winged teal in North Dakota and South Dakota 

were as high or higher in native-seeded fields than in 

seeded fields that lacked natives. Similarly, nest success 

was not significantly different in native-seeded than 

in tame grass–seeded study fields (Klett et al. 1984). 
74 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

Ultimately, reconstruction success (habitat improvement) is dependent on monitoring and management 

efforts. Monitoring determines the nature and the appropriate timing of the management action. Effective 

management (prescribed fire, grazing, mowing, or 

chemical treatment) of reconstruction sites is critical 

for establishment, productivity, and longevity of the 

grassland stands. The refuge complex’s focus on using native plants to reconstruct waterfowl production 

areas is consistent with the Improvement Act, which 

includes an integrity policy that states that Refuge 

System units are to promote biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health and attempt the 

restoration of historical conditions on Refuge System 

lands (Schroeder et al. 2004). 

UPLAND HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 6: IMPROvE TAME 

GRASSES 

On lands not slated for grassland restoration or reconstruction (Priority 5–8 waterfowl production areas), 

refuge complex staff will apply management treatments (for example, grazing, fire, haying, and interseeding) to improve tame grass habitat for migratory 

birds throughout the life of this CCP. Interseeding of 

nonnative forbs such as alfalfa will not exceed an average of 50 acres per year on tracts that were previously 

cropped and are dominated by tame grass. 

Strategies 

■■ Use grazing, haying, fire, and interseeding of forbs 

to keep tame grass vigorous and beneficial for migratory birds. 

■■ Avoid treatments and locations that are relatively 

time-consuming. 

■■ When interseeding, use forb species that are inexpensive, noninvasive, and easily controlled (for example, alfalfa). Invasive nonnative plant species like 

sweet clover or red clover will not be interseeded. 

Rationale 

Tame grass is defined as nonnative grass species. In 

this area the typical tame grass species are smooth 

brome, Kentucky bluegrass, intermediate wheatgrass, 

and crested wheatgrass. 

Grasslands with a forb component, including legumes like alfalfa, are attractive to invertebrates. 

Invertebrates are very important to breeding migratory birds and their young. The nutrition they 

provide is especially important to egg-laying females 

and young of the year. 

Certain upland areas were seeded back to an herbaceous cover of introduced vegetation known as DNC. 

Traditionally, these seed mixtures comprised cool-season 

introduced grasses and legumes (intermediate wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass, alfalfa, and sweetclover) that 

establish well under a wide variety of soil, moisture, 

and climatic conditions that exist across the Plains 

and Prairie Pothole Region. Such a mixture provides 

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

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

attractive nesting cover for waterfowl for 6–8 years 

after seeding and up to 15 years with proper management (Duebbert and Frank 1984, Higgins and Barker 

1982, Lokemoen 1984). 

Ideally, the majority of these tracts planted to DNC 

will be seeded back to a native mixture; however, certain situations may limit the opportunity to do so. If a 

DNC mixture is used, intermediate wheatgrass and tall 

wheatgrass are viable grasses to select, and alfalfa is 

an appropriate legume. Under no circumstances should 

smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, crested wheatgrass, or sweetclover be used in DNC mixtures. DNC 

tracts must also be managed to maintain optimal vigor 

throughout the life cycle of the planting. Especially 

in cropland-dominated areas, invasive plant threats 

will persist and will require appropriate treatments 

to control. Management methods such as grazing and 

fire may be used to stimulate the height and density 

of DNC mixtures. Mechanical methods such as haying may also benefit plantings by removing the litter 

layer. Finally, the most productive stands of DNC are 

those that are reseeded approximately every 10–15 

years, including appropriate crop rotation frequency 

as seedbed preparation (Duebbert et al. 1981). Before 

a tract is planted back to DNC, the Service’s integrity policy and the sustainability of native grasslands 

should be considered. 

Tame grass tracts that have not begun the seedbed preparation process will be maintained in an idle 

state that generally consists of a predominance of introduced cool-season grass species. Before seedbed 

preparation for seeding to native grass, these sites 

are of relatively low priority. Management efforts 

can be better directed toward higher priority upland 

areas such as native prairie, tracts already reseeded 

to native grass, and tracts being prepared for native 

reseeding. According to Mark Sherfy of USGS, there 

is evidence that, despite the presence of introduced 

cool-season perennial grass cover, DNC likely supports 

multiple plant species and generalist birds, including 

upland-nesting ducks. 

UPLAND HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 7: MANAGE 

GRASSLAND STRUCTURE 

Over the life of this CCP, refuge complex staff will 

maintain a minimum of 40 percent of all grassland acres 

in a high visual obstruction reading (VOR) category 

(greater than 8 inches; Robel et al. 1970), a minimum 

of 25 percent in a medium VOR category (4–8 inches), 

and a minimum of 5 percent in a low VOR category 

(less than 4 inches) to provide a mosaic of habitat 

types for the broadest possible variety of grassland 

migratory birds. 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 75 

Strategies 

■■ Manage grasslands with prescribed fire, grazing, 

haying, rest, or a combination. 

■■ Monitor VOR using a method modified from Robel 

et al. (1970) once every 5 years on a representative 

portion of refuge complex grasslands. 

■■ Use the Floristic Quality Index to monitor vegetation quality and changes before and after grassland 

habitat treatments, restorations, and reconstructions. Use the Refuge Lands Geographic Information 

System database to document habitat treatments 

and store vegetation data. 

■■ Use resources such as the Refuge Inventory and 

Monitoring Office in Fort Collins, Colorado, to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of monitoring. 

■■ Conduct a critical thinking process that lists, describes, and prioritizes biological information needs 

for grasslands on the refuge complex that will be 

best addressed through outside research to inform 

and improve refuge management. This information 

will be provided to potential research partners and 

the research community. Use resources such as the 

Service’s zone biologist, past research partners, and 

other research contacts to develop the biological 

information needs list. 

Rationale 

Focal species were selected for refuge complex grasslands. These include the mallard, which prefers high 

grass height (VOR of greater than 8 inches); the grasshopper sparrow, which prefers medium grass height 

(VOR of 4–8 inches); and the upland sandpiper, which 

prefers low grass height (VOR of less than 4 inches). 

Providing habitat for each of these three species will 

benefit many other grassland migratory bird species 

(for example, dickcissel, northern harrier, gadwall, 

sedge wren, blue-winged teal, northern shoveler, bobolink, northern pintail, western meadowlark, marbled 

godwit, and willet). Quantitative measurements of 

VOR of upland nesting species are shown in figure 24. 

Managing for 40 percent or more in the high VOR 

category (greater than 8 inches) will provide a grassland 

habitat that is underrepresented in the surrounding 

private landscape, and one that is ideal for many species of waterfowl and other migratory birds. Medium 

VOR (4–8 inches), and especially low VOR (less than 

4 inches), are well represented in the surrounding 

private landscape. 

Gathering information specific to refuge complex 

lands will enable refuge complex staff to use the best 

available science to guide management decisions. 

UPLAND HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 8: PROTECT 

GRASSLANDS THROUGH EASEMENTS 

Provided adequate money is available, the wetland 

district manager will lead annual efforts to secure 

perpetual conservation easements on 3,000 acres of 

unprotected, high priority grassland acres, to benefit 

migratory birds; sequester carbon; improve soil stabilization and water quality; and benefit indigenous plant 

and animal species, resident wildlife, and federally and 

State-listed species throughout the life of this plan. 

Strategies 

■■ Focus the protection of grassland (and associated 

wetlands) with conservation easements in areas 

of high waterfowl pair densities. Use the current 

Upland Accessibility for Breeding Duck Pairs in 

the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge map (figure 23) to guide acquisition priorities. 

■■ Use the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program as 

a way to inform prospective sellers of the Service’s 

conservation easement program. 

■■ Use the Service’s strong partnership with Ducks 

Unlimited, North American Wetlands Conservation 

Act, and other conservation organizations to generate non–Duck Stamp money to buy additional 

conservation easements. 

■■ Maintain prioritized lists of willing sellers whose 

lands have been approved for easement acquisition. 

■■ Work closely with the Huron Wetland Acquisition 

Office to process high priority easement evaluations 

and to communicate acquisition priorities for the 

Lake Andes District. 

■■ Examine data from HAPET, The Nature Conservancy, 

Ducks Unlimited, and others to identify geographical areas valuable to trust species. Pursue acquisition of easements to promote wildlife conservation. 

Rationale 

The initial focus of the Service’s Small Wetland Acquisition 

Program was the protection of wetlands through 

purchasing land in fee title and acquiring perpetual 

wetland easements. However, data also revealed the 

importance of upland grasslands to successful nesting of waterfowl. With the continued conversion of 

grassland to cropland and consistent declines in the 

populations of grassland-dependent birds, the need 

to protect neighboring grassland habitats became 

evident. The Service received authorization and began to acquire grassland easements in South Dakota 

in 1989. Like a wetland easement, a grassland easement transfers limited perpetual rights to the Service 

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

grassland easement is to prevent the conversion of 

grassland to cropland, while minimally restricting 

existing agricultural practices. More specifically, the 

purposes of a grassland easement are: 

■■to improve the water quality of wetlands by reducing soil erosion and the use of chemicals and 

fertilizers on surrounding uplands; 
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Huron's Data 

Minimum (25%) 

Northern Harrier 

Gadwall 

Mallard 

Greater Prairie-Chicken1 

Short-Eared Owl 

Blue-Winged Teal 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

Northern Shoveler 

Bobolink 

Northern Pintail 

Baird’s Sparrow 

Wilson’s Phalarope2 

Chestnut-collared Longspur 

Upland Sandpiper 

Marbled Godwit 

Willet Maximum (75%) 

Visual Obstruction Reading (in) 

Figure 24. Quantitative measurements of visual obstruction readings of upland nesting species. Source: Laubhan et 

al. 2006, except 1

Svedarsky et al. 2003 and 2Dechant et al. 1999. 

76 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

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

nesting success on private lands; 

■■to perpetuate grassland cover established by other 

Federal programs (for example, Conservation 

Reserve Program); 

■■to provide an alternative to the purchase of uplands in fee title, thus maintaining lands in private 

ownership. 

Grassland easements restrict the landowner from 

altering the grass by digging, plowing, disking, or 

otherwise destroying the vegetative cover. Haying, 

mowing, and seed harvest are restricted until after 

July 15 of each year. The landowner can graze without 

restriction (appendix J). 

Considering the strong and ongoing partnership 

with Ducks Unlimited and the consistent success of 

using its non-Federal money to help acquire North 

American Wetlands Conservation Act grants, it is 

likely the Service’s grassland easement program will 

enjoy stable, if not increasing, funding over the next 

15 years. Under these circumstances and using an 

average acquisition target based on 2008 Division of 

Realty data, the Service will secure protected status 

for more than 500,000 grassland acres in South Dakota. 

HAPET has developed a model that shows the 

distribution of priority grassland patches (at least 

55 acres) in relation to breeding duck pairs (at least 

25 per square mile) (figure 25) and predicts that for 

every 1 percent decline of priority grassland in the 

Plains and Prairie Pothole Region, there will be 25,000 

fewer ducks in the fall. Protection of priority grassland patches not only benefits waterfowl, but also a 

wide variety of grassland-dependent migratory birds 

such as western meadowlark (Johnson and Igl 2001). 

HAPET identified 11.56 million acres in the PPJV 

area of North Dakota, South Dakota, and eastern 

Montana that meet the above criteria. By subtracting 

grasslands already protected on waterfowl production areas or grassland easements, HAPET identified 

10.4 million grassland acres in need of protection. The 

Dakota Working Group and the PPJV (Ringelman 

2005) have adopted this figure as a protection goal. 

Securing protected status on 500,000 acres of priority 

grassland in the next 15 years will help the Service 

advance toward meeting this goal. 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 77 

Additionally, the HAPET model has identified 

larger grassland areas with respect to area-dependent, 

grassland-nesting birds such as northern harrier, upland sandpiper, and grasshopper sparrow (Johnson 

and Igl 2001). These areas consist of contiguous grass 

cover encompassing at least 640 acres with at least 30 

percent of the area comprising permanent or semipermanent wetlands. Protection of these large, contiguous 

blocks of grass within a larger, grassland-dominated 

landscape should provide adequate protection for a 

wide range of grassland-dependent migratory bird 

species that are of management concern (Estey 2007). 

To inform prospective sellers of the Service’s conservation easement program, the Service will use the 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. Often times, 

a biologist from this program is the first point of contact for landowners who would otherwise be unaware 

of the available conservation programs. 

UPLAND HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 9: PROTECT 

GRASSLANDS THROUGH FEE ACQUISITION 

Throughout the life of this CCP, the refuge complex’s 

wetland district manager will strive to secure additional 

land in fee title as waterfowl production areas from 

willing sellers, at an average annual rate of 0.5 percent 

over the existing land base, within high priority sections of the Grassland Bird Conservation Area (figure 

25) and areas shown in HAPET’s Upland Accessibility 

for Breeding Duck Pairs in the Lake Andes National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex map (figure 23) for migratory bird conservation. 

Strategies 

■■ Purchase standalone or roundout properties with 

habitat values equal to or greater than existing 

high-priority waterfowl production areas. 

■■ Standalone properties could be purchased ahead 

of a roundout property or any easement. 

■■ Continue to use the Service’s strong partnership 

with others to acquire waterfowl production areas 

through purchase and donation. 

■■ Consider exchange proposals with other conservation organizations with the goal of improving 

management capability. 

Rationale 

Waterfowl production areas are public lands purchased 

by the Federal Government for increasing the production 

of migratory birds, especially waterfowl. The purchase 

of land—or ownership in fee title—entails the Federal 

Government holding ownership of land on behalf of the 

American public. Money to buy waterfowl production 

area lands typically comes from the public purchase of 

Federal Duck Stamps. This important program aims 

to ensure the long-term protection of waterfowl and 

other migratory bird breeding habitat—primarily in 

the Plains and Prairie Pothole Region of the northern 

Great Plains. Waterfowl production areas are open to 

the public for hunting, fishing, wildlife (bird) watching, photography, and trapping. 

The majority of waterfowl production areas in the 

Lake Andes District were purchased in the 1960s. 

Historically, acquisition of waterfowl production areas focused on larger semipermanent wetlands; often, very little associated upland was included in the 

tract. As grassland cover was converted to cropland, 

the Service recognized the importance of purchasing 

uplands next to wetlands for waterfowl production. 

When considering a waterfowl production area purchase from willing sellers, the Service ranks sites with 

native prairie, rare wildlife and plant species, a diversity of temporary and semipermanent wetlands, and 

areas near or next to another waterfowl production 

area as high priorities for acquisition. Currently, the 

Service purchases on average one waterfowl production area in each district every 3 years. 

UPLAND HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 10: EvALUATE 

WILDLIFE vALUES OF REFUGE COMPLEx LANDS 

Throughout the life of this CCP, refuge complex staff 

will evaluate the biological integrity and value to wildlife populations of lands suspected of no longer meeting 

the Service’s purposes, and will pursue legal means 

to exchange tracts of land to ensure limited Refuge 

System resources are focused on conserving the most 

valuable habitats for Service trust resources. 

Strategies 

■■ Examine interests currently held in fee title and 

identify those that are clearly of low value to trust 

species. Pursue exchange of these interests to ensure that limited Refuge System resources are 

focused on conserving the most valuable habitats. 

■■ Use proceeds from exchanges to acquire high priority habitats. All purchases will be from willing 

sellers and subject to approval from the Service. 

■■ Apply the waterfowl production area prioritization 

model to identify fee tracts that are of low priority for conservation. Consider starting a process 

to exchange these lands. 

Rationale 

Compared with today, years ago the Service was less 

selective when it came to acquiring and accepting 

lands for the Refuge System. Techniques and information have evolved and as a result there are many 

more tools available to determine the value to wildlife 

conservation of a tract or interest. 

In the past land acquisition has proceeded through a 

reactive process. Landowners approached the Service 

when they were interested in selling their land. Years 

ago lands were acquired with very little information 

relevant to an individual tracts value for migratory 

birds. In hindsight this sometimes resulted in acquisition 
78 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

of lands that had marginal wildlife value. Resources to 

manage these lands are very limited and not expected 

to increase appreciably in the near future. A process 

that identifies valuable lands for future acquisition 

and current holdings for future divestiture will allow 

limited resources to be focused on the most valuable 

land for migratory bird conservation. 

Consideration will be given for the exchange of the 

following waterfowl production areas: Freese, Diede, 

Collar, Anderson, Kayser, and White Lake. 

UPLAND HAbITAT ObjECTIvE 11: CONTROL 

NEST PREDATORS ON LAkE ANDES WETLAND 

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

Throughout the life of this CCP, the refuge complex 

will support and facilitate opportunities for control of 

nest predators (for example, raccoons, striped skunks, 

red fox, opossum, and other vermin) led and carried 

out by partner organizations, to facilitate higher nest 

success (greater than 35 percent Mayfield nest success) among mallards and other waterfowl across the 

wetland management district. 

Strategies 

■■ Investigate support from Delta Waterfowl and 

other potential partners. 

■■ Facilitate control efforts where waterfowl nesting 

density is greater than 40 pairs per square mile. 

■■ Allow control of nest predators by partner organizations during the nesting season. 

■■ Facilitate nest monitoring by partner organizations, on a representative sample of the control 

area before, during, and after control. 

■■ Remove predator habitat from waterfowl production areas that could harbor nest predators (for 

example, abandoned buildings, rock piles, and 

abandoned shelterbelts). 

Rationale 

Animals that prey on migratory bird nests are abundant on the Lake Andes District. Raccoon, striped 

skunk, opossum, and red fox have the most significant 

negative effect on migratory bird nesting success in 

this area. Food and cover in the agricultural landscape 

results in “bumper crops” of these three species nearly 

every year. Control of nest predators during the nesting season in habitats similar to that of the district has 

been shown to significantly increase nesting success of 

waterfowl. The refuge complex does not have the resources to control nest predators and monitor nesting 

success in a significant way across the vast landscape 

of the district. Such an effort would have to be performed by an outside organization that is committed 

to improving the nesting success of ground-nesting 

birds in the Plains and Prairie Pothole Region. This 

type of activity has occurred on other districts in the 

Plains and Prairie Pothole Region in the past 10 years. 

According to Beauchamp et al. (1996), nest success 

of upland nesting ducks has declined from a mean of 

30 percent in 1935 to a mean of 10 percent in the early 

1990s. This decrease in nest success can likely be attributed to multiple factors, including a substantial 

long-term loss, fragmentation, and degradation of 

wetland and grassland habitat, as well as an unbalanced predator community. According to Sovada et 

al. (2004), habitat conversions have changed predator–prey relationships and increased populations of 

certain waterfowl predators. In addition to waterfowl, 

predation is an important cause of nest failure for 

passerines, shorebirds, ground-nesting raptors (for 

example, northern harrier and short-eared owl), and 

upland gamebirds (Helmers and Gratto-Trevor 1996, 

Martin 1988, 1995). 

Several studies support the hypothesis that removal of predators like striped skunk, raccoon, and 

red fox increases waterfowl nest success (Garrettson 

and Rohwer 2001, Garrettson et al. 1996, Hoff 1999, 

Mense 1996), productivity (Sovada et al. 2001), and 

brood production (Balser et al. 1968, Duebbert and 

Lokemoen 1980, Garrettson et al. 1996, Sargeant et al. 

1995). Greenwood and Sovada (1996) suggested that 

lethal control of predators can potentially improve 

waterfowl production across large landscape areas. 

Predator removal can be a viable alternative where 

habitat management actions are not sufficient to support 

waterfowl nest success at or above maintenance levels 

(Sovada et al. 2004). Reynolds et al. (2001) suggested 

that on average (dependent on multiple variables) the 

landscape must contain 40 percent grass cover or more 

for mallards to achieve a nest success of 15–20 percent 

(population maintenance level). Sovada et al. (2001) 

stresses that predator management activities must 

provide for flexibility across the landscape because of 

the dynamic nature of factors (like climatic conditions) 

that influence waterfowl recruitment. Additionally, 

Sargeant et al. (1995) and Garrettson and Rohwer 

(2001) both concluded that predator control on large 

blocks is more effective than on smaller areas. 

Past surveys of upland duck nest success on refuge 

complex lands indicate that in some years duck nests 

suffer predation at levels that suppress nest success 

to a point below a minimum maintenance threshold 

(15–20 percent). Additionally, several studies have 

shown that the nest success for ducks on refuges and 

waterfowl production areas throughout much of the 

Plains and Prairie Pothole Region is often less than 

the recommended minimum nest success values of 

15–20 percent (Cowardin et al. 1985, Greenwood 1986, 

Greenwood et al. 1990, Klett et al. 1988). Furthermore, 

Klett et al. (1988) suggested that while conservation 

programs may curb grassland and wetland losses, 

only a minimal increase in duck nest success will occur 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 79
 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Figure 25. Grassland bird conservation area matrix. Source: HAPET 2008. 

CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 81 

unless mammalian predation is reduced. According 

to Dixon and Hollevoet (2005) nest predator control 

will be most effective on areas with more than 60 

duck pairs per square mile and from 20 to 40 percent 

grassland cover. Predator control will occur between 

March 15 and July 15. 

4.7 visitor Services Goal 

Provide opportunities for high quality and compatible hunting, fishing, environmental education, environmental interpretation, photography, and wildlife 

observation for persons of all abilities and cultural 

backgrounds by fostering an understanding and 

appreciation of the importance and purposes of the 

Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex and 

the missions of the Service and the Refuge System. 

vISITOR SERvICES ObjECTIvE 1: IMPROvE LAkE 

ACCESS ON LAkE ANDES NATIONAL WILDLIFE 

REFUGE 

Within 5 years of plan approval, and with assistance of 

partners, refuge complex staff will design ice-resistant, 

functional boat ramps to provide access to the Center, 

South, and North Units of Lake Andes Refuge over a 

wide range of water depths to furnish adequate access 

for waterfowl hunting, fishing, management activities, 

and other compatible uses. 

Strategies 

■■ Pursue cooperative funding to cover the cost of 

engineering and construction. 

■■ Use boat ramp designs that have performed well 

in northern climates with shallow water depths. 

■■ Use partners such as CMCLRO and the SDGFP. 

■■ Created parking areas as needed to accommodate 

increased lake usage. 

Rationale 

Two primitive boat ramps were constructed on the 

Center Unit of Lake Andes Refuge years ago. They 

were built using concrete planks. During winter, ice 

and wave action moved the planks and made the 

ramps inoperable. 

To improve access to Lake Andes, boat ramps are 

needed that are not prone to ice damage and have 

sufficient length and slope to provide access at a wide 

range of water depths. Ramps will be developed on 

the North and South Units; these ramps will be used 

for fishing, hunting (Center Unit only), maintenance, 

and other compatible uses. The ramp on the North 

Unit will be restricted to Service use only. 

vISITOR SERvICES ObjECTIvE 2: INvESTIGATE 

INCREASING HUNTING OPPORTUNITIES 

Throughout the life of the CCP, refuge complex staff 

will maintain or enhance hunting opportunities on refuges and waterfowl production areas and continue to 

provide information about public opportunities for hunting in accordance with State and Federal regulations. 

Strategies 

■■ Work with the State and other partners to ascertain if any new types of hunting opportunities (for 

example, archery hunting, muzzleloader hunting, or 

hunting opportunities for youth and hunters with 

disabilities) can be provided in a compatible way 

where they are currently prohibited, specifically 

Karl E. Mundt Refuge and Lake Andes Refuge’s 

North, South, and Owen’s Bay Units. 

■■ Determine criteria that are currently used by 

SDGFP and the Service to classify people as hunters with disabilities. 

■■ If new types of hunting are prudent and compatible, 

modify the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge 

Hunting Plan and make changes to refuge-specific 

regulations (50 CFR) to accommodate new hunting opportunities. 

■■ Determine if a biological need exists to control 

populations of resident species within areas currently closed to hunting. 

■■ Participate in updating Waterfowl Production Area 

Mapper, a Service Web site that provides electronic 

information on locations and features of waterfowl 

production areas. 

■■ Explore options to develop or improve infrastructure to support hunting opportunities. 

■■ Explore opportunities for development of universally accessible facilities and locations for hunters 

with disabilities. Work with partners to help fund 

such facility development. 

■■ Keep data current to allow the State to incorporate 

district information into the SDGFP hunting guide. 

Meet with SDGFP staff annually to discuss joint 

issues (for example, ensuring that printed hunting 

information is accurate). 

■■ Pursue the addition of a park ranger to the refuge 

complex staff. 

■■ Find refuge complex sites that are normally closed 

to public vehicle access and that can support, on a 

case-by-case basis, opportunities for people with 

disabilities to participate in compatible wildlifedependent recreational opportunities. 

Hunting ring-necked pheasant, prairie grouse, waterfowl, other gamebirds, and deer on the refuge complex is very popular. The primary hunting seasons for 

Rationale 
82 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

all species occur from October through December. A 

light goose conservation order hunting season provides hunters an opportunity to harvest snow geese 

during the spring migration.

 Waterfowl production areas are open to hunting 

as authorized by 50 CFR, part 32.1. This provision 

states that waterfowl production areas shall be open 

to the hunting of migratory gamebirds, upland game, 

and big game subject to the provisions of State law 

and regulations.

 Because the popularity of hunting on public lands 

is increasing, crowding is becoming an issue that affects the quality of the hunting experience. Crowds 

of hunters lead to unsafe hunting conditions and compromise harvest opportunities as game is dispersed. 

Pressure for hunting is intensifying on Service 

lands. The number of nonresident hunters is increasing. In addition, the extent of private property off 

limits to hunting is increasing, while Conservation 

Reserve Program grassland acres on private lands 

are decreasing. 

To ensure a high-quality hunting experience, it is 

essential to maintain healthy populations of resident 

wildlife and migratory birds through habitat management. There is a growing demand for hunting opportunities for hunters with disabilities (for example, 

wheelchair-bound hunters). Youth hunting already 

occurs in accordance with State regulations. 

The recreational benefits of areas closed to hunting will be considered when determining whether or 

how to open new areas to hunting. The capability of 

the refuge complex law enforcement staff to patrol additional areas open to hunting and to manage special 

hunts will also be considered. 

A bench for wildlife observation on the refuge complex. 

USFWS 

vISITOR SERvICES ObjECTIvE 3: INvESTIGATE 

INCREASING FISHING OPPORTUNITIES 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, refuge complex staff 

will work with the State and other partners to ascertain if additional compatible fishing opportunities can 

be provided on Lake Andes. 

Strategies 

■■ Draft a compatibility determination for fishing on 

the North Unit of Lake Andes. 

■■ Work with and support the efforts of CMCLRO to 

restore a high quality fishery on the South Unit of 

Lake Andes. 

■■ Continue to work with SDGFP and the Service’s 

Fisheries Assistance Office to allow fish stocking 

on the South Unit of Lake Andes and on Scheffel 

and Schaefer Waterfowl Production Areas in Bon 

Homme County. Limit stocking to these waters due 

to the ephemeral nature of the refuge complex’s 

wetlands and the competition for food between 

fish and waterfowl. 

■■ If compatible, make changes to refuge-specific 

regulations (50 CFR) to open all of Lake Andes, 

including the North Unit, to fishing. 

Rationale 

During the 1920s, visitors came from miles around to 

fish in Lake Andes for black bass. The fishing was so 

good that numerous resorts were built on the shores 

of the lake, and tourism dominated the local economy. 

The drought of the 1930s dealt a heavy blow to tourism. Since this time, fishing has continued to be good 

during wet cycles but poor during dry cycles. 

Many changes have been made to Lake Andes and 

its surrounding landscape since the 1920s. When the 

refuge was expanded to include Lake Andes in 1939, 

local supporters envisioned a refuge that would provide quality fishing, waterfowl hunting, and waterfowl 

conservation. Recognizing the differing needs of fish 

and waterfowl (for example, water depth) led many 

refuge managers to focus management on waterfowl 

only. More recently, managers and partners have come 

to appreciate that water quality, not quantity, is the 

limiting factor for both fish and waterfowl. Excessive 

nutrients and turbid water caused by carp feeding 

have limited the growth of wetland vegetation that is 

critical to invertebrate populations—the food of fish 

and waterfowl. Many people remember how good the 

fishing can be during wet cycles and are interested in 

improving it. Refuge complex staff recognize the cyclic nature of water depths in Lake Andes and want 

to provide habitat that is good for fish during wet 

cycles and good for waterfowl and other waterbirds 

during dry cycles.
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 83 

vISITOR SERvICES ObjECTIvE 4: IMPROvE 

ENvIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND 

INTERPRETATION by HIRING AN OUTDOOR 

RECREATION PLANNER 

If money becomes available, within 10 years of CCP 

approval, retain an outdoor recreation planner to expand and manage onsite and offsite environmental 

education and interpretation programs that support 

youth and nature Service programs, increase students’ 

exposure and knowledge of the Refuge System, and 

reconnect children and adults with nature. 

Strategies 

■■ If necessary, share the outdoor recreation planner 

with SDGFP, The Nature Conservancy, or other 

conservation groups. 

■■ Forge partnerships and all necessary contacts with 

local school districts and other educational institutions to facilitate school-based outdoor lab activities. 

■■ Promote self-guided tours, led by educators, targeting onsite environmental education for schoolage children. 

■■ Develop an educator’s guide to self-guided refuge 

tours, which provides a menu of options and lessons for site-specific environmental education tours. 

The educator’s guide will be tailored to the needs of 

various class levels with varied levels of complexity, 

depending on the age level/class of the students. 

■■ Continue to actively participate in the Fort Randall 

Birding Festival by facilitating bird watching tours 

at Karl E. Mundt Refuge and at the Owen’s Bay 

Unit of Lake Andes Refuge, as well as exploring 

the possibility of opening other sites where festival participants can engage in wildlife observation 

and photography. 

■■ Continue to actively participate in the Youth 

Outdoor Expo by providing staff to demonstrate 

outdoor activities such as shotgun skills, fishing, 

and turkey hunting. 

■■ Create interpretive exhibits at Atkins Waterfowl 

Production Area and other sites within the refuge complex that emphasize ecological processes 

within natural plant and animal communities, refuge 

habitat management practices, and restoration of 

upland, wetland, and riparian habitats. 

■■ Develop, print, and distribute refuge complex–specific 

brochures and Web-based materials (for example, 

species lists, visitor services facilities and regulations, and waterfowl production area regulations) 

to inform the public and increase awareness of the 

refuge complex and Refuge System’s missions, as 

well as promote visitation to refuge complex lands. 

■■ Promote greater understanding among diverse 

public groups of the refuge complex’s refuges and 

waterfowl production areas, as well as the other 

units, and their values, uses, management, and vital roles in the Refuge System mission. 

■■ Communicate key issues to offsite audiences through 

radio, television, newspapers, and the Internet. 

■■ Maintain a current and dynamic Web page for the 

refuge complex. 

■■ Remodel the refuge complex headquarters to provide a visitor center and classroom. 

Rationale 

The Service made connecting people with nature one 

of its highest priorities in 2007. Working to connect 

people to nature, the Service also strives to help the 

public understand that they have a role in natural resource conservation. The Service recognizes that its 

commitment to connecting people to nature is critical 

to the future of both the agency and to the conservation legacy of the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources. 

The initial focus for the Service’s work in this area is 

to connect children with nature. Environmental education is one of several ways the Service commits to 

public service and the future. The importance of environmental education in the Refuge System is further 

underscored by the fact that it is one of the six priority 

wildlife-dependent recreational activities supported 

by the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

The Service’s definition of environmental education for the Refuge System is as follows: a process 

designed to teach citizens and visitors the history and 

importance of conservation and the biological and the 

scientific knowledge of our Nation’s natural resources. 

Through this process, we can help develop a citizenry 

that has the awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, 

motivation, and commitment to work cooperatively 

toward the conservation of our Nation’s environmental resources. Environmental education within 

the Refuge System incorporates onsite, offsite, and 

distance learning materials, activities, programs, and 

products that address the audience’s course of study, 

unit purpose(s), physical attributes, ecosystem dynamics, conservation strategies, and the Refuge System 

mission (USFWS policy 605 FW 6). 

The staff of the refuge complex is currently involved 

in two America’s Great Outdoors projects, Dakota 

Grasslands and Missouri River String of Pearls. One 

of the overriding goals of America’s Great Outdoors is 

to reconnect people with nature, especially on working 

landscapes when humans live sustainably with nature. 

Expansion of environmental education and interpretation will provide a benefit for visitors, foster 

understanding of and support for refuge complex 

management, and help reconnect people with nature. 
84 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

vISITOR SERvICES ObjECTIvE 5: COMMERCIAL 

bAIT HARvESTING 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, the wildlife refuge 

manager will determine the compatibility of commercial 

bait harvesting with trust wildlife species conservation, 

and act appropriately to safeguard trust resources. 

Strategies 

■■ Develop a compatibility determination for commercial bait harvesting. 

■■ Prevent commercial bait harvesting (or stocking 

of bait fish) on Service-managed wetlands that do 

not currently support a fishery, due to competition 

for food between fathead minnows and waterfowl. 

Scheffel Waterfowl Production Area, Schaeffer 

Waterfowl Production Area, and Lake Andes are 

the only waters that currently support a fishery. 

■■ If bait harvesting is deemed incompatible, identify 

and phase out existing operations. 

Rationale 

Commercial bait harvesting occurs on Lake Andes 

where the Service’s jurisdiction had been in question 

until recently. Lake Andes has long been a part of 

the Refuge System, primarily through an easement 

from the State of South Dakota. It was recently determined that the Administration Act applied to this 

easement. This Federal law provides authority and 

guidelines relevant to secondary uses such as commercial bait harvesting on refuges. On Lake Andes, 

secondary uses must be compatible with the purpose 

of the refuge, which is migratory bird conservation. 

In addition, commercial uses must be a benefit to the 

purpose of the refuge. 

According to Bouffard and Hanson (1997) waterfowl marshes traditionally have been managed for 

both waterbirds and fish based on the assumption 

that fish, except carp, are compatible with waterfowl 

(Johnson 1964, Poff 1985). Their review of the scientific literature indicated that this assumption is often 

incorrect. Armstrong and Leafloor (1990) studied 

fish–waterfowl interactions in the Plains and Prairie 

Pothole Region and recommended keeping fish out 

of wetlands that are managed for waterfowl such as 

waterfowl production areas. 

Semipermanent wetlands throughout the uppermidwestern United States are commonly used as commercial rearing ponds for bait fish, including fathead 

minnows (Carlson and Berry 1990; Dobie 1956, 1972; 

Peterson and Hennagir 1980; Van Eeckout 1976). 

Fathead minnows have potential to use a large proportion of a wetland invertebrate food resources because 

they (1) are present and feed year round, (2) forage 

in the entire water column, and (3) consume invertebrates throughout their life cycle (Held and Peterka 

1974, Price et al. 1991). 

Commercial bait harvesting typically involves the 

sustainable removal of fathead minnows from wetlands. Hanson and Riggs (1995) evaluated the effects 

of fathead minnows on wetland invertebrates. Indices 

of aquatic invertebrate abundance, biomass, and taxon 

richness were all lower in wetlands containing fathead 

minnows. At high densities fathead minnows reduced 

the suitability of wetlands as seasonal foraging areas 

for waterfowl. Competition for macroinvertebrates 

between fish and waterfowl influences habitat selection by female ducks and may be a major determinant 

of duckling feeding efficiency and growth rates on 

some waters in Canada and Scandinavia (DesGranges 

and Rodrigue 1986; Eadie and Keast 1982; Eriksson 

1979, 1983; Perhsson 1984, 1991). Fish are often major 

determinants of aquatic invertebrate abundance and 

community structure. 

vISITOR SERvICES ObjECTIvE 6: IMPROvE 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR WILDLIFE ObSERvATION 

AND PHOTOGRAPHy 

Within 3 years of CCP approval, refuge complex staff 

will assess the compatibility of opening limited portions of areas currently closed to public entry on Karl 

E. Mundt Refuge and Lake Andes Refuge for wildlife 

observation and photography. 

Strategies 

■■ Draft a simple plan that outlines access geographically and temporally to ensure compatibility. 

■■ Complete a compatibility determination for this 

new use. 

■■ Investigate the possibility of providing a self-guided 

nature trail on Karl E. Mundt Refuge. 

■■ Use the strategies for accessibility found in Visitor 

Services Objective 7. 

Rationale 

Some areas that are currently closed to public entry 

offer excellent opportunities for wildlife observation 

and photography. The Karl E. Mundt Refuge has not 

been opened to public entry since its establishment 

in 1974. This was intended to minimize disturbance 

to bald eagles that wintered and nested on the refuge. Since that time, the bald eagle population has 

recovered and the species was removed from the list 

of threatened and endangered species. 

Woodland habitat on the refuge provides migration 

and nesting habitat for a variety of migratory bird 

species that are not commonly seen outside of woodlands. Such areas are prized by birdwatchers. With 

bald eagle populations secure, now may be the time to 

allow limited public entry on the refuge. Entry could 

still be prohibited in sensitive areas and during sensitive seasons, such as near eagle nests when they are 

nesting. Access will be by foot. A trailhead parking lot 

and a foot trail will have to be developed to provide 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 85 

access to the North Unit of the refuge. The South Unit 

is surrounded by private land with the exception of 

its shared boundary with the Missouri River and due 

to difficult access will remain closed to public entry. 

A footpath on the refuge complex. 

USFWS 

vISITOR SERvICES ObjECTIvE 7: IMPROvE 

ACCESSIbILITy FOR WILDLIFE ObSERvATION AND 

PHOTOGRAPHy 

When supplemental money becomes available, refuge 

complex staff will improve accessibility of selected portions of existing foot trails (the Prairie Ponds within 

the Owens Bay Unit of Lake Andes Refuge and Atkins 

Waterfowl Production Area) by paving the surface, to 

allow access for people with disabilities and improve 

their wildlife observation and photography opportunities. The refuge complex staff will also develop accessible observation and photography blinds and towers. 

Strategies 

■■ Seek funding through the Education and Visitor 

Services Branch of the Service’s Region 6 Refuges 

Program. 

■■ Provide wildlife observation and photography 

blinds in strategic sites on refuges and waterfowl 

production areas including some that are accessible 

to people of all abilities. Allow the compatible use 

of personal portable blinds. 

■■ Construct, place, and manage blinds using guidelines provided in the “Welcoming Photographers 

to National Wildlife Refuges Handbook.” 

■■ Construct blinds that are semipermanent so they 

can be moved with heavy equipment as habitat 

conditions change. 

■■ Notify the public of blind locations and proper use 

upon construction and placement. 

■■ Construct observation towers and platforms on 

strategic sites, some of which are accessible to 

people of all abilities. 

Rationale 

Most people have some form of disability during their 

life, whether it is permanent or temporary. Providing 

access for people with disabilities is not only the right 

thing to do, it is also the law. Generally speaking facilities and recreational activities need to be accessible 

for people of all abilities. If a foot trail is provided, 

then a portion of that foot trail or another one nearby 

must be accessible. 

Blinds and observation towers and platforms in 

strategic locations facilitate up-close views of wildlife 

for photography or observation. When properly placed 

and used such facilities limit disturbance of wildlife. 

4.8 Operations Goal 

Provide money, staff, infrastructure, protection of 

cultural resources, partnerships, and a safe working 

environment to achieve the purposes and objectives of 

the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

OPERATIONS ObjECTIvE 1: ExPAND STAFF AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

Throughout the life of this plan and as additional 

funding allows, the project leader will prioritize and 

fill the positions identified in the Refuge Operation 

Needs System to fulfill the visions, goals, and objectives of this plan (see appendix I for a complete staff 

list). Infrastructure will be expanded as needed to 

accommodate additional staff. 

Strategies 

■■ Review the priorities for positions listed in the 

Refuge Operation Needs System periodically and 

reprioritize as necessary. 

■■ When funding allows, remodel and expand the 

headquarters building to provide a visitor center 

and to accommodate additional staff. 

■■ When funding allows, remodel and expand the 

maintenance shop to correct deficiencies and accommodate additional staff and equipment. 

■■ Acquire additional small and heavy equipment and 

replace existing worn-out equipment. 

■■ Pursue the addition of the following positions to 

the refuge complex staff: one deputy wildlife refuge 

manager, one outdoor recreation planner, one park 

ranger, one biological technician, and one prescribed 

fire technician; additionally, pursue the conversion 

of one career seasonal maintenance worker position to a full-time position. 

Rationale 

An expansion of staff and infrastructure is necessary to 

achieve the visions, goals, and objectives of this plan. 

Additional conservation work is directly dependent on 

additional money. Expansion of the maintenance shop 

will improve the condition of infrastructure throughout 
86 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

the refuge complex, and employees will work in a safer 

and healthier environment. Additional equipment will 

enhance the efficiency of refuge complex operations. 

New or replacement equipment and facilities needed 

for the implementation of this CCP in the next 15 years 

includes two 150 horsepower (or larger) tractors, a 

skid-steer loader, a tracked excavator, an articulating loader, a small bulldozer, 4x4 vehicles (one every 

other year), two herbicide sprayers, a semitractor with 

lowboy trailer, a roller packer, a native grass drill, an 

amphibious Argo vehicle, off-road vehicles (one every 

other year), a boat herbicide sprayer, a pull-behind 

scraper (also known as a soil scraper), an equipment 

storage shed, a fence post pounder, and two Trimble 

GPS units (and associated software and equipment). 

OPERATIONS ObjECTIvE 2: bUILD A PRAIRIE 

RECONSTRUCTION FACILITy 

Throughout the life of this CCP and as additional 

funding allows, a prairie reconstruction facility will 

be built to process, clean, dry, and store native grass 

and forb seeds and related equipment. 

Strategies 

■■ Seek partnerships, grants, and other opportunities for supplementary money to accomplish this 

objective. 

Prairie reconstruction is a major part of this CCP. 

Space to process, clean, dry, and store native grass 

and forb seeds is not available. Additional facilities 

and equipment are needed to efficiently implement 

prairie reconstruction on the refuge complex. Using 

local genotypes requires harvesting, processing, and 

storing seed. Purchasing seed for reconstruction is 

very costly. Harvesting and replanting seed is more 

cost-effective. 

Equipment needed and that will be stored here 

includes a seed stripper, combine, hammer mill, seed 

dryer, seed cleaner, seed separator, and other general 

use equipment. 

Rationale 

OPERATIONS ObjECTIvE 3: REPLACE ARTESIAN 

WELL 

As soon as additional funding allows, refuge complex 

staff will replace the existing artesian well on Owen’s 

Bay to provide water for the Prairie Ponds and Owen’s 

Bay and the wildlife and plant species dependent on it. 

Strategies 

■■ Seek partnerships, grants, and other opportunities 

for supplemental money to accomplish this objective. 

Rationale 

The Prairie Ponds are a series of small ponds that 

were created for wildlife observation, environmental 

education, and interpretation near refuge complex 

headquarters. An artesian well provides the only water 

source for these ponds. Flow from the well has been 

steadily decreasing since it was drilled in 1985. Currently, 

flow from the well is barely adequate to provide the 

water needed to make habitat conditions attractive to 

migratory birds in the ponds. Replacement of the well 

is expensive (approximately $150,000 to $250,000) and 

will be dependent on supplemental money. 

OPERATIONS ObjECTIvE 4: PROTECT CULTURAL 

RESOURCES 

For the duration of the CCP, significant cultural resources will be preserved and protected within refuge 

complex lands. 

Strategies 

■■ Adhere to all Federal laws associated with cultural resources. 

■■ Consult a Service archeologist before any landscape management disturbance or activity occurs 

that might affect structures older than 50 years 

or disturb the soil surface. These activities must 

undergo a Section 106 review under the National 

Historic Preservation Act. 

■■ Consult a Service archeologist on appropriate site 

mapping, data storage, site preservation, and protocols to follow regarding newly discovered sites. 

■■ Consult a Service archeologist on cultural resource 

research and study requests. 

■■ Avoid areas of known cultural resources (and potentially sensitive areas when practical) during 

management actions. While cultural resources 

information should not be readily available to the 

public, refuge complex staff and law enforcement 

officers should know the locations of sensitive resources so they can be managed and protected. 

■■ Continue to coordinate National Historic Preservation 

Act Section 110 Cultural Resource Inventories on 

refuge complex lands. 

■■ Avoid or conduct noninvasive (archival or oral 

history) investigations of cultural sites such as 

historic graves. 

■■ Whenever possible, document interviews with 

local people and long-term refuge complex staff. 

■■ Protect structures that are eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

■■ Educate staff on cultural resource issues and the 

importance of National Historic Preservation Act 

compliance, because staff awareness is vital to preservation and protection of resources. 

■■ Conduct post-burn cultural resources inventories 

on the refuge complex’s fee-title lands. 

■■ Consult with Service archeologists whenever old buildings are planned for removal, or ground-disturbing 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 87 

activities are planned. If after consultation and 

clearance cultural resources are found anyway, 

cease construction immediately and contact Service 

archeologists. Assist Service archeologists with 

documentation of cultural resources as needed. 

■■ Consult tribal archeologists to identify and avoid 

sensitive cultural resource areas. 

Staff and infrastructure will be expanded. 

USFWS 

Rationale 

Cultural resources include archaeological sites (prehistoric and historic and their associated documentation), buildings and structures, landscapes, objects, 

and historic documents. These assets form tangible 

links with the past. The refuge complex is responsible 

for protecting and managing these irreplaceable resources for future generations. 

The Service established a cultural resources management program to manage the rich collection of 

cultural resources under its jurisdiction. Some of the 

primary goals related to refuge management include 

the (1) identifying, evaluating, and encouraging preservation of cultural resources and (2) consulting a broad 

array of interested parties. 

OPERATIONS ObjECTIvE 5: ExPAND 

PARTNERSHIPS—SEEk ADDITIONAL PARTNERS 

Throughout the life of this plan, refuge complex staff 

will seek to expand existing partnerships and develop 

new ones to enhance wildlife conservation and wildlifedependent recreation on the refuge complex. 

Strategies 

■■ Contact nongovernmental organizations and other 

potential partners that could facilitate the implementation of this CCP (for example, Pheasants 

Forever and Ducks Unlimited). 

Rationale 

Many of the objectives in this CCP require additional 

money for implementation. Conservation partners can 

sometimes provide supplemental money to accomplish 

a project that is of mutual interest to the partner and 

the Service. 

OPERATIONS ObjECTIvE 6: ExPAND 

PARTNERSHIPS—DEvELOP A FRIENDS GROUP 

Within 10 years of plan approval, the refuge complex’s 

project leader will seek to establish a friends group 

to support and advocate for the refuge complex’s programs and needs. 

Strategies 

■■ Contact conservation groups and conservationminded individuals in or near the refuge complex’s 

14-county area and determine their interest, willingness, and capability to advocate for the refuge 

complex. 

Rationale 

Field stations often must compete for additional staff 

and money. At times friends groups can advocate for 

a field station when the station itself cannot. Such 

groups can be a significant benefit to a field station’s 

wildlife conservation and wildlife-dependent recreation programs. 

OPERATIONS ObjECTIvE 7: LAW 

ENFORCEMENT—EASEMENTS 

Throughout the life of the CCP, protect all wetland and 

grassland areas under perpetual easement through active monitoring and law enforcement in accordance with 

the provisions of the conservation easement contracts. 

Strategies 

■■ Based on existing law enforcement needs for the 

refuge complex, add a full-time Federal wildlife officer (GL–1801) to the refuge complex staff. This 

will prevent protected wetlands and grasslands 

from being lost through violations as a result of 

insufficient law enforcement staff. 

■■ Following the guidelines contained in the “Easement 

Manual” for enforcement procedures, conduct annual surveillance flights to detect potential conservation easement violations and promptly follow up 

with needed enforcement action. 

■■ If staff and money are available, annually send letters to new landowners informing them of existing 

conservation easements on their property, including associated easement provisions. 

■■ Proactively map pre-1976 wetland easements and 

provide maps to landowners along with a copy of 

the easement contract containing provisions. 

■■ Work with HAPET to provide each county USDA 

office within the wetland management district a 

map of Service interests showing waterfowl production areas and easements. USDA staff use maps 

to identify Service easements before granting any 
88 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

wetland drainage or grassland alteration requests. 

Update maps as needed. 

■■ If staff and money are available, conduct aerial 

flights to obtain digital photography of all wetland 

and grassland easements. 

■■ Seek assistance from HAPET for spatial data requests on the locations of Service interests in the 

pre-planning of wind generator farms, fuel pipelines, overhead distribution power lines, or other 

large-scale commercial developments. 

Rationale 

When the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program was 

initiated more than 50 years ago, the Service believed 

that conservation easements would require little to 

no maintenance or enforcement efforts. However, 

it soon became evident that to protect the government’s interest in these easements, a systematic approach was necessary for easement administration 

and enforcement. “Swampbuster” provisions of the 

Farm Bill (which prohibit conversion of wetlands for 

the production of commodity crops by Farm Bill participants) notwithstanding, pressures to drain and fill 

wetlands have continued to intensify. As farm implements such as drills, sprayers, and tractors become 

larger, landowners increasingly view small isolated 

wetlands as nuisance spots because they are tired 

of working around them. Other Farm Bill programs 

can also unintentionally increase pressure to violate 

wetland easement provisions. One such USDA program, Prevented Planting, provides compensation 

to a landowner for acres that cannot be seeded to a 

crop. To qualify for payment, the operator must only 

make an attempt to farm the acres (oftentimes, these 

are wetland acres). Simply plowing the ground once 

in the fall, when wetlands are naturally dry, can constitute an attempt. To facilitate plowing, landowners 

often burn off the wetland vegetation. It is common 

for these burns to occur on conservation easement– 

protected wetlands without the required permit from 

the administering district, which is a violation of the 

easement provisions.

 In the absence of active and effective enforcement, 

the Service’s conservation easement interests could 

be lost forever, in contrast to resources that the government owns outright. A 15-year hiatus in enforcement action would likely result in irreparable harm 

to the Service’s easement interests and permanent 

loss of habitat. 

Because most grassland easements protect native prairie, the major enforcement concern is cultivation. While violations involving the conversion 

of native prairie to cropland are extremely rare, full 

restoration is arguably impossible (although restoration of grassland is possible to regain compliance with 

grassland easement provisions, which do not specify 

native prairie). Accordingly, enforcement is essential 

to the protection of these habitats. Haying, mowing, 

or harvesting seed before July 15, in violation of the 

conservation easement provision, could cause direct 

losses of grassland-nesting birds, including waterfowl. 

Haying is not common on native prairie, but it is more 

likely to occur on tamegrass grasslands. Enforcing 

early hay violations affords another opportunity to 

meet and visit with landowners and operators. These 

contacts may serve to remind landowners and operators of the conservation easement provisions and 

hopefully prevent more serious violations in the future. Like any law enforcement action, the ultimate 

goal is voluntary compliance. 

OPERATIONS ObjECTIvE 8: LAW 

ENFORCEMENT—PUbLIC USES 

Throughout the life of the CCP, the refuge complex 

will protect natural and cultural resources pursuant to 

all relevant laws, Executive Orders, regulations, and 

policies. The refuge complex will provide law enforcement for all public uses on Service lands. 

Strategies 

■■ Provide adequate law enforcement coverage for 

all hunting, fishing, and trapping seasons to ensure compliance with laws and regulations while 

providing for public safety and welfare. 

■■ Develop extensive methods for signage to facilitate 

information transfer, and to address communication needs through the use of kiosks, public use 

leaflets, and tear sheets explaining regulations and 

prohibited activities. 

■■ Develop, coordinate, and maintain working relationships with State and local law enforcement 

authorities and fire departments to protect refuge complex properties and Federal trust species. 

■■ Continue to coordinate with SDGFP conservation 

officers and Yankton Sioux tribal game wardens to 

conduct law enforcement patrols and ensure compliance with regulations. 

Rationale 

Law enforcement is necessary to ensure protection 

and compliance with laws and regulations. Sharing resources and information with other officers increases 

the effectiveness of the law enforcement program. 

OPERATIONS ObjECTIvE 9: MANAGE WILDLAND 

FIRES 

Throughout the life of the CCP, provide adequate collaboration and teamwork between the fire program 

and refuge program to ensure that the objectives of 

Department of the Interior fire policies and other 

Federal policies are met and that prescribed fire remains a viable tool for habitat management. 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 89 

Strategies 

■■ Safely suppress all wildfires within the refuge 

complex. 

■■ Maintain fire qualifications for all capable refuge 

complex staff. 

■■ Utilize Burned Area Emergency Response and 

Burned Area Rehabilitation funding as needed. 

■■ Update the fire district fire management plan as 

needed to accommodate this CCP. 

■■ Make treatment of refuge complex lands near the 

wildland-urban interface high priorities for reduc­

tion of hazardous fuels. 

Rationale 

Having long recognized fire as a key process that 

shapes wildlife habitat structure and function, the 

Service has managed and used fire extensively for 

the past 70 years. Guiding principles of fire manage­

ment in the Service include responsible stewardship, 

hazardous fuel reduction, wildland–urban interface 

management, and habitat management strategies 

based on conserving ecological integrity, meeting the 

objectives of the “National Fire Plan,” and establish­

ing effective partnerships. 

The emphasis of the Service’s fire management 

program has shifted from one of suppression to the 

use of prescribed fire and wildfire as management 

tools to achieve national fire policy objectives, habitat 

objectives, and landscape-level change. 

Fuel treatments need to be properly planned using 

an interagency and interdisciplinary approach when 

possible and practical, using an integrated approach 

across different programmatic areas. 

The “2010 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fire 

Management Handbook” established a statement of 

intent: “Fuels treatments should properly be planned 

on an interdisciplinary basis and be integrated as 

much as practicable with other resource management 

activities, and serve to implement the appropriate 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. With the guid­

ance from the Service Fire Management Handbook, 

fire management staff will strive to work closely with 

all other staff in the district to plan prescribed fire ac­

tivities in a way that will reduce the risk of wildfires 

and also have positive results in the area of habitat 

management.” 

Glossary
 

abiotic—Pertaining to nonliving things. 

accessible—Pertaining to physical access to areas and 

activities for people of different abilities, especially 

those with physical impairments. 

adaptive management—Rigorous application of management, research, and monitoring to gain information and experience necessary to assess and 

modify management activities; a process that uses 

feedback from research, monitoring, and evaluation of management actions to support or modify 

objectives and strategies at all planning levels; a 

process in which policy decisions are implemented 

within a framework of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and assumptions inherent 

in a management plan. Analysis of results helps 

managers determine whether current management should continue as is or whether it should be 

modified to achieve desired conditions. 

Administration Act—National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966. 

alternatives—Different sets of objectives and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and 

goals, helping fulfill the Refuge System mission 

and resolving issues. 

amphibian—Class of cold-blooded vertebrates including frogs, toads or salamanders. 

annual—A plant that flowers and dies within 1 year 

of germination. 

baseline—Set of critical observations, data, or information used for comparison or a control. 

BCR—bird conservation region. 

biological control—Reduction in numbers or elimination of unwanted species by the introduction of 

natural predators, parasites, or diseases. 

biological diversity, also biodiversity—Variety of life 

and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, 

and the communities and ecosystems in which they 

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

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

focus is on endemic species, biotic communities, 

and ecological processes. 

biological integrity—Composition, structure, and 

function at the genetic, organism, and community 

levels consistent with natural conditions and the 

biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, and communities. 

biomass—Total amount of living material, plants and 

animals, above and below the ground in a particular habitat or area. 

biota—Animals and plants of a given region. 

biotic—Pertaining to life or living organisms. 

breeding habitat—Habitat used by migratory birds or 

other animals during the breeding season. 

buffer zone or buffer strip—Protective land borders 

around critical habitats or water bodies that reduce runoff and nonpoint source pollution loading; 

areas created or sustained to lessen the negative 

effects of land development on animals and plants 

and their habitats. 

canopy—Layer of foliage, generally the uppermost 

layer, in a vegetative stand; midlevel or understory 

vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy closure 

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

overhead vegetative cover. 

CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan. 

CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations. 

climax—Community that has reached a steady state 

under a particular set of environmental conditions; 

a relatively stable plant community; the final stage 

in ecological succession. 

CMCLRO—Charles Mix County Lake Restoration 

Organization. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—Codification of the 

general and permanent rules published in the “Federal Register” by the executive departments and 

agencies of the Federal Government. Each volume 

of the CFR is updated once each calendar year. 

community—Area or locality in which a group of people 

resides and shares the same government. 

compatible use—Wildlife-dependent recreational 

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

professional judgment of the director of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the 

mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of 

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

Manual” 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility determination supports the selection of compatible uses and 

identified stipulations or limits necessary to ensure 

compatibility. 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)—A document 

that describes the desired future conditions of 

the refuge and provides long-range guidance and 

management direction for the refuge manager to 
92 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute 

to the mission of the Refuge System, and to meet 

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

Wildlife Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

concern—See issue. 

conservation—Management of natural resources to 

prevent loss or waste. Management actions may 

include preservation, restoration, and enhancement. 

cool-season grass—Grass that begins growth earlier 

in the season and often become dormant in the 

summer; will germinate at lower temperatures 

(65–85°F). Examples are western wheatgrass, 

needle and thread, and green needlegrass. 

cooperative agreement—Legal instrument used when 

the principal purpose of the transaction is the 

transfer of money, property, services or anything 

of value to a recipient to accomplish a public pur

pose authorized by Federal statute and substantial 

involvement between the Service and the recipi

ent is anticipated. 

coteau—A hilly upland including the divide between 

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

cover, also cover type, canopy cover—Present vegeta

tion of an area. 

cultivar—A plant variety that has been produced in 

cultivation by selective breeding. 

cultural resources—Remains of sites, structures, or 

objects used by people in the past. 

CWCS—comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. 

database—Collection of data arranged for ease and 

speed of analysis and retrieval, usually computerized. 

deciduous—Pertaining to any plant organ or group of 

organs that is shed annually; perennial plants that 

are leafless for sometime during the year. 

defoliation—Removing of vegetative parts; to strip 

vegetation of leaves; removal can be caused by 

weather, mechanical, animals, and fire. 

dense nesting cover (DNC)—Composition of grasses 

and forbs that allows for a dense stand of vegeta

tion that protects nesting birds from the view of 

predators, usually consisting of one to two species 

of wheatgrass, alfalfa, and sweetclover. 

disturbance—Significant alteration of habitat struc

ture or composition. May be natural (for example, 

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

harvest). 

DNC—See dense nesting cover. 

drawdown—Manipulating water levels in an impound

ment to allow for the natural drying-out cycle of 

a wetland. 

EA—See environmental assessment. 

easement—Agreement by which a landowner gives 

up or sells one of the rights on his or her property. 

ecosystem—Dynamic and interrelating complex of 

plant and animal communities and their associated 

nonliving environment; a biological community, to

gether 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. 

EDRR—early detection–rapid response. 

emergent—Plant rooted in shallow water and having 

most of the vegetative growth above water such 

as cattail and hardstem bulrush. 

endangered species, Federal—Plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended, that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

endangered species, State—Plant or animal species 

in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in a 

particular State within the near future if factors 

contributing to its decline continue. Populations 

of these species are at critically low levels or their 

habitats have been degraded or depleted to a significant degree. 

endemic species—Plants or animals that occur naturally in a certain region and whose distribution is 

relatively limited to a particular locality. 

environmental assessment (EA)—Concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses 

the purpose and need for an action and alternatives 

to such action, and provides sufficient evidence and 

analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or finding 

of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

environmental education—Education aimed at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable concerning 

the biophysical environment and its associated 

problems, aware of how to help solve these problems, and motivated to work toward their solution. 

environmental health—Natural composition, structure, and functioning of the physical, chemical, and 

other abiotic elements, and the abiotic processes 

that shape the physical environment. 

extinction—Complete disappearance of a species from 

the earth; no longer existing. 

fauna—All the vertebrate and invertebrate animals 

of an area. 

Federal land—Public land owned by the Federal Government, including lands such as national forests, 

national parks, and national wildlife refuges. 

federally listed species—Species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 

either as endangered, threatened, or species at risk 

(formerly candidate species). 

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

tract of land. 

fire management plan—A plan that identifies and integrates all wildland fire management and related 

activities within the context of approved land or 

resource management plans. It defines a program 
GLOSSARY 93 

to manage wildland fires (wildfire and prescribed 

fire) (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2009). 

flora—All the plant species of an area. 

floristic—Of or relating to flowers or a flora. 

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

does not develop persistent woody tissue but dies 

down at the end of the growing season. 

forest—Group of trees with their crown overlapping 

(generally forming 60–100% cover). 

fragmentation—The alteration of a large block of 

habitat that creates isolated patches of the original habitat that are interspersed with a variety of 

other habitat types; the process of reducing the 

size and connectivity of habitat patches, making 

movement of individuals or genetic information 

between parcels difficult or impossible. 

Geographic Information System—Computer system 

capable of storing and manipulating spatial data; 

a set of computer hardware and software for analyzing and displaying spatially referenced features 

(points, lines, and polygons) with nongeographic 

attributes such as species and age. 

goal—Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys 

a purpose but does not define measurable units 

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

620 FW 1.5). 

GPS—Global Positioning System. 

guild—A group of species that use a common resource 

base in a similar fashion within an ecological community. A guild can be generally defined (for example, grassland birds) or specifically defined (for 

example, seed-eating small mammals). 

habitat—Suite of existing environmental conditions 

required by an organism for survival and reproduction; the place where an organism typically 

lives and grows. 

habitat conservation—Protection of animal or plant 

habitat to ensure that the use of that habitat by 

the animal or plant is not altered or reduced. 

habitat disturbance—Significant alteration of habitat 

structure or composition; may be natural (for example, wildland fire) or human-caused events (for 

example, timber harvest and disking). 

habitat type, also vegetation type, cover type—Land 

classification system based on the concept of distinct plant associations. 

HAPET— Habitat and Population Evaluation Team. 

hemimarsh—The emergent phase of a seasonal or 

semipermanent wetland where the ratio of open 

water area to emergent vegetation cover is about 

50:50, and vegetation and open water areas are 

highly interspersed. 

herbivore—Animal feeding on plants. 

herbivory—The eating of plants, especially ones that 

are still living. 

impoundment—A body of water created by collection 

and confinement within a series of levees or dikes, 

creating separate management units although not 

always independent of one another. 

Improvement Act—See National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

integrated pest management—Methods of managing 

undesirable species such as invasive plants; education, prevention, physical or mechanical methods 

of control, biological control, responsible chemical 

use, and cultural methods. 

interseed—Mechanical seeding of one or several plant 

species into existing stands of established vegetation. 

introduced species—A nonnative plant or animal species that is intentionally or accidentally released into 

an ecosystem where it was not previously adapted. 

introduction—Intentional or unintentional escape, 

release, dissemination, or placement of a species 

into an ecosystem as a result of human activity. 

invasive plant, also noxious weed—Species that is nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration and 

whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, 

economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. 

inviolate sanctuary—Place of refuge or protection 

where animals and birds may not be hunted. 

issue—Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision; for example, a Service initiative, 

opportunity, resource management problem, a 

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

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable 

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

Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

Karl E. Mundt Refuge—Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge. 

Lake Andes District—Lake Andes Wetland Management District. 

Lake Andes Refuge—Lake Andes National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

lek—A physical area where males of a certain animal 

species gather to demonstrate their prowess and 

compete for females before or during the mating 

season. 

local agencies—Municipal governments, regional 

planning commissions, or conservation groups. 

management alternatives—See alternatives. 

management plan—Plan that guides future land management practices on a tract of land. See cooperative agreement. 

migration—Regular extensive, seasonal movements 

of birds between their breeding regions and their 

wintering regions; to pass usually periodically 

from one region or climate to another for feeding 

or breeding. 

migratory bird—Bird species that follow a seasonal 

movement from their breeding grounds to their 
94 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

wintering grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, 

and songbirds are all migratory birds. 

migratory game bird—Bird species, regulated under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and State laws (legally 

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

mission—Succinct statement of purpose or reason 

for being. 

mitigation—Measure designed to counteract an environmental impact or to make an impact less severe. 

mixed-grass prairie—Transition zone between the tallgrass prairie and the shortgrass prairie dominated 

by grasses of medium height that are approximately 

2–4 feet tall. Soils are not as rich as the tall-grass 

prairie and moisture levels are less. 

monitoring—Process of collecting information to track 

changes of selected parameters over time. 

monotypic—Having only one type or representative. 

moraine—Mass of earth and rock debris carried by 

an advancing glacier and left at its front and side 

edges as it retreats. 

national wildlife refuge (NWR)—Designated area of 

land, water, or an interest in land or water within 

the Refuge System, but does not include coordination areas; a complete listing of all units of the 

Refuge System is in the current “Annual Report 

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

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System)— 

Various categories of areas administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior for the conservation of 

fish and wildlife including species threatened with 

extinction, all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges, 

areas for the protection and conservation of fish 

and wildlife that are threatened with extinction, 

wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management 

areas, and waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 (Improvement Act)—Sets the mission and the 

administrative policy for all refuges in the Refuge 

System; defines a unifying mission for the Refuge 

System; establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation); establishes 

a formal process for determining appropriateness 

and compatibility; establish the responsibilities 

of the Secretary of the Interior for managing and 

protecting the Refuge System; requires a comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge by the 

year 2012. This Act amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966. 

native species—Species that, other than as a result of 

an introduction, historically occurred or currently 

occurs in that ecosystem. 

neotropical migrant, also neotropical migratory bird— 

Bird species that breeds north of the United 

States–Mexico border and winters primarily south 

of this border. 

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act. 

nest success—Percentage of nests that successfully 

hatch one or more eggs of the total number of nests 

initiated in an area. 

NLCD— National Land Cover Database. 

nongovernmental organization—Any group that does 

not include Federal, State, tribal, county, city, town, 

local, or other governmental entities. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan—North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan, signed in 

1986, recognizes that the recovery and perpetuation of waterfowl populations depends on restoring 

wetlands and associated ecosystems throughout 

the United States and Canada. It established cooperative international efforts and joint ventures 

comprised of individuals; corporations; conservation organizations; and local, State, provincial, and 

Federal agencies drawn together by common conservation objectives. The Souris River basin refuges 

are included in the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture. 

notice of intent—Notice that an environmental impact statement will be prepared and considered 

(40 CFR 1508.22); published in the “Federal Register.” 

noxious weed, also invasive plant—Any living stage 

(including seeds and reproductive parts) of a parasitic or other plant of a kind that is of foreign origin (new to or not widely prevalent in the U.S.) 

and can directly or indirectly injure crops, other 

useful plants, livestock, poultry, other interests of 

agriculture, including irrigation, navigation, fish 

and wildlife resources, or public health. According 

to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (P.L. 93–639), a 

noxious weed (invasive plant) is one that causes 

disease or has adverse effects on humans or the 

human environment and, therefore, is detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of the United 

States and to public health. 

NVCS—National Vegetation Classification Standard. 

NWR—See national wildlife refuge. 

objective—Concise statement of what is to be achieved, 

when and where it is to be achieved, and who is 

responsible for the work. Objectives are derived 

from goals and provide the basis for determining 

management strategies. Objectives should be attainable, time-specific, and measurable. 

palustrine—Refers to a nontidal wetland dominated 

by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, and emergent mosses or lichens; or a wetland in tidal areas 

where salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 

0.5 parts per thousand. 

Partners in Flight—Western Hemisphere program designed to conserve neotropical migratory birds and 

officially endorsed by numerous Federal and State 
GLOSSARY 95 

agencies and nongovernmental organizations; also 

known as the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Program. 

partnership—Contract or agreement entered into 

by two or more individuals, groups of individuals, 

organizations or agencies in which each agrees to 

furnish a part of the capital or some in-kind service, 

such as labor, for a mutually beneficial enterprise. 

patch—Area distinct from that around it; an area 

distinguished from its surroundings by environmental conditions. 

perennial—Lasting or active through the year or 

through many years; a plant species that has a life 

span of more than 2 years. 

permanently flooded—water covers the land throughout the year in nearly all years. 

P.L.—Public Law. 

planning team—Team that prepares the comprehensive conservation plan. Planning teams are interdisciplinary in membership and function. A team 

generally consists of a planning team leader; refuge 

manager and staff biologist; staff specialists or other 

representatives of Service programs, ecosystems 

or regional offices; and State partnering wildlife 

agencies as appropriate. 

planning team leader—Typically a professional planner or natural resource specialist knowledgeable 

of the requirements of National Environmental 

Policy Act and who has planning experience. The 

planning team leader manages the refuge planning 

process and ensures compliance with applicable 

regulatory and policy requirements. 

planning unit—Single refuge, an ecologically or administratively related refuge complex, or distinct 

unit of a refuge. The planning unit also may include 

lands currently outside refuge boundaries. 

plant association—Classification of plant communities 

based on the similarity in dominants of all layers of 

vascular species in a climax community. 

plant community—Assemblage of plant species unique 

in its composition; occurs in particular locations under particular influences; a reflection or integration 

of the environmental influences on the site such as 

soil, temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, 

aspect, and rainfall; denotes a general kind of climax 

plant community (ponderosa pine or bunchgrass). 

PPJV—Prairie Pothole Joint Venture. 

predation—Mode of life in which food is primarily 

obtained by the killing or consuming of animals. 

prescribed fire—A wildland fire originating from a 

planned ignition to meet specific objectives identified in a written, approved, prescribed fire plan 

for which NEPA requirements (where applicable) 

have been met before ignition (U.S. Department 

of Agriculture 2009). 

priority public use—See wildlife-dependent recreational use. 

pristine—Typical of original conditions. 

private land—Land that is owned by a private individual, a group of individuals, or a nongovernmental organization. 

private landowner—Any individual, group of individuals, 

or nongovernmental organization that owns land. 

private organization—Any nongovernmental organization. 

proposed action—Alternative proposed to best achieve 

the purpose, vision, and goals of a refuge (contributes to the Refuge System mission, addresses the 

significant issues, and is consistent with principles 

of sound fish and wildlife management). The draft 

comprehensive conservation plan. 

public—Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials 

of Federal, State, and local government agencies; 

Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may include 

anyone outside the core planning team. It includes 

those who may or may not have indicated an interest in Service issues and those who do or do not 

realize that Service decisions may affect them. 

public involvement—Process that offers affected and 

interested individuals and organizations an opportunity to become informed about, and to express 

their opinions on, Service actions and policies. In 

the process, these views are studied thoroughly 

and thoughtful consideration of public views is 

given in shaping decisions for refuge management. 

public involvement plan—Broad long-term guidance 

for involving the public in the comprehensive planning process. 

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

or Federal Government. 

purpose of the refuge—Purpose specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, Executive Order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing 

authorization or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, 

or refuge subunit (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

refuge complex—A grouping of two or more Service 

units (for example, national wildlife refuge, wetland management district) that is administered by 

staff at one of the units. 

refuge lands—Lands in which the Service holds full 

interest in fee title, or partial interest such as limited-interest refuges. 

refuge purpose—See purpose of the refuge. 

Refuge System—See National Wildlife Refuge System. 

region 6—“Mountain–Prairie Region” of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, which administers Service 

programs in Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Utah. 

rest—Free from biological, mechanical, or chemical 

manipulation, in reference to refuge lands. 

restoration—Artificial manipulation of a habitat 

to restore it to something close to its natural 

state. Involves taking a degraded grassland and 
96 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

reestablishing habitat for native plants and animals. Restoration usually involves the planting of 

native grasses and forbs, and may include shrub 

removal and prescribed fire. 

riparian habitat—Area that is transitional from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems including streams, 

lakes, wet areas, and adjacent plant communities 

and their associated soils that have free water at 

or near the surface; an area whose components are 

directly or indirectly attributed to the influence of 

water; of or relating to a river; specifically applied 

to ecology, “riparian” describes the land immediately adjoining and directly influenced by streams. 

For example, riparian vegetation includes all plant 

life growing on the land adjoining a stream and directly influenced by the stream. 

riverine—Relating to or resembling a river; located 

on or inhabiting the banks of a river. 

runoff—Water from rain, melted snow, or agricultural 

or landscape irrigation that flows over the land 

surface into a water body. 

sandhills—Sand dunes created by wind and wave action following the melting of large glaciers about 

8,000–10,000 years ago. Soils are sand and silt. Local relief exceeds 80 feet in some places. 

scoping—Process of obtaining information from the 

public for input into the planning process. 

SDGFP—South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. 

seasonally flooded—Surface water is present for 

extended periods especially early in the growing 

season, but is absent by the end of the season in 

most years. 

sediment—Material deposited by water, wind, and 

glaciers. 

semipermanently flooded—Surface water persists 

throughout the growing season in most years. 

When surface water is absent, the water table is 

usually at or very near the land surface. 

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

shelterbelt—Single to multiple rows of trees and shrubs 

planted around cropland or buildings to block or 

slow down the wind. 

shorebird—Any of a suborder of birds such as a plover or a snipe that frequent the seashore or mud 

flat areas. 

sound professional judgment—Finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with principles 

of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and resources, and 

adherence to the requirements of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act and 

other applicable laws. 

spatial—Relating to, occupying, or having the character of space. 

special status species—Plants or animals that have 

been identified through Federal law, State law, 

or agency policy as requiring special protection 

of monitoring. Examples include federally listed 

endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate 

species; State-listed endangered, threatened, candidate, or monitor species; the Service’s species of 

management concern; and species identified by the 

Partners in Flight program as being of extreme or 

moderately high conservation concern. 

special use permit (SUP)—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 public through authorizations in 

Title 50 CFR or other public regulations (“National 

Wildlife Refuge System Manual” 5 RM 17.6). 

species of concern—Those plant and animal species, 

while not falling under the definition of special 

status species, that are of management interest 

by virtue of being Federal trust species such as 

migratory birds, important game species, or significant keystone species; species that have documented or apparent populations declines, small or 

restricted populations, or dependence on restricted 

or vulnerable habitats. Species that: (1) are documented or have apparent population declines; (2) 

are small or restricted populations; or (3) depend 

on restricted or vulnerable habitats. 

stand—Any homogenous area of vegetation with more 

or less uniform soils, landform, and vegetation. 

Typically used to refer to forested areas. 

stepdown management plan—Plan that provides the 

details necessary to carry out management strategies identified in the comprehensive conservation plan (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

strategy—Specific action, tool, or technique or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

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

Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

submergent—Vascular or nonvascular hydrophyte, 

either rooted or nonrooted, that lies entirely beneath the water surface, except for flowering parts 

in some species. 

succession—Orderly progression of an area through 

time from one vegetative community to another in 

the absence of disturbance. For example, an area 

may proceed from grass–forb through aspen forest to mixed-conifer forest. 

SUP—See special use permit. 

SWG—State Wildlife Grant. 

surficial—Relating to or occurring on the surface. 

temporarily flooded—Surface water is present for brief 

periods during the growing season. 

trust resource—Resource that, through law or administrative act, is held in trust for the people by the 

government. A Federal trust resource is one for 

which trust responsibility is given in part to the 

Federal Government through Federal legislation 
GLOSSARY 97 

or administrative act. Generally, Federal trust re

sources are those considered to be of national or 

international importance no matter where they oc

cur, such as endangered species and species such as 

migratory birds and fish that regularly move across 

statelines. In addition to species, trust resources 

include cultural resources protected through Fed

eral historic preservation laws, nationally impor

tant and threatened habitats, notably wetlands, 

navigable waters, and public lands such as State 

parks and national wildlife refuges. 

trust species—See trust resource. 

understory—Any vegetation whose canopy (foliage) 

is below, or closer to the ground than canopies of 

other plants. 

upland—Dry ground; other than wetlands. 

U.S.C.—United States Code. 

USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, USFWS)—Principal Federal agency responsible for conserv

ing, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife 

and their habitats for the continuing benefit of 

the American people. The Service manages the 

93-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, 

which comprises more than 530 national wildlife 

refuges and thousands of waterfowl production 

areas. It also operates 65 national fish hatcheries 

and 78 ecological service field stations, the agency 

enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory 

bird populations, restores national significant fish

eries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such 

as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species 

Act, and helps foreign governments with their 

conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal 

aid program that distributes millions of dollars in 

excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to 

State wildlife agencies. 

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

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

with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the con

tinuing benefit of the American people. 

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

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

mission is to provide reliable scientific information 

to describe and understand the earth; minimize loss 

of life and property from natural disasters; manage 

water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; 

and enhance and protect our quality of life. 

USGS—See U.S. Geological Survey. 

vision statement—Concise statement of what the plan

ning unit should be, or what the Service hopes to 

do, based primarily on the Refuge System mission, 

specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. In 

addition, the vision statement is tied to the maintenance and restoration of biological integrity, 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

diversity, and environmental health of each refuge 

and the Refuge System. 

visual obstruction—Pertaining to the density of a plant 

community; the height of vegetation that blocks 

the view of predators and conspecifics to a nest. 

visual obstruction reading (VOR)—Measurement of the 

density of a plant community; the height of veg

etation that blocks the view of predators to a nest. 

VOR—See visual obstruction reading. 

wading birds—Birds having long legs that enable 

them to wade in shallow water. Includes egrets, 

great blue herons, black-crowned night-herons, 

and bitterns. 

warm-season grass—Grass that begins growth later in 

the season (early June); require warmer soil tem

peratures to germinate and actively grow when 

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

are Indiangrass, switchgrass, and big bluestem. 

waterfowl—Category of birds that includes ducks, 

geese, and swans. 

watershed—Geographic area within which water drains 

into a particular river, stream or body of water. A 

watershed includes both the land and the body of 

water into which the land drains. 

wetland—Land transitional between terrestrial and 

aquatic systems where the water table is usually 

at or near the surface or the land is covered by 

shallow water. 

wetland easement—Perpetual agreement entered 

into by a landowner and the Service. The easement 

covers only the wetlands specified in the agree

ment. In return for a single lump-sum payment, 

the landowner agrees not to drain, burn, level, or 

fill wetlands covered by the easement. 

wetland management district (WMD)—Land that the 

Refuge System acquires with Federal Duck Stamp 

funds for restoration and management primarily 

as prairie wetland habitat critical to waterfowl and 

other wetland birds. 

wilderness—“A wilderness, in contrast with those 

areas where man and his own works dominate the 

landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where 

the earth and its community of life are untram

meled by man, where man himself is a visitor who 

does not remain” (Wilderness Act of 1964 Section 

2c [P.L. 88–577)]). This legal definition places wil

derness in the “untrammeled” or “primeval” end of 

the environmental modification spectrum. Wilder

ness is roadless lands, legally classified as compo

nent areas of the National Wilderness Preservation 

System, and managed to protect its qualities of 

naturalness, solitude, and opportunity for primi

tive types of recreation. 5,000 contiguous roadless 

acres or is sufficient in size as to make practicable 

its preservation and use in an unimpaired condi

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

610 FW 1.5). 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
98 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

wildfire—Unplanned ignition of a wildland fire (such 

as a fire caused by lightning, volcanoes, unau

thorized and accidental human-caused fires) and 

escaped prescribed fires (U.S. Department of Ag

riculture 2009). 

wildland fire—A general term describing any nonstructure fire that occurs in the wildland. There 

are two types of wildland fire – wildfire and pre

scribed fire (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2009). 

wildlife-dependent recreational use—Use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, or environmental education and inter

pretation. These are the six priority public uses of 

the Refuge System as established in the National 

­

­

­

­

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as 

amended. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, 

other than the six priority public uses, are those 

that depend on the presence of wildlife. 

wildlife management—Practice of manipulating wild

life populations either directly through regulating 

the numbers, ages, and sex ratios harvested, or in

directly by providing favorable habitat conditions 

and alleviating limiting factors. 

WMD—See wetland management district. 

woodland—Open stands of trees with crowns not usu

ally touching, generally forming 25–60 percent cover. 

WPA—waterfowl production area. 

­

­

­
Appendix A 

Key Legislation and Policies 

This appendix briefly describes the guidance for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and other policies 

and key legislation that guide the management of the 

Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

A.1 National Wildlife Refuge 

System 

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within 

the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

(National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997) 

GOALS 

■■ Fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge purpose(s) 

and further the Refuge System mission. 

■■ Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance 

all species of fish, wildlife, and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 

■■ Perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, 

and marine mammal populations. 

■■ Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants. 

■■ Conserve and restore, where appropriate, representative ecosystems of the United States, including the ecological processes characteristic of those 

ecosystems. 

■■ Foster understanding and instill appreciation of 

fish, wildlife, and plants, and their conservation, 

by providing the public with safe, high-quality, and 

compatible wildlife-dependent public use. Such use 

includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 

GUIDING PRINCIPLES 

There are four guiding principles for management and 

general public use of the Refuge System established 

by Executive Order 12996 (1996): 

■■ Public Use—The Refuge System provides important opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities involving hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

■■ Habitat—Fish and wildlife will not prosper without 

high-quality habitat, and without fish and wildlife, 

traditional uses of refuges cannot be sustained. The 

Refuge System will continue to conserve and enhance the quality and diversity of fish and wildlife 

habitat within refuges. 

■■ Partnerships—America’s sportsmen and women 

were the first partners who insisted on protecting 

valuable wildlife habitat within wildlife refuges. 

Conservation partnerships with other Federal 

agencies, State agencies, tribes, organizations, industry, and the general public can make significant 

contributions to the growth and management of 

the Refuge System. 

■■ Public Involvement—The public should be given 

a full and open opportunity to participate in decisions regarding acquisition and management of our 

national wildlife refuges. 

A.2 Legal and Policy 

Guidance 

Management actions on national wildlife refuges and 

wetland management districts are circumscribed by 

many mandates including laws and Executive Orders, 

the latest of which is the Volunteer and Community 

Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998. Regulations that 

affect refuge management the most are listed below. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)—Directs agencies to consult with native traditional religious leaders to determine appropriate policy changes 

necessary to protect and preserve Native American 

religious cultural rights and practices. 

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992)—Prohibits 

discrimination in public accommodations and services. 

Antiquities Act (1906)—Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on Federal land and provides 

penalties for unauthorized removal of objects taken 

or collected without a permit. 
100 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974)— 

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological 

data in Federal construction projects. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), 

as amended—Protects materials of archaeological 

interest from unauthorized removal or destruction 

and requires Federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968)—Requires federally 

owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to be 

accessible to persons with disabilities. 

Clean Water Act (1977)—Requires consultation with 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for 

major wetland modifications. 

Endangered Species Act (1973)—Requires all Federal 

agencies to carry out programs for the conservation 

of endangered and threatened species. 

Executive Order 11988 (1977)—Requires Federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to reduce 

the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on 

human safety, and preserve the natural and beneficial 

values served by the floodplains. 

Executive Order 12996, Management and General 

Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(1996)—Defines the mission, purpose, and priority 

public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

It also presents four principles to guide management 

of the Refuge System. 

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996)— 

Directs Federal land management agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial uses of Indian sacred 

sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid adversely 

affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, 

and where appropriate, maintain the confidentiality 

of sacred sites. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990)—Requires the use 

of integrated management systems to control or contain undesirable plant species and an interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of other Federal 

and State agencies. 

Federal Records Act (1950)—Requires the preservation of evidence of the government’s organization, 

functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic historical and other information. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958)—Allows 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into agreements with private landowners for wildlife management purposes. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929)—Establishes 

procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gifts 

of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act 

(1934)—Authorizes the opening of part of a refuge to 

waterfowl hunting. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)—Designates the protection of migratory birds as a Federal responsibility; 

and enables the setting of seasons and other regulations, including the closing of areas, Federal or nonFederal, to the hunting of migratory birds. 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)—Requires 

all agencies, including the Service, to examine the 

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. 

Federal agencies must integrate this Act with other 

planning requirements, and prepare appropriate 

documents to facilitate better environmental decision making. [From the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), 40 CFR 1500] 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as amended— 

Establishes as policy that the Federal Government is 

to provide leadership in the preservation of the Nation’s prehistoric and historic resources. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

(1966)—Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit 

any use of a refuge, provided such use is compatible 

with the major purposes for which the refuge was 

established. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997—Sets the mission and administrative policy for 

all refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

mandates comprehensive conservation planning for 

all units of the Refuge System. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act (1990)—Requires Federal agencies and museums 

to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession. 

Refuge Recreation Act (1962)—Allows the use of refuges for recreation when such uses are compatible 

with the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient 

money is available to manage the uses. 

Rehabilitation Act (1973)—Requires programmatic 

accessibility in addition to physical accessibility for all 

facilities and programs funded by the Federal Government to ensure that any person can participate in 

any program. 

Rivers and Harbors Act (1899)—Section 10 of this 

Act requires the authorization of U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers before any work in, on, over, or under 

navigable waters of the United States. 
APPENDIX A—Key Legislation and Policies 101 

Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement 

Act (1998)—Encourages the use of volunteers to assist in the management of refuges within the Refuge 

System; facilitates partnerships between the Refuge 

System and non-Federal entities to promote public 

awareness of the resources of the Refuge System and 

public participation in the conservation of the resources; 

and encourages donations and other contributions. 

Appendix B 

Compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

and Guidance 

Appendix C 

Preparers and Contributors 

This document is the result of the extensive, collaborative, and enthusiastic efforts by the members of the Lake 

Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex planning team below. Many others contributed insight and support. 

Team member Position Work unit 

Core planning team 

Michael J. Bryant Project leader Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

South Dakota 

Jack Freidel Regional habitat manager South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks 

Bernardo Garza Planning team leader U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, 

Denver, Colorado 

Mark Heisinger Lake Andes Wetland Management District 

manager 

Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

South Dakota 

John Keeler Wildlife biologist and chemist Yankton Sioux Tribe 

Cami Dixon Zone biologist for North and South Dakota U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mark Ely Chief, Geographic Information System Division U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, 

Denver, Colorado 

Andy Lindbloom Regional wildlife manager South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks 

Edward Rodriguez Wildlife biologist Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

South Dakota 

Steve Spawn Private lands biologist Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

South Dakota 

Barry Williams Archaeologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office, Bismarck, 

North Dakota 

Additional planning team members 

Mike Artmann Wildlife biologist, Planning Division U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, 

Denver, Colorado 

Jeff Dvorak Seasonal maintenance and biological technician Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

South Dakota 

John Eldridge Permanent maintenance worker Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

South Dakota 

Gene Slaba Former permanent maintenance worker Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

South Dakota 

Contributors 

Richard Coleman Former assistant regional director, National 

Wildlife Refuge System 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, 

Denver, Colorado 

Megan Estep Chief, Water Rights Division U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, 

Denver, Colorado 

Sheri Fetherman Chief, Division of Education and Visitor Services U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, 

Denver, Colorado 

Mark J. Hogan Private lands coordinator for Wyoming U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Casper, Wyoming 

Matt Hogan Assistant regional director, National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, 

Denver, Colorado 
106 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

Wayne King Region 6 Division of Refuges biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, 

Denver, Colorado 

Socheata Lohr Region 6 regional inventory and monitoring U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, 

coordinator Denver, Colorado 

David C. Lucas Chief, Division of Refuge Planning U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, 

Denver, Colorado 

Carl Millegan Deputy refuge supervisor (North Dakota and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, 

South Dakota) Denver, Colorado 

Manuel Oliveira Deputy assistant regional director, Refuge System U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, 

Denver, Colorado 

Bernie Petersen Refuge supervisor (North Dakota and South U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, 

Dakota) Denver, Colorado 

Tyson Powell Solicitor U.S. Solicitor’s Office, Denver, Colorado 

Steve Shuck Realty operations manager U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, 

Denver, Colorado 

Cindy Souders Outdoor recreation planner U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, 

Denver, Colorado 

Meg Van Ness Regional archaeologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, 

Denver, Colorado 
Appendix D 

Public Involvement 

Public scoping was initiated for the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex (refuge complex) comprehensive conservation planning process in a notice of 

intent published in May 2007 in the Federal Register. 

The notice announced the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s intent to prepare a comprehensive conservation 

plan (CCP) and environmental assessment (EA) for 

the entire refuge complex (which includes the Lake 

Andes National Wildlife Refuge, Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge, and the Lake Andes Wetland 

Management District) and to obtain suggestions and 

information on the scope of issues to be considered in 

the planning process. 

Three public meetings were held in southeastern 

South Dakota: 

■■ Tuesday, November 28, 2006, at the Golden Pheasant in Plankinton, 5–8 p.m. 

■■ Wednesday, November 29, 2006, at the Turner 

County Courthouse in Parker, 5–8 p.m. 

■■ Thursday, November 30, 2006, at the Community 

Center in Lake Andes, 5–8 p.m. 

A short presentation on the refuge complex and the 

planning process was given at each meeting. Numerous written, verbal, and emailed comments were received during the open comment period (which closed 

on January 15, 2007). Comments received identified 

biological, social, and economic concerns regarding 

the different aspects of management of the units of 

the refuge complex. 

In October 2012, the Service published a notice of 

availability in the Federal Register that announced to 

the public the availability of the draft CCP and EA. 

The draft CCP and EA was released to the public for 

comments, and the comment period lasted until November 30, 2012. The Service also mailed a planning 

update to all recipients on the refuge complex’s mailing 

list. The planning update included information on the 

management alternatives developed by the Service, 

including the proposed action. This planning update 

contained information on the open house public meeting that the Service held to introduce the draft plan to 

the public. This meeting took place at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, October 30, 2012, at the Lake Andes Community 

Center in Lake Andes, South Dakota. All public comments provided during the public meeting or sent to 

the Service by mail or email during the comment period were reviewed and are included, with responses 

from the Service, in this appendix. 

The mailing list for the CCP and EA includes, but 

is not limited to, the organizations and individuals 

listed below. 

D.1 Mailing List 

FeDerAL OFFiciALs 

U.S. Senator John Thune, Washington, DC 

Senator Thune’s Area Director, Pierre, South Dakota 

U.S. Senator Tim Johnson, Washington DC 

Senator Johnson’s Area Director, Pierre, South Dakota 

U.S. Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, 

Washington DC 

Representative Herseth Sandlin’s Area Director, 

Pierre, South Dakota 

FeDerAL Agencies 

Bureau of Reclamation, Pierre, South Dakota 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency— 

Clear Lake, Faulkton, and Brookings, South Dakota 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency 

and Natural Resources Conservation Service—McIntosh, Pierre, Timber Lake, Mound City, Selby, 

Gettysburg, Onida, Chamberlain, Wessington 

Springs, Highmore, Ipswich, Leola, Aberdeen, 

Redfield, Huron, Miller, DeSmet, Madison, Howard, 

Woonsocket, and Mitchell, South Dakota 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service, Pierre, South Dakota 

National Park Service, Omaha, Nebraska 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 

Pierre, South Dakota 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System—Albuquerque, New Mexico; Anchorage, Alaska; Arlington, Virginia; Atlanta, Georgia; 

Fort Snelling, Minnesota; Hadley, Massachusetts; 

Portland, Oregon; Rawlins, Wyoming; Sacramento, 

California; Shepherdstown, West Virginia; Washington, DC 

U.S. Geological Survey—Fort Collins Science Center, 

Ft. Collins, Colorado 

TribAL OFFiciALs 

Omaha Tribal Council, Macy, Nebraska 

Otoe-Missouria Tribe, Red Rock, Oklahoma 

Pawnee Tribe, Pawnee, Oklahoma 
108 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, Niobrara, Nebraska 

Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma, Ponca City, Oklahoma 

Santee Sioux Tribal Council, Niobrara, Nebraska 

Winnebago Tribal Council, Winnebago, Nebraska 

Yankton Sioux Tribe, Marty, South Dakota 

sTATe OFFiciALs 

Governor M. Michael Rounds, Pierre, South Dakota 

sTATe Agencies 

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South 

Dakota 

SDSU Extension Service, Brookings, South Dakota 

LOcAL gOvernMenT 

County commissioners (33) 

Resource conservation districts (8) 

Weed board offices (19) 

OrgAnizATiOns 

American Bird Conservancy, Plains, Virginia 

American Rivers, Washington, DC 

Animal Protection Institute, Sacramento, California 

Beyond Pesticides, Washington, DC 

Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC 

Duck Unlimited, Great Plains Office, Bismarck, North 

Dakota 

Fund for Animals, Silver Springs, Maryland 

Izaak Walton League, Gaithersburg, Maryland 

Murie Audubon Society, Casper, Wyoming 

National Audubon Society, Fargo, North Dakota 

National Audubon Society, Washington DC and New 

York, New York 

National Trappers Association, New Martinsville, 

West Virginia 

National Wildlife Federation, Reston, Virginia 

National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington, DC 

National Wild Turkey Federation, Bismarck, North 

Dakota 

Sierra Club, San Francisco, California and Sheridan, 

Wyoming 

The Nature Conservancy, Minneapolis, Minnesota 

The U.S. Humane Society, Washington, DC 

The Wilderness Society, Washington, DC 

Union Pacific Railroad, Omaha, Nebraska 

Wildlife Management Institute, Fort Collins, Colorado; Corvallis, Oregon; Washington, DC 

schOOLs 

South Dakota State University 

MeDiA 

Newspaper outlets (29) 

Radio outlets (4) 

inDiviDuALs 

Individuals (600+) 

D.2 summary of and 

responses to Public 

comments 

Comment 1. The Service should not add any new bank 

stabilization structures on the Missouri River along 

the border of the Karl E. Mundt Refuge because this 

is federally designated Wild and Scenic River. 

Response 1. The Service has modified the objective 

that appeared in the draft CCP and EA that concerned 

bank stabilization structures. The Service will work 

with the National Park Service to find ways to protect the banks of the Karl E. Mundt Refuge without 

affecting the river’s recreational opportunities or the 

characteristics that qualify it for inclusion in the Wild 

and Scenic River System. 

Comment 2. The Service should consider removing the 

South Dike road on Lake Andes to allow for a more 

natural water flow in the lake. 

Response 2. Due to a lack of money, removing the south 

dike road on Lake Andes is not feasible. Furthermore, 

removing the dike would severely limit the refuge 

complex staff’s ability to manage water levels in the 

South Unit of Lake Andes. The Lake Andes Refuge 

must be managed in accordance with its purpose of 

benefiting migratory birds and other wildlife; managing water levels is an important management action 

that benefits these trust species. 

Comment 3. The Service should consider draining 

Lake Andes. 

Response 3. As stated in the previous response, the 

Lake Andes Refuge must be managed to help migratory birds. Draining Lake Andes would prevent refuge 

complex staff from managing water levels to benefit 

trust species and from fulfilling one of the purposes 

for which Congress established this valuable refuge. 

Comment 4. The Service should allow landowners to 

buy back easements if they desire to do so. 

Response 4. The grassland and wetland easements purchased by the Service are to be used permanently for 

the benefit of wildlife and its habitat. It is not within 

the purview—nor currently in the interest—of the 

Service to change the permanent nature of these 

conservation easements. Furthermore, changing the 

permanent nature of the easements would likely require a Congressional action. 

Comment 5. The Service should consider reducing the 

number law enforcement staff. 

Response 5. For public safety, law enforcement, and 

fulfilling the purposes of the refuge complex units, 

the Service cannot eliminate any law enforcement 

officers on its staff. Furthermore, these officers play 
APPENDIX D—Public Involvement 109 

an important role in assisting local law enforcement 

officers in enforcing State and Federal laws on and off 

refuge complex lands. 

Comment 6. The Service should consider opening currently closed areas to hunting, fishing, and other 

wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

Response 6. The Service is proposing in this CCP to 

study allowing hunting, fishing, and other compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities in areas 

of the refuge complex that are currently closed to the 

public. These activities would only be allowed if found 

feasible and safe to the public. Please see “Chapter 4– 

Management Direction” in this CCP for further details. 

Appendix E
 

Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 

Originating Person: Michael J. Bryant 

Telephone Number: (605) 487-7603 

Date Submitted: November 23, 2012

 I. Service Program and Geographic Area or Station Name: National Wildlife Refuge Program. 

The Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex located within the Service’s Region 6, MountainPrairie Region, and specifically in the Plains and Prairie Potholes Geographic Area 

II. Flexible Funding Program: (e.g., Joint Venture, etc.) if applicable: CCP, Lake Andes National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex 

III. Location: 

Location of the project including County, State and TSR (township, section & range): Aurora, Bon 

Homme, Brule, Charles Mix, Clay, Davison, Douglas, Gregory, Hanson, Hutchinson, Lincoln, Turner, 

Union and Yankton Counties, South Dakota 

IV. Species/Critical Habitat: 

List federally endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species or designated or proposed critical habitat that may occur within the action area. 

A. Federally Listed Species and/or their critical habitat within or downstream from action area: 

Topeka shiner, Notropis topeka (federally listed as endangered) 

Whooping crane, Grus americana (federally listed as endangered) 

Piping plover, Charadrius melodus (federally listed as threatened) 

Piping plover critical habitat has been designated in the action area along the Missouri 

River, within the congressionally designated boundary of the Lake Andes Wetland 

Management District. 

Least tern, Sterna antillarum (federally listed as endangered) 

Scaleshell mussel, Leptodea leptodon (federally listed as endangered) 

Pallid sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus albus (federally listed as endangered) 

Higgins eye, Lampsilis higginsii (federally listed as endangered) 

Western prairie fringed orchid, Platanthera praeclara (federally listed as threatened) 
112 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

B.	 Proposed species and/or proposed critical habitat within the action area: 

C.	 Candidate species within or downstream from the action area: 

Sprague’s pipit, Antus spragueii, candidate species 

V.	 Project Description: Describe proposed project or action or, if referencing other documents, prepare an 

executive summary (attach additional pages as needed): 

See attached draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. 

VI.	 Determination of Effects: 

A.	 Description of Effects: Describe the action(s) that may affect the species and critical habitats 

listed in item IV. Your rationale for the Section 7 determinations made below (B) should be fully 

described here. 

Topeka shiner:	 Implementing the CCP “May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely Affect” this fish species. It is expected that the proposed 

wetland and upland management activities of the districts will 

benefit the water quality of perennial and intermittent streams 

within the planning area, thus enhancing the habitat required 

and preferred by this fish. 

Whooping crane:	 Implementing the CCP “May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect” this migrant crane. In fact, the continued preservation 

and management of Service lands managed by the complex for 

the benefit of wildlife species should enhance feeding, loafing 

and resting sites for crane use during migration. 

Piping plover:	 Implementing the CCP “May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely Affect” this plover species and their designated critical 

habitat. In fact, the continued preservation and management 

of complex lands, especially noxious weed control on public 

lands, for the benefit of this and other wildlife species should 

enhance nesting success as well as provide adequate feeding, 

loafing and resting sites for plover use during the nesting period and migration. 

Interior least tern:	 Implementing the CCP “May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely Affect” on habitats frequented by this species. Continued preservation and management of complex-managed lands 

for the benefit of wildlife species should enhance sites for use 

by this tern species. 

Pallid sturgeon	 Implementing the CCP “May Affect but Not Likely to adversely Affect” this fish species. It is expected that the proposed wetland and upland management activities of the complex will benefit the water quality of perennial and intermittent 
APPENDIX E—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 113 

streams within the planning area, thus enhancing the habitat 

required and preferred by this fish. 

Scaleshell mussel	 Implementing the CCP “May Affect but Not Likely to adversely Affect” this fish species. It is expected that the proposed wetland and upland management activities of the complex will benefit the water quality of perennial and intermittent 

streams within the planning area, thus enhancing the habitat 

required and preferred by this mollusk. 

Higgins eye	 Implementing the CCP “May Affect but Not Likely to adversely Affect” this fish species. It is expected that the proposed wetland and upland management activities of the complex will benefit the water quality of perennial and intermittent 

streams within the planning area, thus enhancing the habitat 

required and preferred by this mollusk. 

Western prairie fringed orchid:	 Implementing the CCP “May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely Affect” this plant species. The greatest threat to the 

prairie fringed orchid is habitat loss, mostly through conversion to cropland, competition with introduced alien plants, filling of wetlands, intensive hay mowing, ire suppression, and 

overgrazing. Continued preservation and management of complex-managed lands should benefit this orchid. 

Sprague’s pipit:	 Implementing the CCP “May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely Affect” on habitats frequented by this species. Continued preservation and management of complex-managed lands 

for the benefit of wildlife species should enhance sites for use 

by this passerine species. 

B.	 Determination: Determine the anticipated effects of the proposed project on species and critical habitats listed in item IV. Check all applicable boxes and list the species (or attach a list) associated with each determination. 

Determination 

No Effect:	 ____________

This determination is appropriate when the proposed project will 


not directly or indirectly affect (neither negatively nor beneficially) 


individuals of listed/proposed/candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat of such species. No concurrence from ESFO 


required.
 

May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely Affect:	 _____X_____ 

 This determination is appropriate when the proposed project is likely 


to cause insignificant, discountable, or wholly beneficial effects to 


individuals of listed species and/or designated critical habitat. Concurrence from ESFO required.
 
114 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

 

 

 

1.) Topeka shiner 

2.) Whooping crane 

3.) Piping plover 

4.) Piping plover critical habitat 

5.) Interior least tern 

6.) Pallid sturgeon 

7.) Scaleshell mussel 

8.) Higgins eye 

9.) Western prairie fringed orchid 

May Affect and Likely to Adversely Affect: 

This determination is appropriate when the proposed project is likely 

to adversely impact individuals of listed species and/or designated 


critical habitat. Formal consultation with ESFO required.
 

May affect but Not Likely to Jeopardize candidate or proposed species/critical habitat: 


This determination is appropriate when the proposed project may 


affect, but is not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of 


a species proposed for listing or a candidate species, or adversely 


modify an area proposed for designation as critical habitat. Concurrence from ESFO optional. 


1.) Sprague’s pipit 

Likely to Jeopardize candidate or proposed species/critical habitat: 

This determination is appropriate when the proposed project is reasonably expected To jeopardize the continued existence of a species 

proposed for listing or a candidate species, or adversely modify an 

area proposed for designation as critical habitat. Conferencing with 

ESFO required. 

Michael J. Bryant, Project Leader Date 

Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Reviewing Ecological Services Office Evaluation 

(check all that apply): 

A. Concurrence Nonconcurrence 

Explanation for nonconcurrence: 
APPENDIX E—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 115 

 

 

B. Formal consultation required 

List species or critical habitat unit 

C.	 Conference required 

List species or critical habitat unit 

Name of Reviewing ES Office: South Dakota Field Office, Pierre SD 

Scott Larson Date 

South Dakota Field Supervisor 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F 

Environmental Compliance 

Environmental Action Statement 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing 

the National Environmental Policy Act and other 

statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and 

wildlife resources, I have established the following 

administrative record. 

I have determined that the action of implementing the “Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lake 

Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex,” which 

includes Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge, Karl 

E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge and Lake Andes 

Wetland Management District, is found not to have 

significant environmental effects, as determined by 

the attached “finding of no significant impact” and 

the environmental assessment as found with the draft 

comprehensive conservation plan. 

Noreen Walsh Date 

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Matt Hogan Date 

Assistant Regional Director, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Bernie Petersen Date 

Refuge Supervisor, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Michael J. Bryant Date 

Project Leader 

Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lake Andes, South Dakota 
118 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

 

Finding of no Significant impact 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Three management alternatives for the Lake Andes 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex—including Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge, Karl E. Mundt National 

Wildlife Refuge, and Lake Andes Wetland Management District—were assessed for their effectiveness 

in achieving the purposes of each one of these three 

units and for their impacts on the human environment. 

AltErnAtivE A—no Action 

Funding, infrastructure, staff levels, partnerships, and 

management activities at the refuge complex would 

not change from current levels under alternative A. 

AltErnAtivE B —ModiFiEd MAnAgEMEnt 

(prEFErrEd AltErnAtivE) 

This alternative emphasizes managing the habitats of 

the three units of the complex in a holistic manner by 

developing and implementing an improved, sciencebased priority system to restore native prairie habitats for waterfowl, federally and State-listed species, 

migratory birds, and other native wildlife. The complex would also continue to rely on adaptive management—as more information is known, management 

would adjust to improve effects on the environment 

for the benefit of migratory birds in the central flyway. 

Based on this assessment and comments received, I 

have selected alternative B as the preferred alternative for implementation. 

The preferred alternative was selected because it 

best meets the purposes for which the three units of 

the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

were established and is preferable to the “no-action” 

alternative in light of physical, biological, economic, 

and social factors. Under the preferred alternative, 

staff will continue to provide public access for wildlifedependent recreation, environmental education, and 

interpretation. Additionally, they would study and open 

areas currently closed to hunting and would provide 

special hunts, if deemed compatible and suitable, as 

well. They would seek to remodel the headquarters 

building to include a visitor center and environmental 

education classroom to expand environmental education and interpretation opportunities. Finally, staff 

would build observation and photography blinds for 

the public at appropriate locations on the complex. 

AltErnAtivE c—intEnSivE MAnAgEMEnt 

Under this alternative staff would undertake the same 

habitat and wildlife management and visitor services 

activities as described under alternative B. However, 

they would also seek new partnerships with landowners 

within the lake’s watershed to help improve the lake’s 

water and fisheries quality and would pursue the formation of an invasive plant species “strike team” to 

control them more effectively. Additionally, staff would 

develop and execute an outreach plan to expand environmental education and interpretation opportunities throughout the complex and would seek to build 

an observation tower and develop a self-guiding auto 

tour route on Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge 

to provide more opportunities for wildlife observation 

and photography. 

Finding And BASiS For dEciSion 

I find that the preferred alternative is not a major 

Federal action that would significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, the preparation of 

an environmental impact statement on the proposed 

action is not required. 

The following is a summary of anticipated environmental effects from implementation of the preferred 

alternative: 

■■ The preferred alternative will not adversely impact 

endangered or threatened species or their habitat. 

■■ The preferred alternative will not adversely impact 

archaeological or historical resources. 

■■ The preferred alternative will not adversely impact 

wetlands, nor does the plan call for structures that 

could be damaged by or that would significantly 

influence the movement of floodwater. 

■■ The preferred alternative will not have a disproportionately high or adverse human health or 

environmental effect on minority or low-income 

populations. 

The State of South Dakota, through the South Dakota 

Game, Fish and Parks Department, participated in the 

development of this comprehensive conservation plan 

and was given the opportunity to review the draft plan 

and its associated environmental assessment. 

Noreen Walsh Date 

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, Colorado 
Appendix G 

South Dakota Upland Plant Associations 

■■ Updated July 27, 2009.
 

■■ Record 1 of below types.
 

■■ Based on Daubenmire dominant canopy cover.
 

■■ These categories are designed for monitoring plant 


community composition of native sod, planted natives, and DNC. 

■■ Revised from Grant et al. 2004b, Hegstad 1973. 

■■ Document robust patches of native forbs >50% with 

category 25 (i.e., lead plant, goldenrod, etc.). Alternatively, category 75 (other weeds) can be used to 

document weed patches that typically dominate 

disturbed sites. 

■■ Litter is not a category in itself, therefore assign 

litter to category it applies to (for example, Kentucky bluegrass litter = 31). 

■■ In the event of an apparent equal mix of Kentucky 

bluegrass and smooth brome—consider as code 41. 

■■ Prairie rose and leadplant are considered native 

forbs with respect to these categories. 

G.1 Shrub and Tree Types 

Low Shrub 

(generally 1.5–4.5 feet tall, for example, western 

snowberry) 

11 dense low shrub, other plants few or none 

12 low shrub, remainder native grass and forb 

13 low shrub, remainder Kentucky bluegrass 

14 low shrub, remainder brome or quackgrass 

19 low shrub, remainder crested 

TALL Shrub 

(generally 4.5–15 feet tall) 

15 tall shrub, native 

16 tall shrub, exotic 

TreeS 

17 native trees (for example, cottonwood, green ash, 

bur oak) 

18 nonnative trees (for example, Japanese elm, Russian olive) 

G.2 Native Grass–Forb Typesa 

21	 cool-season grasses and forbs: (A) green needle, 

(B) western wheatgrass, (C) porcupine grass 

22 warm-season grasses and forbs: (A) big bluestem, 

(B) switch, (C) Indian, (D) little bluestem 

23	 meadow (sedges, baltic rush, dock, smartweed, 

cordgrass, reedgrass, horsetail, foxtail barley, 

etc.) 

24	 wetland; robust emergent vegetation or open water (cattail, river bulrush, bur-reed, Phragmites, 

manna grass) 

25	 forb 

G.3 Introduced, Invasive, 

or Plants of Management 

Concern 

31	 Kentucky bluegrass dominant 

41	 smooth brome dominant 

51	 crested wheatgrass dominant 

52	 quackgrass 

53	 reed canarygrass 

61	 tall, intermediate, or pubescent wheatgrass 

62	 other nonnative grass—user defined (downy/ 

Japanese brome, etc.) 

G.4 Noxious and other weed 

Types 

71 leafy spurge 

72 Canada thistle 

73 sow thistle 

74 wormwoods 

75 other weeds (kochia, ragweed, cocklebur, etc.) 

76 other noxious weed (user-defined) 
120 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota 

G.5 other
 

81 tall introduced legume (sweet clover or alfalfa)
 

83 cactus
 

84 clubmoss/lichen
 

91 barren, unvegetated (bare soil, gopher mound)
 

92 other (rock, manure, hole, ant hill)
 

a Optional Species Modifier: Document dominant native grass 

species using the respective letter 
Birds1 

Common name Scientific name 

Loons 

Common loon Gavia immer 

Grebes 

Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps 

Horned grebe2 Podiceps auritus 

Red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegena 

Eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis 

Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis 

Pelicans 

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 

Cormorants 

Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 

Herons and bitterns 

American bittern2 Botaurus lentiginosus 

Least bittern2 Ixobrychus exilis 

Great blue heron Ardea herodias 

Great egret Ardea alba 

Snowy egret Egretta thula 

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis 

Green heron Butorides virescens 

Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax 

Ibises 

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi 

Vultures 

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura 

Swans, geese, and ducks 

Greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons 

Snow goose Chen caerulescens 

Ross’ goose Chen rossii 

Canada goose Branta canadensis 

Tundra swan Cygnus columbianus 

Wood duck Aix sponsa 

Gadwall Anas strepera 

American wigeon Anas americana 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 

Blue-winged teal Anas discors 

Northern shoveler Anas clypeata 

Northern pintail Anas acuta 

Appendix H 

South Dakota Species 
122 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

Common name Scientific name 

Green-winged teal Anas crecca 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria 

Redhead Aythya americana 

Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris 

Greater scaup Aythya marila 

Lesser scaup Aythya affinis 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula 

Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 

Common merganser Mergus merganser 

Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator 

Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis 

Kites, eagles, and hawks 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

Bald eagle2 Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus 

Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus 

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii 

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis 

Broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus 

Swainson’s hawk2 Buteo swainsoni 

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis 

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis 

Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus 

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos 

Falcons 

American kestrel Falco sparverius 

Merlin Falco columbarius 

Peregrine falcon2 Falco peregrinus 

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus 

Partridge, pheasant, grouse, turkey, and quail 

Gray partridge (introduced) Perdix perdix 

Ring-necked pheasant (introduced) Phasianus colchicus 

Sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus 

Greater prairie-chicken Tympanuchus cupido 

Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo 

Rails, gallinules, and coots 

Virginia rail Rallus limicola 

Sora Porzana carolina 

American coot Fulica americana 

Cranes 

Sandhill crane Grus canadensis 

Whooping crane Grus americana 

Plovers 

Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola 

American golden-plover Pluvialis dominica 
APPENDIX H—South Dakota Species 123 

Common name Scientific name 

Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus 

Piping plover Charadrius melodus 

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 

Stilts and avocets 

American avocet Recurvirostra americana 

Sandpipers and phalaropes 

Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 

Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 

Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria 

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus 

Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia 

Upland sandpiper2 Bartramia longicauda 

Long-billed curlew2 Numenius americanus 

Hudsonian godwit Limosa haemastica 

Marbled godwit2 Limosa fedoa 

Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres 

Sanderling Calidris alba 

Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla 

Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla 

White-rumped sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis 

Baird’s sandpiper Calidris bairdii 

Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos 

Dunlin Calidris alpina 

Stilt sandpiper Calidris himantopus 

Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus 

Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus 

Wilson’s snipe Gallinago delicata 

American woodcock Scolopax minor 

Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor 

Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 

Jaegers, gulls, and terns 

Franklin’s gull Larus pipixcan 

Bonaparte’s gull Larus philadelphia 

Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis 

Herring gull Larus argentatus 

Common tern Sterna hirundo 

Forster’s tern Sterna forsteri 

Least tern Sterna antillarum 

Black tern2 Chlidonias niger 

Pigeons and doves 

Rock pigeon (introduced) Columba livia 

Eurasian collared-dove (introduced) Streptopelia decaocto 

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura 

Cuckoos and anis 

Black-billed cuckoo2 Coccyzus erythropthalmus 

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus 
124 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

Common name Scientific name 

Eastern screech-owl 

Typical owls 

Otus asio 

Great horned owl Bubo virginianus 

Snowy owl Nyctea scandiaca 

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia 

Long-eared owl Asio otus 

Short-eared owl2 

Common nighthawk 

Goatsuckers 

Asio flammeus 

Chordeiles minor 

Whip-poor-will 

Chimney swift 

Ruby-throated hummingbird 

Belted kingfisher 

Red-headed woodpecker2 

Swifts 

Hummingbirds 

Kingfishers 

Woodpeckers 

Caprimulgus vociferus 

Chaetura pelagica 

Archilochus colubris 

Ceryle alcyon 

Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus 

Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius 

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens 

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus 

Northern flicker 

Eastern wood-pewee 

Tyrant flycatchers 

Colaptes auratus 

Contopus virens 

Alder flycatcher Empidonax alnorum 

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii 

Least flycatcher Empidonax minimus 

Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe 

Great crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus 

Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis 

Eastern kingbird 

Loggerhead shrike 

Shrikes 

Tyrannus tyrannus 

Lanius ludovicianus 

Northern shrike 

Yellow-throated vireo 

Vireos 

Lanius excubitor 

Vireo flavifrons 

Blue-headed vireo Vireo solitarius 

Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus 

Red-eyed vireo 

Blue jay 

Vireo olivaceus 

Jays, magpies, and crows 

Cyanocitta cristata 

Black-billed magpie Pica hudsonia 

American crow 

Horned lark 

Larks 

Corvus brachyrhynchos 

Eremophila alpestris 
APPENDIX H—South Dakota Species 125 

Common name Scientific name 

Swallows 

Purple martin Progne subis 

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor 

Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

Bank swallow Riparia riparia 

Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica 

Titmice 

Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapilla 

Nuthatches 

Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis 

White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 

Creepers 

Brown creeper Certhia americana 

Wrens 

House wren Troglodytes aedon 

Sedge wren Cistothorus platensis 

Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris 

Kinglets 

Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa 

Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula 

Thrushes 

Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis 

Gray-cheeked thrush Catharus minimus 

Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus 

Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus 

Wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina 

American robin Turdus migratorius 

Mockingbirds and thrashers 

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis 

Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum 

Starlings 

European starling (introduced) Sturnus vulgaris 

Pipits 

American pipit Anthus rubescens 

Sprague’s pipit2 Anthus spragueii 

Waxwings 

Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulus 

Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 
126 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

Common name Scientific name 

Wood-warblers 

Tennessee warbler Vermivora peregrina 

Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata 

Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla 

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia 

Chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica 

Magnolia warbler Dendroica magnolia 

Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata 

Black-throated green warbler Dendroica virens 

Blackburnian warbler Dendroica fusca 

Palm warbler Dendroica palmarum 

Bay-breasted warbler Dendroica castanea 

Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata 

Black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia 

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla 

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus 

Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis 

Mourning warbler Oporornis philadelphia 

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 

Wilson’s warbler Wilsonia pusilla 

Canada warbler Wilsonia canadensis 

Tanagers 

Scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea 

Towhees, sparrows, juncos, and longspurs 

Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus 

Eastern towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

American tree sparrow Spizella arborea 

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina 

Clay-colored sparrow Spizella pallida 

Field sparrow Spizella pusilla 

Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 

Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus 

Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys 

Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 

Grasshopper sparrow2 Ammodramus savannarum 

Baird’s sparrow2 Ammodramus bairdii 

Le conte’s sparrow Ammodramus leconteii 

Fox sparrow Passerelia iliaca 

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia 

Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii 

Swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana 

White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis 

Harris’ sparrow Zonotrichia querula 

White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys 

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis 

Lapland longspur Calcarius lapponicus 
APPENDIX H—South Dakota Species 127 

Common name Scientific name 

Chestnut-collared longspur2 Calcarius ornatus 

Snow bunting Plectrophenax nivalis 

Cardinals, grosbeaks, and buntings 

Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 

Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus 

Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea 

Dickcissel2 Spiza americana 

Meadowlarks, blackbirds, and orioles 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 

Western meadowlark Surnella neglecta 

Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus 

Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus 

Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus 

Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula 

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater 

Orchard oriole Icterus spurius 

Baltimore oriole Icterus galbula 

Finches 

Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus 

House finch Carpodacus mexicanus 

Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra 

White-winged crossbill Loxia leucoptera 

Common redpoll Carduelis flammea 

Pine siskin Carduelis pinus 

American goldfinch Carduelis tristis 

Evening grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus 

Old world sparrows 

House sparrow (introduced) Passer domesticus 

1

 This list based on “The Birds of South Dakota” (Tallman et al. 2002) and “Checklist of North American Birds” (AOU 1998) 

and limited to species classified as common (>25 individuals a day could be seen by a single observer in appropriate habitat) and 

uncommon (<25 individuals a day could be seen by a single observer in appropriate habitat). Species classified as rare (average 

fewer than 6 observations state or region-wide per season), casual (out of normal range [3–10 records statewide in past 10 years]), or 

accidental (far from normal range [0–2 records statewide in past 10 years]) are not listed. 

2

 Birds of conservation concern (breeding) in the prairie potholes bird conservation region (USFWS 2008). 
128 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

MAMMAls1 

Common name Scientific name 

Virginia opossum 

Shrews 

Cinereus or masked shrew 

Opossums 

Insectivores 

Didelphis virginiana 

Sorex cinereus 

Northern short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda 

Arctic shrew Sorex arcticus 

Hayden’s shrew Sorex haydeni 

Dwarf shrew Sorex nanus 

Pygmy shrew 

Moles 

Eastern mole 

Vespertilionid bats 

Little brown myotis 

Bats 

Sorex hoyi 

Scalopus aquaticus 

Myotis lucifugus 

Northern myotis Myotis septentrionalis 

Eastern red bat Lasiurus borealis 

Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus 

Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Big brown bat 

Hares and Rabbits 

Eastern cottontail 

Lagomorphs 

Eptesicus fuscus 

Sylvilagus floridanus 

White-tailed jackrabbit 

Squirrels 

Woodchuck 

Rodents 

Lepus townsendii 

Marmota monax 

Franklin’s ground squirrel Spermophilus franklinii 

Richardson’s ground squirrel Spermophilus richardsonii 

Thirteen-lined ground squirrel Spermophilus tridecemlineatus 

Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus 

Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis 

Eastern fox squirrel 

Pocket gophers 

Northern pocket gopher 

Sciurus niger 

Thomomys talpoides 

Plains pocket gopher 

Heteromyids 

Plains pocket mouse 

Geomys bursarius 

Perognathus flavescens 

Olive-backed pocket mouse Perognathus fasciatus 

Hispid pocket mouse 

Beavers 

American beaver 

Mice, rats, and voles 

Western harvest mouse 

Chaetodipus hispidus 

Castor canadensis 

Reithrodontomys megalotis 

White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus 
APPENDIX H—South Dakota Species 129 

Common name Scientific name 

Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus 

Northern grasshopper mouse Onychomys leucogaster 

Norway rat Rattus norvegicus 

House mouse Mus musculus 

Southern red-backed vole Clethrionomys gapperi 

Prairie vole Microtus ochrogaster 

Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus 

Common muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

Jumping mice 

Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius 

New world porcupines 

Common porcupine Erethizon dorsatum 

Carnivores 

Canids 

Coyote Canis latrans 

Red fox Vulpes vulpes 

Common gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

Procyonids 

Common raccoon Procyon lotor 

Mustelids 

Ermine Mustela erminea 

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata 

Least weasel Mustela nivalis 

American mink Mustela vison 

American badger Taxidea taxus 

Mephitids 

Eastern spotted skunk Spilogale putorius 

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis 

Cats 

Bobcat Felis rufus 

Ungulates 

Cervids 

Mule or black-tailed deer Odocoileus hemionus 

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus 

Antelope caprids 

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana 

Bovids 

Domestic cattle Bos taurus 

1 This list is based on the reference “Wild Mammals of South Dakota” (Higgins et al. 2000) along with staff observations. 
130 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

AMpHiBiAns And reptiles1 

Common name Scientific name 

Salamanders 

Tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum 

Frogs and toads 

Plains spadefoot Spea bombifrons 

Boreal chorus frog Pseudacris maculata 

Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens 

Woodhouse’s toad Bufo woodhousei 

American toad Bufo americanus 

Canadian toad Bufo hemiophrys 

Great plains toad Bufo cognatus 

Turtles 

Western painted turtle Chrysemys picta bellii 

Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina 

Spiny soft shelled turtle Trionyx spiniferus 

Skinks 

Prairie skink Eumeces septentrionalis 

Snakes 

Racer Coluber constrictor 

Gophersnake Pituophis catenifer 

Eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis 

Plains garter snake Thamnophis radix 

Smooth green snake Opheodrys vernalis 

Western hognose snake Heterodon nasicus 

Bullsnake Pituophis melanoleucus 

Redbelly snake Storeria occipitomaculata 

Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis 

Prairie rattlesnake Crotalus viridis 

1 This list is based on the reference “Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of South Dakota” (Kiesow 2006) along with staff 

observations. 

FisH1 

Common name Scientific name 

Logperch Percina caprodes 

Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris 

Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush 

Black bullhead Ameiurus melas 

Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis 

Stonecat Noturus flavus 

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 

Common carp Cyprinus carpio 

White sucker Catostomus commersoni 

Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 
APPENDIX H—South Dakota Species 131 

Common name Scientific name 

River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio 

Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum 

Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens 

Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas 

Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides 

Common shiner Luxilus cornutus 

Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus 

Brook stickleback Culaea inconstans 

Logperch Percina caprodes 

Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum 

White bass Morone chrysops 

Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris 

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu 

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 

Bluegill Lepornis macrochirus 

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 

Orange-spotted sunfish Lepomis humilis 

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

White crappie Pomoxis annularis 

Yellow perch Perca flavescens 

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum 

Saugeye Stizostedion spp. 

Northern pike Esox lucius 

Shortnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus 

Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 

Mooneyes Hiodon alosoides 

1 This list is based on the reference “Guide to the Common Fishes of South Dakota” (Neumann and Willis 1994) along with staff 

observations. 
132 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

ButterFlies1 

Common name Scientific name 

Parnassians and swallowtails 

Giant swallowtail Papilio cresphontes 

Eastern tiger swallowtail Papilio glaucus 

Black swallowtail Papilio polyxenes asterius 

Whites and sulphurs 

Checkered white Pontia protodice 

Western white Pontia ocidentalis 

Cabbage white Pieris rapae 

Olympia marble Euchloe olympia 

Clouded sulphur Colias philodice 

Orange sulphur Colias eurytheme 

Dog face Zerene cesonia 

Little yellow Eurema lisa 

Dainty sulphur Nathalis iole 

Harvesters, coppers, hairstreaks, and blues 

Gray copper Lycaena dione 

Bronze copper Lycaena hyllus 

Purplish copper Lycaena helloides 

Coral hairstreak Satyrium titus 

Acadian hairstreak Satyrium acadicum 

Striped hairstreak Satyrium liparops aliparops 

Juniper hairstreak Callophrys gryneus siva 

Gray hairstreak Strymon melinus franki 

Marine blue Leptotes marina 

Reakirt’s blue Hemiargus isola 

Eastern tailed-blue Everes comyntas 

Summer azure Celastrina neglecta 

Silvery blue Glaucopsyche lygdamus oro 

Melissa blue Lycaeides melissa 

Skippers 

Silver-spotted skipper Epargyreus clarus 

Common checkered skipper Pyrgus communis 

Common sootywing Pholisora catullus 

Least skipper Ancyloxypha numitor 

Poweshiek skipperling Oarisma poweshiek 

Uncas skipper Hesperia uncas 

Ottoe skipper Hesperia ottoe 

Leonard’s skipper Herperia leonardus pawnee 

Dakota skipper Hesperia dacotae 

Sachem Atalopedes campestris 

Peck’s skipper Polites peckius 

Tawny-edged skipper Polites themistocles 

Crossline skipper Polites origenes rhena 

Long dash Polites mystic dacotah 
APPENDIX H—South Dakota Species 133 

Common name Scientific name 

Arogos skipper Atrytone arogos iowa 

Delaware skipper Anatrytone logan lagus 

Hobomok skipper Poanes hobomok 

Kiowa skipper Euphyes vestries kiowah 

Common roadside skipper Amblyscirtes vialis 

Brushfoots 

American snout Libytheana carinenta bachmanii 

Variegated fritillary Euptoieta claudia 

Great spangled fritillary Speyeria cybele 

Manitoba fritillary Speyeria aphrodite manitoba 

Regal fritillary Speyeria idalia 

Edwards’ fritillary Speyeria edwardsii 

Callippe fritillary Speyeria callippe calgariana 

Myrina fritillary Boloria selene myrina 

Meadow fritillary Boloria bellona 

Gorgone checkerspot Chlosyne gorgone carlota 

Silvery checkerspot Chlosyne nycteis 

Pearl crescent Phyciodes tharos 

Northern crescent Phyciodes cocyta 

Question mark Polygonia interrogationis 

Eastern comma Polygonia comma 

Gray comma Polygonia progne 

Mourning cloak Nymphalis antiopa 

Milbert’s tortoiseshell Nymphalis milberti 

Red admiral Vanessa atalanta rubria 

American lady Vanessa virginiensis 

Painted lady Vanessa cardui 

Common buckeye Junonia coenia 

White admiral Limenitis arthemis arthemis 

Red-spotted purple Limenitis arthemis astyanax 

Viceroy Limenitis archippus 

Mountain emperor Asterocampa celtis antonia 

Tawny emperor Asterocampa clyton 

Northern pearly-eye Enodia anthedon 

Eyed brown Satyrodes Eurydice 

Little wood-satyr Megisto cymela 

Prairie ringlet Coenonympha tulllia benjamini 

Common wood-nymph Cercyonis pegala nephele 

Monarch Danaus plexippus 

Uhler’s arctic Oeneis uhleri varuna 

1 This list is based on the reference “Field Guide to Butterflies of South Dakota” (Marrone 2002) along with staff observations. 
134 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

plAnts1 

Common name Scientific name 

Absinth wormwood Artemisia absinthium 

Alfalfa Medicago spp. 

American elm Ulmus americana 

American sloughgrass Beckmannia syzigachne 

Annual sunflower Helianthus annus 

Baltic rush Juncus balticus 

Barley Hordeum spp. 

Barnyardgrass Echinochloa muricata 

Big bluestem Andropogon gerardii 

Blanket flower Gaillardia aristata 

Bracted spiderwort Tradescantia bracteata 

Breadroot scurfpea Pediomelum esculentum 

Buffalo grass Buchloe dactyloides 

Bur oak Quercus macrocarpa 

Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis 

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense 

Canada wildrye Elymus canadensis 

Cattail Typha spp. 

Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium 

Common dandelion Taraxacum officinale 

Common reed Phragmites australis 

Corn Zea mays 

Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum 

Cudweed sagewort Artemisia ludoviciana 

Curlycup gumweed Grindelia squarrosa 

Daisy fleabane Erigeron strigosus 

Downy brome Bromus tectorum 

False boneset Kuhnia eupatorioides 

Fescue sedge Carex brevior 

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis 

Field pussytoes Antennaria neglecta 

Foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum 

Goat’s beard Tragopogon dubius 

Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 

Green foxtail Setaria viridis 

Green muhly Muhlenbergia racemosa 

Green needlegrass Nassella viridula 

Green sagewort Artemisia campestris 

Hardstem bulrush Schoenoplectus acutus 

Heath aster Aster ericoides 

Indian breadroot Psoralea esculenta 

Indiangrass Sorghastrum spp. 

Intermediate wheatgrass Agropyron intermedium 

Japanese brome Bromus japonicus 
APPENDIX H—South Dakota Species 135 

Common name Scientific name 

Junegrass Koeleria macrantha 

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis 

Kochia Kochia scoparia 

Leadplant Amorpha canescens 

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula 

Little bluestem Schizachyrium spp. 

Maximilian sunflower Helianthus maximilian 

Needle and thread Hesperostipa comata 

Pink wild onion Allium stellatum 

Plains cottonwood Populus deltoides 

Plains muhly Muhlenbergia cuspidate 

Porcupine grass Stipa spartea 

Prairie chickweed Cerastium arvense 

Prairie coneflower Ratibida columnifera 

Prairie cordgrass Spartina pectinata 

Prairie dropseed Sporobolus heterolepis 

Prairie junegrass Koeleria pyramidata 

Prairie wild rose Rosa arkansana 

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria 

Purple meadowrue Thalictrum dasycarpum 

Purple prairie clover Dalea purpurea 

Quackgrass Elymus repens 

Redtop Agrostis stolonifera 

Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea 

Rush Juncus spp. 

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia 

Sandbur Cenchrus longispinus 

Sand dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus 

Scarlet globemallow Sphaeralcea coccinea 

Sedge Carex spp. 

Sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula 

Silverleaf scurfpea Pediomelum argophyllum 

Slender wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus 

Smooth brome Bromus inermis 

Stiff goldenrod Solidago rigida 

Stiff sunflower Helianthus pauciflorus 

Soybean Glycine spp. 

Spotted knapweed Centaurea biebersteinii 

Spring wheat Triticum spp. 

Sweetclover Melilotus officinalis 

Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 

Timothy Phleum pretense 

Torch flower Geum triflorum 

Water hemlock Cicuta maculata 

Western ragweed Ambrosia psilostachya 
136 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

Common name Scientific name 

Western snowberry Symphoricarpos occidentalis 

Western wheatgrass Agropyron smithii 

White beardtongue Penstemon albidus 

White prairie clover Dalea candida 

Willow Salix spp. 

Witchgrass Panicum capillare 

Wormwood sage Artemisia absinthium 

Yellow foxtail Setaria glauca 

1 This list is based on the reference “Grassland Plants of South Dakota and the Northern Great Plains” (Johnson and Larson 2007) 

and “Selected North Dakota and Minnesota Range Plants” (Sedivec and Barker) along with staff observations. 
Appendix I
 

Current and Proposed Staff 

Position Full-time equivalent 

Current refuge complex staff 

Wildlife refuge manager 1
 

Wildlife refuge specialist (wetland management district) 1
 

Wildlife biologist 1
 

Wildlife biologist (Partners for Fish and Wildlife) 1
 

Administrative officer 1
 

Maintenance worker 1
 

Maintenance worker (career seasonal) .7
 

Total 6.7 

Recommended refuge complex staff 

Wildlife refuge manager 1
 

Deputy wildlife refuge manager 1
 

Wildlife refuge specialist (wetland management district) 1
 

Wildlife biologist 1
 

Wildlife biologist (Partners for Fish and Wildlife) 1
 

Outdoor recreation planner 1
 

Park ranger 1
 

Biological technician 1
 

Prescribed fire technician 1
 

Administrative officer 1
 

Maintenance worker 1
 

Maintenance worker 1
 

Total 12
 

Appendix J 

Compatibility Determinations 

J.1 Compatibility 

Determination for Wildlife 

Observation and Wildlife 

Photography 

Uses 

Wildlife observation and wildlife photography 

Unit nAmes 

Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge, Karl E. Mundt 

National Wildlife Refuge, Lake Andes Wetland Management District 

COUnties 

Aurora, Bon Homme, Brule, Charles Mix, Clay, Davison, Douglas, Gregory, Hanson, Hutchison, Lincoln, 

Turner, Union, and Yankton Counties, South Dakota 

estAblishing AnD ACqUisitiOn AUthOrities 

Executive Order 7292 (Lake Andes National Wildlife 

Refuge, 1936) 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

Executive Order 5782 

Endangered Species Act 

refUge COmPlex PUrPOses 

The Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge was created to protect habitat important to migratory birds. 

The Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge was 

created to protect habitat important to bald eagles 

and other endangered species. 

The Lake Andes Wetland Management District was 

created to administer the Small Wetlands Acquisition 

Program to save wetlands from various threats—particularly drainage. The main authorities in establishment of the program are briefly discussed below: 

■■ Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

Act (16 [United States Code] U.S.C. 718d[c])—“as 

waterfowl production areas subject to all provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act ... 

except the inviolate sanctuary provisions.” The 

Duck Stamp Act provides for the conservation, 

protection, and propagation of native species of 

fish and wildlife, including migratory birds that 

are threatened with extinction. 

■■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715d[2])— 

“for any other management purposes, for migratory birds.” This act addresses the obligations of 

the United States under the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act through the following mechanisms: 

➤■ lessening the dangers threatening migratory 

gamebirds from drainage and other causes 

➤■the acquisition of areas of land and water to 

furnish in perpetuity reservations for the adequate protection of such birds 

➤■ authorizing appropriations for the establishment 

of such areas, their maintenance and improvement, and for other purposes 

The purpose of the district is “to assure the long-term 

viability of the breeding waterfowl population and 

production through the acquisition and management 

of waterfowl production areas, while considering the 

needs of other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife” (USFWS 2006). 

This purpose statement was developed for all Region 

6 wetland management districts. 

nAtiOnAl WilDlife refUge system missiOn 

The mission of the System is to administer 

a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within 

the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

DesCriPtiOn Of Uses 

These uses would provide opportunities that support 

wildlife-dependent recreation. Wildlife observation 

and wildlife photography would be allowed year-round 

on Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(Complex) lands. Rules, restrictions, and other information would be made available to the public through 

publication of tear sheets and brochures and posting 

information on Complex kiosks. Foot trails and photography blinds would be provided for visitors. Wildlife 

observation and wildlife photography are two of the 

six wildlife-dependent, priority public uses specified 

in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 (Improvement Act). These uses and their 

supporting access-related uses can be allowed without 

interfering with the migratory bird resource. 
140 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

AvAilAbility Of resOUrCes 

Currently, the programs for wildlife observation and 

photography are administered using available resources. Implementation of new programs, activities, 

and facilities outlined in the document, “Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment: Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex,” is tied to funding requests in the form of 

Refuge Operating Needs System and Service Asset 

Maintenance Management System projects. 

AntiCiPAteD imPACts Of the Uses 

short-term impacts 

There may exist temporary disturbance to wildlife 

near the activities. Direct, short-term impacts may 

include minor damage from traffic to roads and trails 

when wet and muddy, minor damage to vegetation, 

littering, increased maintenance activity, and potential 

conflicts with other visitors. These activities would 

have only minor impacts on wildlife and would not 

detract from the primary purposes of the Complex. 

long-term impacts 

None 

Cumulative impacts 

There would be no direct or indirect cumulative impacts anticipated with these uses. 

PUbliC revieW AnD COmment 

This compatibility determination was prepared concurrently with the draft comprehensive conservation 

plan (CCP) and environmental assessment (EA) for the 

Complex. Public review and comment will be achieved 

concurrently with the public review and comment period for the draft CCP and EA. 

DeterminAtiOn 

Wildlife observation and wildlife photography, along 

with their supporting uses, are compatible uses at Lake 

Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

stiPUlAtiOns neCessAry tO ensUre 

COmPAtibility 

Stipulations regarding the public use program would 

be made available in published brochures. Dates, 

closed areas, and other information would be specified. Vehicles would be restricted to designated roads 

and trails, and vehicle use would be monitored for 

wildlife disturbance and law enforcement violations. 

Complex staff would also monitor use, regulate access, 

and maintain necessary facilities to prevent habitat 

degradation and minimize wildlife disturbance. 

JUstifiCAtiOn 

Based on the anticipated biological impacts above and in 

the EA, wildlife observation and wildlife photography 

on the Complex would not interfere with the habitat 

goals and objectives or purposes for which it was 

established. Wildlife observation and wildlife photography are priority wildlife-dependent public uses 

acknowledged in the Improvement Act. These uses 

promote an appreciation for the natural resources 

found on the Complex. Increased public stewardship 

will support and complement the Service’s actions in 

achieving the purposes of the Complex and the mission of the Refuge System. 

sUbmitteD by: 

Michael J. Bryant, Project Leader Date 

Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Lake Andes, South Dakota 

revieWeD by: 

Bernie Peterson Date 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mountain–Prairie Region 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Lakewood, Colorado 

APPrOveD by: 

Matt Hogan Date 

Assistant Regional Director 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mountain–Prairie Region 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Lakewood, Colorado 

mAnDAtOry 15-yeAr reevAlUAtiOn DAte: 2026 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 141 

J.2 Compatibility 

Determination for 

glyphosate-tolerant 

soybeans and Corn for 

habitat restoration and 

management on national 

Wildlife refuge system 

(system) Owned or 

managed lands in region 6 

Use 

Use of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans and corn for habitat restoration and management on National Wildlife 

Refuge System (System) owned or managed lands in 

Region 6. 

refUge nAme 

■■ Arrowwood Complex 

■■ Audubon Complex 

■■ Devils Lake Complex 

■■ Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge 

■■ Huron Wetland Management District 

■■ Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge 

■■ Kulm Wetland Management District 

■■ Lake Andes Complex 

■■ Long Lake Complex 

■■ Madison Wetland Management District 

■■ Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge 

■■ Quivira National Wildlife Refuge 

■■ Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

■■ Souris River Basin Complex 

■■ Sand Lake Complex 

■■ Tewaukon Complex 

■■ Waubay Complex 

COUnties 

All counties within national wildlife refuges and wetland management districts listed above in Region 6. 

estAblishing AnD ACqUisitiOn AUthOrities 

System lands are managed consistent with a number 

of federal statutes, regulations, policies, and other 

guidance. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 United States 

Code [U.S.C.] 668dd–668ee) (Administration Act) is 

the core statute guiding management of the System. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law [P.L.] 105-57) made 

important amendments to the Administration Act, 

one of which was the mandate that a comprehensive 

conservation plan be completed for every unit of the 

System. Among other things, comprehensive conservation planning has required field stations to assess 

their current farming program and establish objectives for the future. 

The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of March 

16, 1934, as amended by section 3 of the Act of August 

1, 1958 (72 Stat. 486, 16 U.S.C. sec. 716 d[c]), authorized 

the Secretary of Interior to acquire small wetland or 

pothole areas suitable as Waterfowl Production Areas. 

Additional Authorities include the following: Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, Migratory Bird Conservation Act, North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and the Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act. 

refUge PUrPOses 

■■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife, for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose for 

migratory birds.” Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

■■ As “Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “[...] 

all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act] [...] except the inviolate sanctuary provisions.” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

■■ For “any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. sec. 715d Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act 

■■ For “conservation purposes [...]” 7 U.S.C. sec. 2002 

Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 

Establishing Authorities and Refuge Purposes for 

individual Units may be obtained online at www 

.fws.gov/refuges/policiesandbudget/purposes/ 

Purposes_Search.cfm. 

nAtiOnAl WilDlife refUge system missiOn 

The mission of the System is to administer 

a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within 

the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

DesCriPtiOn Of Use 

What is the use? is the use a wildlife-dependent 

public use? The use is as follows: use of glyphosatetolerant corn and soybeans for habitat restoration and 
142 

management purposes on lands owned in fee title or 

managed through agreement by the National Wildlife Refuge System in Region 6. The primary use will 

be to prepare a seedbed on previously or currently 

cropped sites for prairie reconstruction purposes. An 

additional use would include incorporation into a station’s integrated pest management program for the 

control of invasive and noxious plant species. An example would be use on System-managed lands behind 

flood control dams where prairie restoration would not 

be warranted due to the likelihood of future flooding. 

The use is not a wildlife-dependent public use. 

Where would the use be conducted? The use would 

be conducted on lands owned in fee title or managed 

through agreement by the System in Region 6, in 

Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, that are currently 

farmed or have previously been farmed and contain 

soils and receive average precipitation to support 

growth of agricultural soybeans and corn. 

When would the use be conducted? Use would be 

ongoing. The use of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans and 

corn would be allowed as part of an integrated pest 

management program used to prepare a seedbed for 

habitat restoration and management and/or to control 

noxious and invasive vegetation. 

how would the use be conducted? Use would be conducted by cooperative farmers through a cooperative 

farming agreement or by SUP. 

Why is this use being proposed? Refuge managers’ 

experience combined with published literature indicates that use of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans and 

corn—which allows for the application of an herbicide 

containing the active ingredient glyphosate during the 

growing season—is very effective at killing invasive 

cool season grasses and other noxious and invasive 

species. This results in a weed-free seedbed used for 

habitat restoration purposes, which increases the possibility of successful habitat reconstruction efforts on 

System-managed and -owned lands. 

AvAilAbility Of resOUrCes 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: 

■■ No additional management or administrative costs 

will be associated with this activity. 

■■ Special equipment, facilities, or improvements 

necessary to support the use: none 

■■ Maintenance costs: none 

■■ Monitoring costs: none 

■■ Offsetting revenues: none 

AntiCiPAteD imPACts Of the Use 

short-term impacts. The use of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans and corn will increase the likelihood 

that conservation tillage can be successfully conducted, reducing soil erosion. 

long-term impacts. The effective reconstruction 

of degraded and weed-infested habitats on System 

lands to native mixed-grass and tallgrass prairie 

which can be managed through the historical ecological processes of prescribed fire and prescribed 

grazing, will cumulatively reduce needed expenditures of labor and funds for weed control efforts on 

System lands in Region 6 over the long term. 

stiPUlAtiOns neCessAry tO ensUre 

COmPAtibility 

1. Refuge managers will comply with all existing 

and current policies regarding the use of genetically modified crops (glyphosate-tolerant soybeans 

and corn). 

2. Activity will occur only on currently farmed or previously farmed System-owned or -managed lands. 

PUbliC revieW AnD COmment 

The period of public review and comment was held 

from February 2, 2011 through March 4, 2011. A total 

of eleven written comments were received. Responses 

to substantive comments can be found in appendix F. 

Why was this level of public review and comment 

selected? It is appropriate to provide opportunity to 

comment on this compatibility determination at the 

same time as the draft environmental assessment. The 

proposed activity has a national as well as local level 

of interest, and it was felt that a full month with wide 

distribution should be given to review. 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 143
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signature: Refuge Manager 

 

 

 

Kim Hanson, Arrowwood Complex (Signature) (Date) 

Lloyd Jones, Audubon Complex (Signature) (Date) 

Roger Hollevoet, Devils Lake Complex (Signature) (Date) 

Mike Rich, Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge (Signature) (Date) 

Clarke Dirks, Huron Wetland Management District (Signature) (Date) 

Craig Mowry, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge (Signature) (Date) 

Mick Erickson, Kulm Wetland Management District (Signature) (Date) 

Brian DeVries, Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge (Signature) (Date) 

Mike Bryant, Lake Andes Complex (Signature) (Date) 

Paul VanNingen, Long Lake Complex (Signature) (Date) 

Tom Turnow, Madison Wetland Management District (Signature) (Date) 

Patrick Martin, Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge (Signature) (Date) 

Dan Severson, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge (Signature) (Date) 

Gene Mack, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District (Signature) (Date) 

Harris Hoistad, Sand Lake Complex (Signature) (Date) 
144 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kelly Hogan, Souris River Basin Complex (Signature) (Date) 

Rob Bundy, Tewaukon Complex (Signature) (Date) 

Larry Martin, Waubay Complex (Signature) (Date) 

Review: Regional 

Compatibility Coordinator 

Lloyd Jones (Date) 

Review: Zone Supervisor 

Paul Cornes (Date) 

Concurrence: Regional Chief 

Rick Coleman (Date) 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2021 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 145 
146 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 147 
148 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 149 
150 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 151 
152 

Exhibit XII-4a 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 153 
154 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 155

any other activity evaluated by the left side of the flowchart (Public Service, Government or Corporate), so impacts which may result from this category of request will not be

evaluated under this CD. In order for this Compatibility Determination to be used, the use must: (1) be an action

necessary to avert a threat to human health and safety or a major threat to public or private property not related to a public service or government-type request, and (2) result

in an impact which is at or below the established threshold levels for protected wetlands habitats (see discussion in “Anticipated Impacts” and “Justification” sections below). Availability of Resources: Financial and staff resources are sufficient at each field station to administer these

requests. Staff time will be needed to evaluate the proposed use, to prepare the site- specific permits, and to insure compliance with the permit authorization and stipulations, as well as checking for satisfactory restoration of any disturbed sites as necessary. No specialized equipment will be necessary, as the work requirement associated with

these projects is monitoring and compliance checking only. Actual work, including

restoration needs if applicable, will be completed by the applicant. Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Most of the impacts will result from filling or partially draining parts of protected wetlands, the right to “fill” wetland areas protected by the easement being one of the

acquired rights. Partial drainage, another acquired right, may also be authorized to

resolve certain health and safety issues, it they cannot be resolved by temporary means. If the only way to resolve the Health and Safety issue is to permit a portion of the wetland to be either filled or by lowering the wetland elevation by establishing an

overflow sill, then there will be a long term impact to the wetland. However, the impact would be determined to be below a “material” impact or interference with the purposes of

the unit or the mission of the NWRS as described in the Justification. These impacts are

considered minor with respect to the entire scope of the small wetlands program within

the Prairie Pothole Region of Region 6. Within this Compatibility Determination, there are no secondary impacts, or at least none which cannot be resolved with stipulations. No complete wetlands are drained or filled

(the 25 percent condition), so although potentially reduced in size by 25 percent, or by up

to 0.4 acres, the wetland still exists as the same type wetland that originally existed. If

the potentially affected wetland contains a colonial bird nesting site or some unique

feature, the use may not be allowed, or it may be allowed with stipulations that would

eliminate the secondary or indirect impact. -4-
156 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 157 
158 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 159 
160 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 161 
162 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 163 
164 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 165 
166 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 167 
168 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 169 
170 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 171 
172 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 173 
174 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 175 
176 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 177 
178 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 179 
180 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 181 
182 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 183 
184 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 185 
186 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 187 
188 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 189 
190 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 191 
192 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 193 
194 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 195 
196 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 197 
198 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 199 
200 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 201 
202 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 203 
204 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 205 
206 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 207 
208 
APPENDIX J—Compatibility Determinations 209 
210 
Bibliography
 

Anderson, K.L.; Smith, E.F.; Owensby, C.E. 1970. 

Burning bluestem range. Journal of Range Management 23:81–92. 

Armstrong, T.; Leafloor, J. 1990. Fish–waterfowl interactions in the prairie pothole region of North 

America. Ducks Unlimited Canada. Biol. Serv. 

Group Report Number. 43. Winnipeg. 29 p. 

Baer, N.W. 1989. Shelterbelts and windbreaks in the 

Great Plains. Journal of Forestry 87:32–6. 

Bakker, K.K. 2003. A synthesis of the effect of woody 

vegetation on grassland-nesting birds. In: Proceedings, South Dakota Academy of Science; [Date 

of conference unknown]; [Location of conference 

unknown]. [Location of publisher unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 119–41. 

———. 2005. South Dakota all bird conservation plan. 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, 

Pierre, SD. Wildlife Division Report 2005–09. 131 p. 

Bakker, K.K.; Higgins, K.F. 2009. Planted grasslands 

and native sod prairie: equivalent habitat for grassland birds? Western North American Naturalist 

69:235–42. 

Bakker, K.K.; Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F. 2002. Incorporating landscape attributes into models for 

migratory grassland bird conservation. Conservation Biology 16:1638–46. 

Balser, D.S.; Dil, H.H.; Nelson, H.K. 1968. Effect of 

predator reduction on waterfowl nesting success. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 32:669–82. 

Barker, W.T.; Sedivec, K.K.; Messmer, T.A.; Higgins, 

K.F.; Hertel, D.R. 1990. Effects of specialized grazing systems on waterfowl production in south central North Dakota. Transactions of the 55th North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 55:462–474. 

BBC Research & Consulting. 2008. Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex socioeconomic impact 

analysis. BBC Research & Consulting, Denver, CO. 

Beauchamp, W.D.; Koford, R.R.; Nudds, T.D.; Clark, 

R.G., Johnson, D.H. 1996. Long-term declines in 

nest success of prairie ducks. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 60:247–57. 

Blankespoor, G.W. 1987. The effects of prescribed 

burning on a tall-grass prairie remnant in eastern 

South Dakota. Prairie Naturalist 19:177–188. 

Blumenthal, D.M.; Jordan, N.R.; Svenson, E.L. 2003. 

Weed control as a rationale for restoration: the 

example of tallgrass prairie. Conservation Ecology 7(1):6. 

Bouffard, S.H.; Hanson, M.A. 1997. Fish in waterfowl 

marshes: waterfowl managers’ perspective. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(1):146–157. 

Bragg, T.B. 1982. Seasonal variations in fuel and fuel 

consumption by fires in a bluestem prairie. Ecology 63(10):7–11. 

Bragg, T.B.; Steuter, A.A. 1996. Prairie ecology—the 

mixed prairie. In: Samson, F.B.; Knopf, F.L.; editors. Prairie conservation. Washington, DC: Island 

Press. 53–65. 

Bredehoeft, J.D.; Neuzil, C.E.; Milly, P.C.D. 1983. Regional flow in the Dakota aquifer: a study of the role 

of confining layers. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2237. Washington: GPO. 

Bryce, S.; Omernik, J.M.; Pater, D.E.; Ulmer, M.; 

Schaar, J.; Freeouf, J.; Johnson, R.; Kuck, P.; Azevedo, S.H. 1998. Ecoregions of North Dakota and 

South Dakota. [Internet]. Version 30NOV1998. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs. 

gov/resource/habitat/nsdseco/index.htm>. 

Burger, L.D.; Burger, L.W., Jr.; Faaborg, J. 1994. Effects 

of prairie fragmentation on predation on artificial 

nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:249–54. 

Carlson, B.N.; Berry, C.R. 1990. Population size and 

economic value of aquatic bait species in palustrine 

wetlands of eastern South Dakota. Prairie Naturalist 22:119–128. 

Carpinelli, M.F. 2001. Designing weed-resistant plant 

communities by maximizing niche occupation and 

resource capture [Ph.D. dissertation]. Bozeman, 

MT: Montana State University. [Pages unknown]. 

Carver, Erin; Caudill, James. 2007. Banking on nature 

2006: the economic benefits to local communities of 

National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. Washington, 

DC: Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 372 p. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2003. 

Epidemic/epizootic West Nile virus in the United 

States: guidelines for surveillance, prevention, 

and control. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services Public Health Service 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Infectious Diseases Division of 

Vector-Borne Infectious Diseases. 3rd Revision. 
212 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

Christian, J.M.; Wilson, S.D. 1999. Long-term ecosystem impacts of an introduced grass in the northern 

great plains. Ecology 80:2397–407. 

Clark, R.G.; Nudds, T.D. 1991. Habitat patch size 

and duck nesting success: the crucial experiments 

have not been performed. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:534–43. 

Cousens, R.; Mortimer, M. 1995. Dynamics of weed 

populations. Cambridge University Press, New 

York, NY. 21–54. 

Cowardin, L.M.; Carter, V.; Golet, F.C.; LaRoe, E.T. 

1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, DC: GPO. 

Cowardin, L.M.; Gilmer, D.S.; Shaiffer, C.W. 1985. Mallard recruitment in the agricultural environment 

of North Dakota. Wildlife Monographs 92:1–37. 

Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the 

conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 82 p. 

Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, L.D.; 

Goldade, C.M.; Nenneman, M.P.; Euliss, B.R. 1999 

(revised 2002). Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Wilson’s phalarope. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center: Jamestown, ND. 15 p. 

Dechant, J. A., A. L. Zimmerman, D. H. Johnson, C. 

M. Goldade, B. E. Jamison, and B. R. Euliss. 2002. 

Effects of management practices on grassland 

birds: American avocet. Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 24 p. 

Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. 

Igl, C. M. Goldade, A. L. Zimmerman, and B. R. 

Euliss. 2003. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: American bittern. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 14 p. 

DesGranges, J.L.; Rodrigue, J. 1986. Influence of 

acidity and competition with fish on the development of ducklings in Quebec. Water, Air, and Soil 

Pollution 30:743–50. 

Dill, T.O.; Waller, S.S.; Vogel, K.P.; Gates, R.N.; Stroup, 

W.W. 1986. Renovation of seeded warm-season 

pastures with atrazine. Journal of Range Management 39:72–75. 

Dixon, C.; Hollevoet, R. 2005. Ground nesting bird 

management on cropland dominated landscapes 

within the prairie pothole region of North and 

South Dakota: a step-down plan from The Prairie 

Pothole Joint Venture. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service unpublished report. December. 

Dobie, J. 1956. Walleye pond management in Minnesota. Progressive Fish-Culturist 18:51–7. 

———. 1972. Rearing suckers for bait in Minnesota. 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. 

Paul, MN. Section of Fisheries Investigational 

Report 256. 

Domek, Tom. 1998. Last call for tallgrass in North 

Dakota. [Internet]. Version October 02, 1998. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs. 

gov/resource/plants/tallgrass/lastcall.htm> North 

Dakota Outdoors 60(10):14–19. 

Duebbert, H.F.; Frank, A.M. 1984. Value of prairie 

wetlands to duck broods. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:27–34. 

Duebbert, H.F.; Lokemoen, J.T. 1980. High duck nesting success in a predator reduced environment. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 44:428–37. 

Duebbert, H.F.; Jacobson, E.T.; Higgins, K.F.; Podoll, 

E.B. 1981. Establishment of seeded grasslands for 

wildlife habitat in the prairie pothole region. Special Scientific Report—Wildlife No. 234. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown]. 

Eadie, J.M.; Keast, A. 1982. Do goldeneye and perch 

compete for food? Oecologia 55:225–30. 

Eriksson, M.O. 1979. Competition between freshwater fish and goldeneyes (Bucephala clangula) for 

common prey. Oecologia 41:99–107. 

———. 1983. The role of fish in the selection of lakes 

by nonpiscivorous ducks: mallard, teal, and goldeneye. Wildfowl 34:27–32. 

Estey, Mike. 2007. [Title of unpublished report unknown]. [Location where on file unknown]. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Habitat and Population Evaulation Team. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Evelsizer, D.D. 2002. Management of avian botulism 

and survival of molting mallards [master’s thesis]. 

Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan. 59 p. 

Frid, L.; Hanna, D.; Korb, N.; Bauer, B.; Bryan, K.; 

Martin, B.; Holzer, B. 2011. Evaluating the costs 

and benefits of alternative weed management strategies for three Montana landscapes. Prepared by 

the Nature Conservancy of Montana, Helena, MT, 

and ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, BC. 56 p. 

+ appendices. <http://conserveonline.org/library/ 

evaluating-the-costs-and-benefits-of-alternative>. 

Friend M.; Franson, J.C. 1999. Field manual of wildlife 

diseases, general field procedures and diseases of 

birds. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological 

Survey, Information and Technology Report 1999­

001. [Pages unknown]. 

Frost, C.C. 1998. Presettlement fire frequency regimes of the United States: a first approximation. 

In: Prodeedings, 20th tall timbers fire ecology conference, fire in ecosystem management: shifting 

the paradigm from suppression to prescription. 

Boise, ID. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research, 

Inc. 70–81. 

Garrettson, P.R.; Rohwer, F.C. 2001. Effects of mammalian predator removal on production of upland-nesting 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 213

ducks in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:398–405. 

Garrettson, P.R.; Rohwer, F.C.; Zimmer, J.M.; Mense, 

B.J.; Dion, N. 1996. Effects of mammalian predator removal on waterfowl and non-game birds 

in North Dakota. In: Transactions of the North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 65:94–101. 

Gazda, R.J.; Meidinger, R.R.; Ball, I.J.; Connelly, J.W. 

2002. Relationships between Russian olive and 

duck nest success in southeastern Idaho. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 30:337–44. 

Geist V.; Organ, J.F. 2004. The public trust foundation 

of the North American model of wildlife conservation. Northeast Wildlife 58:49–56. 

Geist, V.; Mahoney, S.P.; Organ, J.F. 2001. Why hunting 

has defined the North American model of wildlife 

conservation. In: Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference; 

March 20, 2001; Washington, DC. Washington, DC: 

Wildlife Management Institute. 66:175–85. 

Gosselin, David C.; Harvey, F.E.; Flowerday, Charles. 

2003. The complex Dakota aquifer: managing groundwater in Nebraska. April 2003. Geotimes. <http:// 

www.agiweb.org/geotimes/apr03/feature_nebraska. 

html>. accessed April 25, 2008. 

Grant, W.E.; Birney, E.C.; French, N.R.; Swift, D.M. 

1982. Structure and productivity of grassland small 

mammal communities related to grazing-induced 

changes in vegetative cover. Journal of Mammology 63:248–60. 

Grant, T.A.; Madden, E.; Berkey, G.B. 2004a. Tree and 

shrub invasion in northern mixed-grass prairie: 

implications for breeding grassland birds. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 32:807–18. 

Grant, T.A.; Madden, E.M.; Murphy, R.K.; Nenneman, 

M.P.; Smith, K.A. 2004b. Monitoring native prairie 

vegetation: the belt transect method. Ecological 

Restoration 22:106–11. 

Grant, T.A.; Flanders-Wanner, B.L.; Shaffer, T.L.; 

Murphy, R.K.; Knutsen, G.A. 2009. An emerging 

crisis across northern prairie refuges: prevalence 

of invasive plants and a plan for adaptive management. Ecological Restoration 27(1):58–65. 

Greenwood, R.J. 1986. Influence of striped skunk removal on upland duck nest success in North Dakota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:6–11. 

Greenwood, R.J.; Sovada, M.A. 1996. Prairie duck 

populations and predation management. In Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural 

Resources Conference 61:31–42. 

Greenwood, R.J.; Arnold, P.M.; McGuire, B.G. 1990. 

Protecting duck nests from mammalian predators 

with fences, traps, and a toxicant. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 18:75–82. 

Greenwood, R.J.; Sargeant, A.B.; Johnson, D.H.; Cowardin, L.M.; Shaffer, T.L. 1995. Factors associated 

with duck nest success in the Prairie Pothole Region 

of Canada. Wildlife Monographs 128:1–57. 

Greer, M.J. 2009. An evaluation of habitat use and requirements for grassland bird species of greatest 

conservation need in central and western South 

Dakota [master’s thesis]. Brookings, SD: South 

Dakota State University. 176 p. 

[HAPET] Habitat and Population Evaluation Team. 

2008. Plains and Prairie Pothole Region of South 

Dakota predictive models. On file at Habitat and 

Population Evaluation Team, Bismarck, ND. 

Hamer, T.L.; Flather, C.H.; Noon, B.R. 2006. Factors 

associated with grassland bird species richness: the 

relative roles of grassland area, landscape structure, 

and prey. Landscape Ecology 21:569–83. 

Hanowski, J.M.; Christian, D.P.; Niemi, G.J. 2000. 

Landscape requirements of prairie sharp-tailed 

grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus campestris in 

Minnesota, USA. Wildlife Biology 6:257–63. 

Hanson, M.A.; Riggs, M.R. 1995. Potential effects of 

fish predation on wetland invertebrates: a comparison of wetlands with and without fathead minnows. 

Wetlands 15(2):167–75. 

Hegstad, G.D. 1973. Vascular flora of Burke, Divide, 

Mountrail, and Williams Counties in northwestern 

North Dakota. [PhD dissertation]. Fargo: North 

Dakota State University. [Pages unknown]. 

Held, J.W.; Peterka, J. J. 1974. Age, growth, and food 

habits of the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) in saline lakes. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 103:743–56. 

Helmers, D.L.; Gratto-Trevor, C.L. 1996. Effects of 

predation on migratory shorebird recruitment. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and 

Natural Resources Conference. 61:31–42. 

Herkert, J.R. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on midwestern grassland bird communities. 

Ecological Applications 4:461–71. 

———. 1995. An analysis of Midwestern breeding bird 

population trends: 1966–1993. American Midland 

Naturalist 134:41–50. 

Hickman, K.R.; Farley, G.H.; Channell, R.; Steier, J.E. 

2006. Effects of old world bluestem (Bothriochloa 

ischaemum) on food availability and avian community composition within the mixed-grass prairie. 

Southwestern Naturalist 51:524–530. 

Higgins, K.F. 1986. Interpretation and compendium 

of historical fire accounts in the northern Great 

Plains. Resource Publication 161. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. [Pages unknown]. 

Higgins, K.F.; Barker, W.T. 1982. Changes in vegetation structure in seeded nesting cover in the prairie 

pothole region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Science Report—Wildlife 242. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. [Pages unknown]. 
214 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

Higgins, K.F.; Dowd-Stukel, E.; Goult, J.M.; Backlund, D.C. 2000. Wild mammals of South Dakota. 

Pierre, SD: South Dakota Department of Game, 

Fish and Parks. 

Hobbs, R.J.; Humphries, S.E. 1995. An integrated 

approach to the ecology and management of plant 

invasions. Conservation Biology 9(4):761–770. 

Hoff, M.J. 1999. Predator trapping on township-sized 

blocks: does duck nesting success increase? [master’s thesis]. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State 

University. [Pages unknown]. 

Hunt, H.W.; Trlica, M.J.; Redente, E.F.; Moore, J.C.; 

Detling, J.K.; Kittel, T.G.F.; Walter, D.E.; Fowler, 

M.C.; Klein, D.A.; Elliott, E.T. 1991. Simulation 

model for the effects of climate change on temperate grassland ecosystems. Ecological Modelling 

53:205–246. 

Johnson, Douglas H. 2006. Terrestrial bird communities on the Woodworth study area. [Internet]. Revised August 3, 2006. Jamestown, ND: Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. <http:// 

www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/woodwort/ 

johnson.htm>. 

Johnson, Douglas H.; Igl, L.D. 2001. Area requirements of grassland birds; a regional perspective. 

Auk 118:24–34. 

Johnson, R.E. 1964. Fish and fowl. In: Linduska, J.P.; 

editor. Waterfowl tomorrow. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service: Washington, DC: Government Printing 

Office. 453–58. 

Johnson, R.R.; Higgins, K.F. 1997. Wetlands resources 

of eastern South Dakota. Brookings: South Dakota 

State University. [Internet]. Version 22JUL99. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs. 

gov/resource/wetlands/sdwet/index.htm>. 

Johnson, Douglas H.; Igl, Lawrence D.; Dechant Shaffer, 

Jill A. [series coordinators]. 2004. Effects of management practices on grassland birds. [Internet]. 

Version 12AUG2004. Jamestown, ND: Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. < http:// 

www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/ 

index.htm>. 

Johnson, J.R.; Larson, G.E. 2007. Grassland plants 

of South Dakota and the Northern Great Plains. 

Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University. 

Johnson, R.G.; Temple, S.A. 1990. Nest predation and 

brood parasitism of tall grass prairie birds. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 54(1):106–11. 

Jordan, N.R.; Larson, D.L.; Huerd, S.C. 2008. Soil 

modification by invasive plants: effects on native 

and invasive species of mixed-grass prairies. Biological Invasions 10:177–190. 

Kantrud, Harold A.; Krapu, Gary L.; Swanson, George 

A.; Allen, James A. 1989. Prairie basin wetlands 

of the Dakotas: a community profile. [Internet]. 

Version 16JUL1997. Jamestown, ND: Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. <http:// 

www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/basinwet/ 

index.htm>. 

Keller, R.P.; Lodge, D.M.; Finnoff, D.C. 2007. Risk 

assessment for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits. In: Proceedings, National Academy of Sciences. 104(1):203–207. 

Kelsey, K.W.; Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F.; Bakker, 

K.K. 2006. Planting trees in prairie landscapes: do 

the ecological costs outweigh the benefits? Natural 

Areas Journal 26(3):254–60. 

Kiesow, Alyssa. 2006. Field guide to amphibians and 

reptiles of South Dakota. Pierre, SD: South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks. 

Kirsch, L.M.; Kruse, A.D. 1973. Prairie fires and 

wildlife. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers fire 

ecology conference; June 8–9, 1972; Lubbock, TX. 

Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station. 

12:289–303. 

Kirsch, L.M.; Duebbert, H.F.; Kruse, A.D. 1978. Grazing and haying effects on habitats of upland nesting 

birds. Transactions of the North American Wildlife 

and Natural Resources Conference 43:486–497. 

Klett, A.T.; Duebbert, H.F.; Heismeyer, G.L. 1984. 

Use of seeded native grasses as nesting cover by 

ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:134–8. 

Klett, A.T.; Shaffer, T.L.; Johnson, D.H. 1988. Duck 

nest success in the prairie pothole region. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 52:431–40. 

Knopf, F.L. 1994. Avian assemblages on altered grasslands. In: Jehl, J.R., Jr.; Johnson, N.K.; editors. 

A century of avifaunal change in western North 

America. 247–257. 

Knops, J.M.H. 2006. Fire does not alter vegetation in 

infertile prairie. Oecologia 150:477–483. 

Kruse, A.D.; Bowen, B.S. 1996. Effects of grazing 

and burning on densities and habitats of breeding 

ducks in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:233–246. 

Kuehl, A.K.; Clark, W.R. 2002. Predator activity related 

to landscape features in northern Iowa. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 66:1224–34. 

Kume, J. 1977. Geology and water resources of Charles 

Mix and Douglas Counties, South Dakota—Part II, 

water resources. South Dakota Geological Survey 

Bulletin 22. 31 p. 

Lariviére, S.; Messier, F. 1998. Effect of density and 

nearest neighbours on simulated waterfowl nests: 

can predators recognize high-density nesting 

patches? Oikos 83:12–20. 

Larson, A.M. 2009. Phase I watershed assessment 

final report: Lake Andes watershed, Charles Mix 

County, South Dakota. South Dakota Department 

of Environment and Natural Resources, Pierre, SD. 

Laubhan, M.K.; Gleason, R.A.; Knutsen, G.A.; Laubhan, 

R.A.; Euliss, N.H., Jr. 2006. A preliminary biological 

assessment of Long Lake National Wildlife Refuge, 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 215

North Dakota. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological 

Technical Publication, FWS/BTP-R6006-2006. 66 p. 

Leung, B.; Lodge, D.M.; Finnoff, D.; Shogren, J.F.; 

Lewis, M.A.; Lamberti, G. 2002. An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. In: Proceedings, Royal 

Society of London. 

Lloyd, J.D.; Martin, T.E. 2005. Reproductive success 

of chestnut-collared longspurs in native and exotic 

grassland. The Condor 107(2):363–374. 

Lokemoen, J.T. 1984. Examining economic efficiency 

of management practices that enhance waterfowl 

production. In: Transactions of the North American 

Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference; [Date 

of conference unknown]; [Location of conference 

unknown]. [Location of publisher unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 49:584–607. 

Lorenzana, J.C.; Sealy, S.G. 1999. A meta-analysis of the 

impact of parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird 

on its hosts. Studies in Avian Biology 18:241–53. 

Marrone, Gary. 2002. Field guide to butterflies of 

South Dakota. Pierre, SD: South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. 

Martin, T.E. 1988. Processes organizing open nesting 

bird assemblages: competition of nest predation? 

Evolutionary Ecology 2:37–50. 

———. 1995. Avian life history evolution in relation 

to nest sites, nest predation and food. Ecological 

Monographs 65:101–127. 

McIntyre, N.E.; Thompson, T.R. 2003. A comparison 

of Conservation Reserve Program habitat plantings with respect to arthropod prey for grassland 

birds. American Midland Naturalist 150:291–301. 

Mense, B. 1996. The effects of predator removal and 

nest-site selection on productivity of overwater 

nesting birds in North Dakota [master’s thesis]. 

Pittsburg, PA: Pittsburg State University. 

Moody, M.E.; Mack, R.N. 1988. Controlling the spread 

of plant invasions: the importance of nascent foci. 

Journal of Applied Ecology 25:1009–21. 

Murphy, R.K.; Grant, T.A. 2005. Land management 

history and floristics in mixed-grass prairie, North 

Dakota, USA. Natural Areas Journal 25:351–58. 

Murphy, R.K.; Grant, T.A.; Madden, E.M. 2005. Prescribed fire for fuel reduction in northern mixed 

grass prairie: influence on habitat and population 

dynamics of indigenous wildlife. Joint Fire Science 

Program RFP 2001–3:1–40. 

Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F.; Nusser, S.M. 1999. Effects of woody vegetation on prairie wetland birds. 

Canadian Field-Naturalist 113:487–92. 

Naugle, D.E.; Bakker, K.K.; Higgins, K.F. 2000. A synthesis of the effects of upland management practices 

on waterfowl and other birds in the northern great 

plains of the U.S. and Canada. Wildlife Technical 

Report 1. 28 p. 

Naugle, D.E.; Quamen, F.R. 2007. Assessing the impacts of tree plantings on grassland birds in North 

and South Dakota. Completion Report for North 

Dakota State Wildlife Grant #T19. [Location where 

on file unknown]. 25 p. 

Nenneman, M.P. 2003. Vegetation structure and floristics at nest sites of grassland birds in north central North Dakota [master’s thesis]. Missoula, MT: 

University of Montana. [Pages unknown]. 

Neumann, R.M.; Willis, D.W. 1994. Guide to the common fishes of South Dakota. South Dakota Game, 

Fish and Parks. 60 p. 

Niemuth, N.D. 2000. Land use and vegetation associated with greater prairie chicken leks in an agricultural landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:278–86. 

Niemuth, N.D.; Estey, M.E.; Reynolds, R.E.; Loesch, 

C.R.; Meeks, W.A. 2006. Use of wetlands by springmigrant shorebirds in agricultural landscapes of 

North Dakota’s Drift Prairie. Wetlands 26:30–39. 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U.S. 

Committee. 2009. The state of the birds, United 

States of America, 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior. 36 p. 

O’Leary, C.H.; Nyberg, D.W. 2000. Treelines between 

fields reduce the density of grassland birds. Natural Areas Journal 20:243–9. 

Ortega, Y.K.; Pearson, D.E. 2005. Weak vs. strong 

invaders of natural plant communities: assessing 

invasibility and impact. Ecological Applications 

15:651–661. 

Ortman, J.; Stubbendieck, J.; Mitchell, R. 1996. Management of eastern redcedar on grasslands. University of Nebraska–Lincoln Cooperative Extension Publication. 

Pampush, G.J.; Anthony, R.G. 1993. Nest success, 

habitat utilization and nest-site selection of longbilled curlews in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. 

Condor 95:957–67. 

Patten, M.A.; Shochat, E.; Reinking, D.L.; Wolfe, D.H.; 

Sherrod, S.K. 2006. Habitat edge, land management, 

and rates of brood parasitism in tallgrass prairie. 

Ecological Applications 16:687–95. 

Pedlar, J.H.; Fahrig, L.; Merriam, G.H. 1997. Raccoon 

habitat use at 2 spatial scales. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 61:102–12. 

Perhsson, O. 1984. Relationships of food to spatial and 

temporal breeding strategies of mallards in Sweden. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:322–39. 

———. 1991. Egg and clutch size in the mallard as 

related to food quality. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69:156–62. 

Peterjohn, B.G.; Sauer, J.R. 1999. Population status 

of North American grassland birds from the North 

American breeding bird survey, 1966–1996. Studies in Avian Biology 19:27–44. 
216 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

Peterson, D.L.; Hennagir, F.A.1980. Minnesota live 

bait industry assessment study, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN. Section 

of Fisheries Investigational Report 367. 

Poff, R.J. 1985. Managing waterfowl impoundments 

for fisheries. In: Knighton, M.D.; editor. Water 

impoundments for wildlife: a habitat management 

workshop. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment 

Station. Technical Report NC-100. 106–109. 

Pokorny, M.L. 2002. Plant functional group diversity 

as a mechanism for invasion resistance [master’s 

thesis]. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Pokorny, M.L.; Sheley, R.L.; Zabinski, C.A.; Engel, 

R.E.; Svejcar, T.J.; Borkowski, J.J. 2005. Plant 

functional group diversity as a mechanism for invasion resistance. Restoration Ecology 13(3):448–59. 

Price, C.J.; Tonn, W.M.; Paszkowski, C.A. 1991. Intraspecific patterns of resource use by fathead 

minnows in a small boreal lake. Canadian Journal 

of Zoology 69:2109–15. 

Reiss. S.A. 1995. Sport in industrial America, 1850– 

1920 (The American History Series). Wheeling, 

IL: Harlan Davidson, Inc. 178 p. 

Rejmanek, M.; Pitcairn, M.J. 2004. When is eradication of exotic pest plants a realistic goal? In: Veitch, 

C.R.; Clout, M.N.; editors. Turning the tide: the 

eradication of invasive species. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 249–53. 

Reynolds, R.E.; Shaffer, T.L.; Renner, R.W.; Newton, 

W.E.; Batt, B.D.J. 2001. Impact of the conservation reserve program on duck recruitment in the 

U.S. Prairie Pothole Region. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 65:765–80. 

Ribic, C.A.; Sample, D.W. 2001. Associations of grassland birds with landscape factors in southern Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 146:105–21. 

Ribic, C.A; Guzy, M.J.; Sample, D.W. 2009. Grassland 

use of remnant prairie and conservation reserve 

program fields in an agricultural landscape in Wisconsin. The American Midland Naturalist 161:110–22. 

Ringelman, James K.; editor. 2005. Prairie Pothole 

Joint Venture 2005 implementation plan. Bismarck, 

ND: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 160 p. 

Robel, R.J.; Briggs, J.N.; Dayton, A.D.; Hulbert, L.C. 

1970. Relationships between visual obstruction 

measurements and weight of grassland vegetation. Journal of Range Management 23:295–297. 

Romig, G.P.; Crawford, R.D. 1995. Clay-colored sparrows in North Dakota parasitized brown-headed 

cowbirds. Prairie Naturalist 27:193–205. 

Rumble, M.A.; Flake, L.D. 1983. Management considerations to enhance use of stock ponds by waterfowl 

broods. Journal of Range Management 36:691–4. 

Rumble, M.A.; Sieg, C.H.; Uresk, D.W.; Javersak, J. 

1998. Native woodlands and birds of South Dakota: past and present. General Technical Report 

RMRS-RP-8, Fort Collins, CA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 11 p. 

Runge, J.P. 2005. Spatial population dynamics of Microtus in grazed and ungrazed grasslands [Ph.D. 

dissertation]. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 

Samson, F.; Knopf, F. 1994. Prairie conservation in 

North America. BioScience 44:418–21. 

Samson, Fred B.; Knopf, Fritz L.; Ostlie, Wayne R. 

1998. Grasslands. In: Mac, M.J.; Opler, P.A.; Puckett Haecker, C.E.; Doran, P.D.; editors. Status 

and trends of the nation’s biological resources. 

[Internet]. Version 21JAN2000. Jamestown, ND: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/ 

grlands/grlands.htm> 2:437–72. 

Sando, S.K.; Neitzert, K.M. 2003. Water and sediment 

quality of the Lake Andes and Choteau Creek 

Basins, South Dakota, 1983–2000. U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

03-4148. 114 p. 

Sargeant, A.B. 1972. Red fox spatial characteristics in 

relation to waterfowl predation. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 36:225–36. 

Sargeant, A.B.; Allen, S.H.; Hastings, J.O. 1987. Spatial relations between sympatric coyotes and red 

foxes in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:285–93. 

Sargeant, A.B.; Sovada, M.A.; Shaffer, T.L. 1995. Seasonal predator removal relative to hatch rate of 

duck nests in waterfowl production areas. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 23:507–513. 

Sauer, J.R.; Hines, J.E.; Fallon, J. 2008. The North 

American breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1966–2007. Version 15MAY2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. <http:// 

www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/> accessed January 

24, 2010. 

Schacht, W.; Stubbendieck, J. 1985. Prescribed burning in the loess hill mixed prairie of southern Nebraska. Journal of Range Management 38:47–51. 

Schmitz, R.A.; Clark, W.R. 1999. Survival of ringnecked pheasant hens during spring in relation to 

landscape features. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:147–54. 

Schranck, B.W. 1972. Waterfowl nest cover and some 

predation relationships. Journal of Wildlife Management 36:182–186. 

Schroeder, R.L.; Holler, J.I.; Taylor, J.P. 2004. Managing national wildlife refuges for historic or nonhistoric conditions: determining the role of the refuge in the ecosystem. Natural Resources Journal 

44(4):1183–210. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 217

Seastedt, T.R. 1995. Soil systems and nutrient cycles 

of the North American prairie. In: Joern, A.; Keeler, 

K.H.; editors. The changing prairie: North American grasslands. New York, NY: Oxford University 

Press. 157–174. 

Severson, K.E.; Sieg, C.H. 2006. The nature of eastern 

North Dakota: pre-1880 historical ecology. Fargo, 

ND: North Dakota State University, North Dakota 

Institute for Regional Studies. 308 p. 

Shaffer, J.A.; Goldade, C.M.; Dinkins, M.F.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, L.D.; Euliss, B.R. 2003. Brownheaded cowbirds in grasslands: their habitat, hosts, 

and response to management. Prairie Naturalist 

35(3):145–186. 

Sheley, R.L.; Half, M.L. 2006. Enhancing native forb 

establishment and persistence using a rich seed 

mixture. Restoration Ecology 14:627–635. 

Shutler, D.; Mullie, A.; Clark, R.G. 2000. Bird communities of prairie uplands and wetlands in relation to 

farming practices in Saskatchewan. Conservation 

Biology 14:1441–51. 

Smith, B.J.; Higgins, K.F. 1990. Avian cholera and temporal changes in wetland numbers and densities in 

Nebraska’s Rainwater Basin area. Wetlands 10:1–5. 

Smith, M.D.; Knapp, A.K. 1999. Exotic plant species in 

a C4-dominated grassland: invisibility, disturbance, 

and community structure. Oecologia 120:605–12. 

Smith, K.G.; Withgott, J.H.; Rodewald, P.G. 2000. Redheaded woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus). 

In: Poole, A.; Gill, F.; editors. The Birds of North 

America, No. 518. The Birds of North America, 

Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Snyder, W.D. 1984. Ring-necked pheasant nesting ecology and wheat farming on the high plains. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 48:878–88. 

Sousa, P.J. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: 

blue-winged teal (breeding). U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Biological Report 82 (10.114). 36 p. 

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 1992. Lake Assessment Project Report, Lake Andes, Charles Mix County, SD. South 

Dakota Clean Lakes Program, Division of Water 

Resources Management. South Dakota Department 

of Environment and Natural Resources, Pierre, SD. 

Sovada, M.A.; Anthony, R.M.; Batt, B.D.J. 2001. Predation on waterfowl in arctic tundra and prairie 

breeding areas: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:6–15. 

Sovada, M.A.; Burns, M.J.; Austin, J.E. 2004. In 

press. Predation of waterfowl in prairie breeding 

areas. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 

Publication. 

Sovada, M.A.; Burns, M.J.; Austin, J.E. 2005. Predation of waterfowl in prairie breeding areas. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center. 70 p.

 Steuter, A.A.; McPherson, G.R. 1995. Fire as a physical stress. In: Bedunah, D.J.; Sosebee, R.E.; editors. 

Wildland plants: physiological ecology and developmental morphology. 550–79. 

Svedarsky, W.D.; Toepfer, J.E.; Westemeier, R.L.; 

Robel, R.J. 2003. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: greater prairie-chicken. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 42 p. 

Swanson, G.A.; Nelson, H.K. 1970. Potential influence 

of fish-rearing programs on waterfowl breeding 

habitat. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 65–71. 

Tilman, D.; Wedin, D.; Knops, J. 1996. Productivity 

and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in 

grassland ecosystems. Nature 379:718–720. 

Towne, G.; Owensby, C.E. 1984. Long-term effects 

of annual burning at different dates in ungrazed 

Kansas tallgrass prairie. Journal of Range Management 37:392–397. 

Trlica, M.J.; Biondini, M.E. 1990. Soil water dynamics, 

transpiration, and water losses in a crested wheatgrass and native shortgrass ecosystem. Plant and 

Soil 126:187–201. 

Umbanhowar, C.E., Jr. 1996. Recent fire history of the 

northern Great Plains. American Midland Naturalist 35(1):115–21. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2009. Guidance for 

implementation of Federal wildland fire management policy. Available <http://www.nifc.gov/policies/policies_documents/GIFWFMP.pdf> accessed 

July 2012. 

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Interior population of the least tern recovery plan. 

[Location of publisher unknown]: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages 

unknown]. 

———. 1994a. Draft revised recovery plan for piping 

plovers breeding on the Great Lakes and northern 

Great Plains of the U.S. [Location of publisher unknown]: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown]. 

———. 1994b. Whooping crane recovery plan. [Location of publisher unknown]: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages 

unknown]. 

———. 1996. Western prairie fringed orchid (Plantanthera praeclara) recovery plan. [Location of 

publisher unknown]: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 101 p. 

———. 1999. Fulfilling the promise—the national 

wildlife refuge system: visions for wildlife, habitat, 

people, and leadership. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

———. 2001. Policy on maintaining the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of 

the national wildlife refuge system. U.S. Fish and 
218 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex, South Dakota

Wildlife Service Manual, 601 FW3. 66 Federal 

Register 3817. 

———. 2003. The national strategy for management 

of invasive species. National Wildlife Refuge System. 56 p. 

———. 2004. Director’s order 172, responsibilities of 

Federal agencies to protect migratory birds. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 15 p. 

———. 2006. Wildlife disease contingency plan. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

National Wildlife Refuge System, South Dakota. 

———. 2008. Birds of conservation concern 2008. 

United States Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, Arlington, VA. 85 p. 

———. 2010. Rising to the urgent challenge: strategic 

plan for responding to accelerating climate change. 

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA. 36 p. 

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Strategic habitat conservation: a report. 45 p. 

Van Eeckout, G. 1976. A survey of the bait fish industry in North Dakota. North Dakota Game and Fish 

Department, Bismarck, ND. Federal Aid Project 

Completion Report 1-110-R-1. 

Vickery, P.D.; Herkert, J.R. 2001. Recent advances 

in grassland bird research: where do we go from 

here? The Auk 118:11–15. 

Vinton, M.A.; Goergen, E.M. 2006. Plant-soil feedbacks 

contribute to the persistence of Bromus inermis in 

tallgrass prairie. Ecosystems 9:967–976. 

Vogl, R.J. 1974. Effect of fire on grasslands. In: Kozlowski, T.T.; Ahlgren, C.E.; editors. Fire and 

ecosystems. New York: Academic Press. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Warren, J.M.; Rotella, J.; Thompson, J.E. 2008. Contrasting effects of cattle grazing intensity on uplandnesting duck production at nest and field scales in 

the Aspen Parkland, Canada. Avian Conservation 

and Ecology 3(2):6. 

Weaver, J.E.; Albertson, F.W. 1936. Effects of the 

great drought on the prairies of Iowa, Nebraska 

and Kansas. Ecology 17(4):567–639. 

Willson, G.D.; Stubbendieck, J. 2000. A provisional 

model for smooth brome management in degraded 

tallgrass prairie. Ecological Restoration 18:34–8. 

Wilson, S.D. 2002. Prairies. In: Davy, A.J.; Perrow, M.R.; 

editors. Handbook of ecological restoration. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 443–65. 

Wilson, S.D.; Belcher, J.W. 1989. Plant and bird communities of native prairie and introduced Eurasian 

vegetation in Manitoba, Canada. Conservation Biology 3(1):39–44. 

Winter, M.; Johnson, D.H.; Faaborg, J. 1999. Patterns 

of area sensitivity in grassland nesting birds. Conservation Biology 13:1424–36. 

———. 2000. Evidence for edge effects on multiple 

levels: artificial nests, natural nests, and distribution of nest predators in Missouri tallgrass prairie 

fragments. Condor 102:256–66. 

Wright, H.A.; Bailey, A.W. 1982. Fire ecology: United 

States and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 501 p.