Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 1

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Tewaukon

Draft Comprehensive

Conservation Plan and

Environmental Assessment

National Wildlife Refuge
2 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Tewaukon

National Wildlife Refuge

Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

and Environmental Assessment

June 2000

Prepared by

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge

9754 143 1/2 Avenue Southeast

Cayuga, ND 58013-9764
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 3

Table of Contents

Summary ....................................................................................................... 7

Introduction and Background

Background .............................................................................................. 12

Purpose and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan ............... 12

Description of Planning Process

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act ....................................... 15

Tewaukon Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process .... 15

Compatibility Determinations ............................................................... 15

Involving the Public ................................................................................ 16

Issues Raised During the Planning Process........................................ 16

Putting It All Together ........................................................................... 17

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Missions and Goals ................. 18

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals .............. 18

Complex and Resource Descriptions

Tewaukon Complex History ................................................................... 19

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge .............................................. 20

Tewaukon Wetland Management District .................................... 23

Tewaukon Complex Easement Refuges........................................ 23

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ............................................................. 24

Historical Resources, Cultural Values, and Uses ................................ 27

Land Use and Wildlife Species Changes .............................................. 28

Management by Unit

Special Management Areas.................................................................... 31

Interrelationships of Goals and Objectives .......................................... 31
4 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge

Purpose ..................................................................................................... 32

Vision 32

Habitat Management .............................................................................. 37

Grasslands ......................................................................................... 37

Native Prairie ............................................................................ 37

Prescribed Burning and Wildfires .................................. 40

Native Prairie Management ............................................ 41

Tallgrass Prairie Management Approach ...................... 42

Introduced/Planted Cover ....................................................... 44

Dense Nesting Cover ........................................................ 44

Planted Warm Season Natives and Other Grasslands . 47

Wetlands ............................................................................................ 48

Managed Wetlands ................................................................... 49

Water Rights ...................................................................... 50

Water Quality ..................................................................... 51

Non-Managed Wetlands........................................................... 52

Native Woodlands ............................................................................ 53

Wildlife .............................................................................................. 54

Waterfowl (Ducks, Geese, and Swans) .......................................... 54

Waterfowl Nesting .................................................................... 54

Planted Foods ............................................................................ 56

Migratory Birds ............................................................................... 61

Shorebirds .................................................................................. 61

Wading Birds ............................................................................. 61

Raptors ....................................................................................... 61

Grassland Migratory Birds ..................................................... 61

Woodland Migratory Birds ...................................................... 62

Migratory Bird Disease Outbreaks ........................................ 62

Native Resident Wildlife ................................................................. 63

Mammals .................................................................................... 63

Upland Game Birds .................................................................. 63

Reptiles and Amphibians ......................................................... 64

Nonnative Wildlife ........................................................................... 65

Wildlife Disturbance ............................................................................... 66

Migrating Wildlife Habitat ..................................................................... 67

Nesting Birds and Other Breeding Wildlife ................................. 68

Wintering Wildlife Habitat ............................................................. 69

Endangered Species................................................................................ 70

Service Species of Concern............................................................. 70

Public Use and Recreation ..................................................................... 71

Fishing .............................................................................................. 71

Hunting .............................................................................................. 81

Wildlife Observation and Photography ......................................... 81

Interpretation ................................................................................... 82

Environmental Education............................................................... 83

Public Outreach ................................................................................ 83

Cultural Resources .................................................................................. 84

Partners .............................................................................................. 85

Volunteer Program........................................................................... 86
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 5

Tewaukon Wetland Management District

Purpose .............................................................................................. 87

Vision .............................................................................................. 87

Description of the District...................................................................... 88

Waterfowl Production Areas .......................................................... 88

Wetland Easements ......................................................................... 88

Grassland Easements ...................................................................... 88

ND FmHA Conservation Easements ........................................... 88

Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) ................................................... 89

Habitat Management ....................................................................... 90

Grasslands.................................................................................. 90

Native Prairie..................................................................... 90

Enhancing Native Prairie ......................................... 93

Protecting Native Prairie ......................................... 94

Introduced/Planted Cover ................................................ 97

Dense Nesting Cover................................................. 97

Planted Cover ............................................................. 97

Wetlands ..................................................................................... 98

Water Rights ...................................................................... 98

Protecting Wetlands .......................................................... 98

Protecting Fens.................................................................. 99

Riparian Zones ................................................................... 99

Wildlife .............................................................................................. 100

Waterfowl ................................................................................... 100

Migratory Birds ................................................................. 101

Migratory Bird Disease Outbreaks ................................ 101

Native Resident Wildlife .......................................................... 102

Mammals ............................................................................ 102

Reptiles and Amphibians.................................................. 102

Upland Game Birds ........................................................... 102

Nonnative Wildlife .................................................................... 103

Endangered Species ........................................................................ 104

Service Species of Concern ..................................................... 106

Rare and Unique Species (North Dakota State Listed)...... 108

Public Use and Recreation ..................................................................... 110

Hunting and Trapping ..................................................................... 110

Interpretation/Environmental Education .................................... 110

Cultural Resources .................................................................................. 111

Partners .................................................................................................... 111

Tewaukon Easement Refuges

Purpose .............................................................................................. 112

Habitat Management .............................................................................. 112

Kraft Slough .............................................................................................. 113

Implementation and Monitoring

Personnel .................................................................................................. 114

Funding Needed to Implement This Plan ............................................ 115

Step-Down Management Plans ............................................................. 115

Partners .................................................................................................... 116

Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................................... 117

Plan Amendment and Revision ............................................................. 118

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Preparers .................................... 118
6 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Appendices:

Appendix A. Tewaukon NWR Complex Species Lists .................... 119

Appendix B. Plant Species Mentioned in CCP and EA .................. 127

Appendix C. ND State Rare and Unique Plant Species ................. 129

Appendix D. Tewaukon Complex Water Rights ............................... 130

Appendix E. Key Legislation/Policies ................................................ 131

Appendix F. Environmental Assessment.......................................... 135

Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations ..................................... 175

Appendix H. ND/SD Draft Ecosystem Goals and Objectives ........ 183

Appendix I. Existing Partnerships ................................................... 188

Appendix J. RONS and MMS Project Worksheets ........................ 190

Appendix K. Literature Cited ............................................................. 209

Appendix L. Waterfowl Production Areas Priority Management

Tables ...................................................................................... 216

Appendix M. Section 7 Consultation .................................................. 220

Appendix N. Mailing List .................................................................... 221

Appendix O. Glossary .......................................................................... 227
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

7

Summary

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the principal Federal

agency with the responsibility for conserving, protecting, and enhancing

fish and wildlife and their habitats. The Service manages a diverse network

of more than 500 national wildlife refuges. A System which encompasses

more than 92 million acres of public land and water, and provides habitat

for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish, and insects.

The Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex) includes the

Tewaukon Refuge and the Tewaukon Wetland Management District (WMD).

The Refuge is composed of the Tewaukon and Sprague Lake Units (8,363

acres) and two easement refuges (Storm Lake and Wild Rice). The WMD

includes 14,000 acres of Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs), 35,000 acres

of wetland easements and 10,386 acres of grassland easements in Ransom,

Richland, and Sargent Counties, North Dakota. The lands were acquired

for the primary purpose of supporting migratory birds and other wildlife.

The Complex is located on the gently rolling glacial till plain of the Prairie

Pothole Region and the Red River of the North Valley (original bed of glacial

Lake Agassiz). Birds from both the Central and Mississippi Flyways use

Complex habitat. Over 243 bird species have been recorded in the area. Of

these species, 100 are known to nest in the area, and the remainder can be

seen during spring and fall migrations. Many other reptile, amphibian,

mammal, and invertebrate wildlife species live on Tewaukon Complex lands.

The Complex has four key wildlife and habitat values: 1) wetlands provide

important migration and breeding habitat for waterfowl and other waterbirds, and

habitat for several species associated with wetlands including leopard

frogs, painted turtles, mink, muskrats and invertebrates; 2) tallgrass

prairie remnants provide some of the last remaining habitat for nesting

and migrating grassland birds, rare prairie butterflies, and other prairie

wildlife; 3) other grassland habitat provides winter cover for resident

species and breeding habitat for ground nesting birds and other grassland

wildlife; 4) riparian habitat that provides breeding and migration areas for

many species of birds and mammals. The Tewaukon Complex also provides

unique and important values for people. Wildlife, habitat, scenery, recreation,

and cultural history all combine to make the Complex a national treasure.

Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCP) were mandated by the National

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. This Act requires that

the CCP must identify and describe 1) purposes of the Complex; 2) fish,

wildlife, and plant populations and their habitats; 3) archaeological and

cultural values; 3) significant fish, wildlife and plant problems; and 4) the

actions necessary to correct them. The CCP should also identify and

describe compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities and

administrative and visitor facilities.

Benefits of the CCP are several: better long-term continuity in Complex

management; better understanding of Complex management actions for

Complex staff members and visitors; a clear description of future development and

funding needs; and the assurance that Complex management will fulfill the

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the specific purposes

for which the Complex was established.

The Tewaukon CCP will be used to prepare step-down management plans

and revise existing plans. It also will be used to prepare budgets which

describe specific actions to be taken by the Complex over the next 15 years.

Given that new information, guidance and technology frequently change

and become available, the CCP will be updated as necessary throughout

the 15-year period.
8 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

The Environmental Assessment considered three management alternatives

for management of the Tewaukon Complex. Each of the alternatives were

evaluated for environmental consequences in accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For a summary of the alternatives

considered during the planning process, see the Tewaukon National

Wildlife Complex Environmental Assessment in Appendix F. The CCP is

the preferred alternative.

VISION: Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex will be preserved,

managed, and enhanced as a part of the tallgrass prairie wetland

ecosystem capable of supporting migratory birds and other

native wildlife and plants for the benefit of present and future

generations. The Complex will provide an environment where a

diversity of native tallgrass prairie, wetlands, plants, wildlife,

and their natural processes can be observed and explored. It will

provide a place where people can learn about wildlife and their

habitats and enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation.

The management focus of the CCP is summarized by four major Complex

goals that are supported by a series of objectives and implementation

strategies. Those goals include:

Habitat: Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity of native

flora, other grasslands and wetlands within the tallgrass prairie

wetland ecosystem.

Wildlife: Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity and

abundance of migratory birds and other native wildlife with

emphasis on waterfowl, grassland, and wetland-dependent birds.

Public Use/Recreation and Environmental Education:

Provide recreational and educational opportunities for persons

of all abilities to learn about and enjoy the tallgrass prairie

wetland ecosystem, the fish and wildlife found there, and the

history of the Complex in a safe and compatible manner.

Partnerships:

Promote partnerships to preserve, restore, and enhance a

diverse, healthy, and productive prairie/wetland ecosystem in

which the Tewaukon Complex plays a key role.

The achievement of these goals will result in the following major accomplishments

in the Complex over the next 15 years (includes implementation of Drift

Prairie Project, North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grant, and

the Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Project):
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

9

Habitat:

P Protection of the remaining tracts of tallgrass prairie in the District

with grassland easements, cooperative agreements or fee title

acquisition (approximately 60,000 acres).

P Enhancement of 3,716 acres of existing native prairie areas on

Complex lands by reducing nonnative plants and increasing the

abundance and the number of native plants species.

P Management of the vegetative structure and species composition on

other grasslands on the Complex to provide for the needs of grassland

nesting birds.

P Restoration of 1,700 acres of old dense nesting cover (DNC), invasive

nonnative grasses, and crop fields to a diverse native plant community

on Complex lands.

P Enhancement of 38 managed Refuge wetlands to mimic natural

drawdown cycles and reduce nonnative wetland plants. Improve the

water quality in Wild Rice River as it enters the Refuge by restoring

wetlands and adding vegetative buffer strips.

P Protection of wetlands on private land through fee title, easements or

cooperative agreements.

P Enhancement of wetlands by implementing low impact (minimum till)

agricultural practices on surrounding uplands, grazing systems,

repairing water management structures, and placing waterfowl

nesting structures on private land.

P Restoration and creation of wetlands on private land.

Wildlife:

P Improvement of waterfowl nesting success on the Refuge and six high

priority Waterfowl Production Areas.

P Maintenance of 135 acres of cropland on the Refuge as food for

migratory birds and resident wildlife.

P Reduction of nonnative wildlife on the Complex through habitat

management and direct removal.

P Minimize wildlife disturbance by the public by limiting access at

certain times of the year and by activity.

Cultural Resources:

P Gather more information on the cultural resources on the Complex.

Provide additional interpretation and protection of these cultural

resources.

Public Use/Recreation and Environmental Education:

P Maintain a recreational fishing program in Tewaukon and Sprague

Lakes by reducing carp and by continuing to manage the two lakes as

open water migratory bird rest areas.

P Continue to provide public opportunity for hunting of white-tailed deer

and pheasants on the Refuge and wildlife observation and photography

with limited access.

P Expand the Refuge Visitor Center, including exhibits. Expand the

hours the Visitor Center is open to the public.

P Improvement of the Complex outreach program through new

brochures, a website, displays, and signs.

P Continue to provide environmental education programs and activities.

Partnerships:

P Continue to work with existing partners on habitat management,

enhancement and protection programs; recreational programs; and

environmental education activities.

P Create opportunities for new partnerships to assist in implementing

the CCP.

P Foster a volunteer program on the Complex.

Time Frame for the Process

From the time that this Draft is published, the public will have a 30-day

comment period. Public comments will be considered, then a Final Plan is

expected to be completed by the Fall of 2000.
10 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid

by Keith Frankki

Monarch Butterfly on

Rough Blazing Star

by Keith Frankki

White Lady’s Slipper

by Keith Frankki Ladies Tresses

by Keith Frankki

Prairie Coneflower

and Leadplant

by Herbert Troester

Painted Lady Butterfly

on common sunflower

by Keith Frankki

Black-eyed Susan by Keith Frankki Silver Scurfpea

by Herbert Troester

Pearl Crescent Butterfly

on Black-eyed Susan

by Keith Frankki

Blue-eyed Grass

by Keith Frankki
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 11

Lesser Golden Plover

by Keith Frankki

Western Sandpiper

by Keith Frankki

Mallard hen with brood

by Herbert Troester

Blue-winged teal pair

by Keith Frankki

Pintail

by Keith Frankki

Song Sparrow

by Keith Frankki Aerial view of prairie pothole region by Jack Lalor

Successful hunters showing off white-tailed buck by Jack Lalor

Blue-winged teal hen with brood

by Keith Frankki

Great Egret Chicks on Pool 7A Rookery

by Keith Frankki
12 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Introduction and Background

Background

The Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex) is located in

the southeast corner of North Dakota (See Map 1). The Complex includes

the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) including the Sprague

Lake Unit, the Storm Lake Easement Refuge, the Wild Rice Easement

Refuge, and the Tewaukon Wetland Management District (WMD). The

Refuge is 8,363 acres in size and is located in Sargent County. On June 26,

1945, Public Land Order 286 established the area known as the Tewaukon

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

wildlife....” The Tewaukon Wetland Management District (WMD) was

established in 1960 as a management unit for migratory birds. The Wetland

Management District encompasses tracts in Sargent, Ransom, and

Richland Counties. The District is comprised of Waterfowl Production

Areas (fee title), wetland easements, and grassland easements in Ransom,

Richland, and Sargent counties. The Tewaukon Complex staff administers

over 14,000 acres of WPAs, over 35,000 acres protected by wetland easements, and

10,386 acres of grassland easements.

The Complex provides important habitat for migrating and breeding waterfowl,

other water birds, grassland birds, and other migratory birds. Lands in the

Complex also provide critical habitat for a variety of wetland and prairie

mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates. The Complex is a

valuable area for recreation including hunting, fishing, and wildlife

observation. The Refuge also has a long and rich cultural history. All of

these factors make the Tewaukon Complex a national treasure.

Purpose and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the principal Federal agency

with the responsibility for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and

wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.

The Service manages a diverse network of more than 500 National Wildlife

Refuges. This National Wildlife Refuge System encompasses more than 92

million acres of public land and water, and provides habitat for more than

5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish, and insects.

Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) were mandated by the National

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The Improvement Act

requires that all lands and waters of the National Wildlife Refuge System

be managed in accordance with an approved Comprehensive Conservation

Plan. This Act requires the identification and description of 1) Complex

purpose(s); 2) fish, wildlife, and plant populations and their habitats; 3)

archaeological and cultural values; 4) significant fish, wildlife, and plant

problems; and 5) the actions necessary to correct them. The Plan should

also identify and describe opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent

recreational uses and administrative and visitor facilities.

The CCP describes long-term Complex management actions and purposes

of the actions for Refuge staff and the public, in order to provide Complex

management continuity. As the CCP was developed, public input regarding

Complex issues and management was considered. The CCP is a description

of the wildlife and habitat protection, management, and development that is

needed for Complex purposes to be achieved. Funding and personnel

needed to achieve the CCP are also described. Completing the work

described in the CCP will accomplish Complex purposes and contribute to

the mission of the Refuge System and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 13
14 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 15

Description of Planning Process

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 stipulates that a

written assessment must be made of any action proposed by an agency of

the Federal Government that significantly affects the quality of the human

environment. NEPA also requires Federal decision makers to study, develop,

and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action

and solicit the views of other Federal and State agencies and the public

early in the decision making process. An Environmental Assessment (EA)

has been prepared to accompany this CCP (See Appendix F). The proposed

action (preferred alternative) identified in the EA is the CCP (enhanced

management alternative).

Tewaukon Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process

The Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation

Plan is guided by the established purpose of the Refuge and Wetland

Management District, the Service and National Wildlife Refuge System

missions, Service compatibility standards, and other Service policies, plans

and laws related to Complex management.

While developing the CCP, the planning team reviewed conservation planning

efforts of the following groups: Partners in Flight, Western Hemisphere

Shorebird Reserve Network, North American Waterfowl Management

Plan Committee, U.S. Forest Service, ND Game and Fish Department, and

Service Mainstem Missouri Eco-team (Appendix H).

This CCP establishes the goals, objectives, and strategies for Complex

management. Listed below is an outline of the planning process used to

develop the Tewaukon Complex CCP:

1. Preplanning (forming a planning team, identifying available people and

funds, organizing efforts)

2. Identify Issues and Develop Vision » Public Input Gathered on Issues

3. Gather Information on Resources and Legal Responsibilities

4. Analyze Resource Relationships (Develop Goals and Objectives)

5. Develop Range of Alternatives

6. Assess Environmental Effects

7. Identify Preferred Alternative

8. Publish Draft Plan » Public Comments on Draft Plan Gathered

9. Respond to Comments

10. Adopt Plan

11. Implement Plan, Monitor/Evaluate Actions, Review and Revise

As with any process, comprehensive conservation planning is not necessarily

linear or sequential, but can involve moving back and forth between steps.

We are currently working on Stage 8 in the process (publishing the Draft

Plan).

Compatibility Determinations

Compatibility determinations are required by the Refuge Improvement Act

for any program or activity occurring on Refuge System lands. The

planning team reviewed previously completed compatibility determinations

regarding Complex programs and reevaluated these determinations to ensure

they were relevant and current. Compatibility determinations document

the evaluation of Complex programs and activities by the Refuge Manager.

In a compatibility determination, a program or activity is judged to be

compatible or incompatible with Refuge purposes. No current program or

activity on the Refuge was determined to be incompatible as a result of this

review. Even if uses are determined to be compatible, the Refuge Manager

must also evaluate whether adequate staff and funding are available to

support the program or activity. Compatibility determinations can be found

in Appendix G.

Planning is the process of deciding in

advance what you are going to do.

The Plan is the vehicle used to let

others know in advance what

you’re going to do.
16 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Involving the Public

This planning effort will provide local communities, national, State, and

Tribal organizations, and interested individuals an opportunity to have a

voice concerning the future direction of the Complex. The primary thrust

for the planning process is to provide a forum for ideas and issues to be

shared, reviewed and evaluated. It is also important for the Service to

provide information to the public throughout the process.

Since the Tewaukon Complex includes three Counties and many people visit

the Complex from Fargo and Wahpeton, it was decided to hold open houses

in several locations to gather public input. A list of the open houses held

are as follows:

Sargent County Forman City Hall (March 12, 1998)

Ransom County Lisbon High School (March 17, 1998)

Richland County American Legion Hankinson (March 24, 1998)

Wahpeton Law Enforcement Center (March 26, 1998)

Cass County (Fargo) ND State University Memorial Union (April 2, 1998)

The open houses provided participants an opportunity to learn about the

Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National Wildlife Refuge System’s mission

and goals and the Refuge and District purposes and current management

issues. People attending were provided the chance to speak with Service

representatives and to share their comments and concerns about current

management. Attendees were also asked to suggest ways they would like

to see Complex management change.

Prior to the public meetings, the Complex staff discussed the planning process

with local County commissioners, sportsmen’s groups, other interested

groups, and advertised in the local media. Information on the planning

process was also displayed in cafes and businesses frequented by

community members in the three Counties comprising the Complex. A

questionnaire on Refuge issues was provided to the public to stimulate

additional public input for the planning process.

Issues Raised During the Planning Process

The Tewaukon Complex staff received a variety of input from the meetings,

questionnaires, and verbal discussions. The majority of the public input dealt

with public use and recreation issues. Most of the local input dealt with

very specific issues. Refuge users were interested in expanded fishing hours,

more year-round access, and fishing in more Refuge wetlands. Expanding

Refuge hunting opportunities to include waterfowl and predators, and

modification of existing hunting seasons (i.e., shortening the pheasant

season) were other recreation issues brought up by the public. Habitat

issues identified by the public included expanding or decreasing the acres

of cropland and conducting more management (such as planting more

shelterbelts for winter cover and food plots) for pheasants and deer on the

Complex. Grassland habitat and management issues included more protection

for grasslands, integrating more grazing into management, maintaining and

increasing weed control efforts, and reducing grassland habitat fragmentation.

Crop damage on private lands by Canada geese was an issue raised

throughout the District. Issues involving land acquisition and subsequent

loss of local tax revenue were also raised. The planning team identified

many of the same issues raised by the public. Some additional issues that

the planning team raised included the decline, protection, and management

of wetland habitat, tallgrass prairie and associated migratory birds.

The Tewaukon CCP is designed to address broad management and wildlife

issues.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 17

Putting It All Together

Specific habitat management is the end product of this planning process.

For example, Refuge habitat management actions such as weed control,

farming, or water management should logically step-down from the broad

Refuge System mission statement to the purposes the Refuge was

established for, to the Refuge Vision statement. The links identified in the

CCP planning process that step-down from the Refuge Vision to a habitat

management action are established by setting habitat goals, quantifying

the goals into objectives, and identifying a series of strategies that can be

used to achieve the objectives. The strategies (specific habitat management)

applied must be evaluated to determine if the objectives are being met. If

the objectives are met, then the goals and vision should also be met.

Some strategies may not be effective and some will take a long time to

evaluate. For example, an objective may be to eliminate the noxious weed

leafy spurge using a variety of strategies such as chemical application and

biological control. Refuge managers recognize that the objective of eliminating all

leafy spurge is not possible since new infestations can start in small areas

of soil disturbances. Current tools may also have limitations and may only

slow the spread of leafy spurge or reduce the size of the infestation. The

CCP is flexible. It allows for new strategies to be implemented as new

methods become available and when existing strategies are not effective

ways to meet the objective. Important things to keep in mind are other

factors that influence outcomes besides management activities. These

factors, which include animal impacts, wildfires, weather, funding and

staffing, all influence the effectiveness of strategies and their outcomes.

The CCP, which describes specific actions to be taken by the Complex staff

over the next 15 years, will be used to prepare step-down management

plans, revise existing plans, and budgets. Given that new information,

techniques, and technology frequently arise, the CCP will be updated as

necessary.
18 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Missions and Goals

The mission of the Service is “working with others to conserve, protect,

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

benefit of the American people.” The goals of the Service are aimed at

fulfilling this mission. Some of the Service goals are: 1) sustaining fish and

wildlife populations including migratory birds, endangered species,

anadromous fish, and marine mammals; 2) conserving a network of lands

and waters including the National Wildlife Refuge System; 3) providing

Americans opportunity to understand and participate in the conservation

and use of fish and wildlife resources.

National Wildlife Refuge

System Mission and Goals

The Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to “administer a national

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

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

within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of

Americans” (1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act). Goals of

the System are to: 1) preserve, restore, and enhance threatened and endangered

species in their natural ecosystems; 2) perpetuate the migratory bird resource; 3)

preserve a natural diversity and abundance of refuge flora and fauna; 4) provide

the public an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology; 5)

provide visitors with wildlife-dependent recreation.

National wildlife refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the Service

and National Wildlife Refuge System, the designated purpose of the

Refuge unit as described in the establishing legislation and/or executive

orders, Service laws and policy, and international treaties (for a complete

list see Appendix E). Individual refuges provide specific habitat requirements

that support trust resource species including migratory birds, endangered

species, marine mammals, and anadromous fish. For example, waterfowl

breeding refuges in South and North Dakota provide important wetland

and grassland habitat that supports populations of waterfowl as authorized

by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the North American

Waterfowl Management Plan. The Tewaukon Complex supports breeding

populations of waterfowl and provides migration habitat during spring and

fall periods. Sabine NWR and other refuges in Louisiana and Texas

provide wintering habitat for waterfowl populations. This network (system)

of refuge lands is critical to the survival of these birds. Any deficiency in

one location affects the species and the entire system’s ability to maintain

self-sustaining populations.

Legislative history exists that recognizes the importance of providing for

wildlife oriented recreation for people on national wildlife refuges. The

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 USC 460k-460k-4) provided guidance for

the Service to provide wildlife oriented recreational opportunities for the

public if they were compatible with the primary purposes that the refuge

was established for, and funds were available for the development,

operation, and maintenance of recreational programs. In the National

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, six wildlife-dependent

recreational uses are recognized as priority public uses of refuge lands.

These are wildlife observation and photography, environmental education

and interpretation, and fishing and hunting. These, and other uses, can be

allowed on refuges if they are compatible with the purpose of the refuge

and funding is available to support them. Uses may be allowed through a

special regulation process, individual special use permits, and sometimes

through State fishing and hunting regulations.

Mallards, Cindie Brunner
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 19

Complex and Resource

Descriptions

Tewaukon Complex History

The Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex is located in the

southeast corner of North Dakota (See Map 2). The Complex includes the

Tewaukon NWR and the Tewaukon Wetland Management District (WMD).

The Refuge is composed of the Tewaukon and Sprague Lake Units. The

WMD includes Waterfowl Production Areas and wetland and grassland

easements and two easement refuges. It is located on the gently rolling

glacial till plain in the Prairie Pothole Region and the Red River of the

North Valley (original bed of ancient glacial Lake Agassiz). It hosts birds

from both the Central and Mississippi Flyways (See Figure 1 and 2). More

than 243 bird species have been recorded in the area. Of these species, 100

are known to nest in the area and the remainder can be seen during spring

and fall migrations when peak numbers occur.

Central Flyway

Figure 1. USDI, FWS. Flyways, Pioneering Waterfowl

Management in North America. 5/84, 517 pgs.

Mississippi Flyway

Figure 2. USDI, FWS. Flyways, Pioneering Waterfowl

Management in North America. 5/84, 517 pgs.
20 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge

Land around Lake Tewaukon has been a part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System since 1934. An Easement

Refuge was established on November 26, 1934 by Executive Order 6910,

which provided for acquisition of easements for flowage and refuge

purposes and filing of water rights. At that time, the Government’s goal

was to provide jobs for the unemployed and conserve water and wildlife

resources. As part of Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” the Work Progress

Administration worked with local landowners to purchase refuge

easements which reserved the right to impound water (to maintain water

areas during drought), maintain no hunting areas for migratory birds, and

serve as wildlife conservation demonstration areas. Though these were

perpetual easements, the land remained in private ownership. The

construction of dams in these areas provided employment for workers and

developed additional water resources. Water rights for the additional

impounded water were also applied for from the State of North Dakota

during this time. The easement refuges where water rights were applied

for included Lake Tewaukon, Hepi Lake, Lake Elsie, Storm Lake, and

Wild Rice Refuges. One fee title piece of 80 acres along the Wild Rice River

west of the current headquarters was purchased in 1936 and used for

temporary housing and storage. The area was managed from the Sand

Lake National Wildlife Refuge located 80 miles to the southwest of

Tewaukon just north of Aberdeen, South Dakota.

The Tewaukon easement lands were reserved and purchased as a

Government-owned Refuge with the encouragement and support of local

landowners and sportsmens groups. These landowners and groups wanted

to protect the area for wildlife and to continue recreational fisheries

improvements. On June 26, 1945, Public Land Order 286 established

Tewaukon Refuge as “... a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds

and other wildlife....” In 1946, 512 acres were purchased in fee title around

Lake Tewaukon. Since that original Refuge purchase, additional lands have

been acquired totaling 8,363 acres. In March of 1956, Sand Lake NWR

turned over management of the area to an on-site staff (one refuge

manager) in a headquarters located five miles south of Cayuga, North

Dakota.

Original management objectives established in the Master Plan for the

Refuge in October 1962 included: “Primary objectives (1) to provide

optimum nesting habitat for ducks; (2) to provide protection and food for

fall and spring concentrations of migrant ducks and geese, primarily the

smaller races of Canada geese, and snow and blue geese. Secondary

objectives are (1) to maintain balanced population of all resident wildlife

species; (2) to provide for public observation of wildlife species in their

natural environment; (3) to provide limited day-use recreation including

public hunting, where and when such activities are compatible with

primary management objectives of the refuge.”

The Tewaukon area has a rich historical background. Prior to settlement

by Europeans, this area was inhabited by several plains nomadic tribes

that were primarily hunter-gatherers. They utilized the area around Lake

Tewaukon including the Lake’s peninsula extensively. In 1867, the

Government established the Lake Traverse Dakotah Sioux Reservation for

the Sissetonwan and Wahpetonwan Dakota peoples. The boundaries

included a portion of the Lake Tewaukon area. This area continued to be

used for gatherings by Native American and white settlers. This Lake is

still a popular spot today, especially for sightseeing, wildlife observation,

hunting, and recreational fishing.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 21
22 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 23

Tewaukon Wetland Management District

The Tewaukon Wetland Management District was established in 1960 to

administer a variety of Service property interests in Richland, Ransom,

and Sargent Counties. Enabling legislation includes: the Migratory Bird

Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Stamp Act) and amendments, the

Wetlands Loan Act and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, for

acquisition of areas for migratory birds and for “Waterfowl Production

Areas.” Waterfowl Production Areas are subject to the provisions of the

Migratory Bird Conservation Act “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or

for any other management purpose, for migratory birds....” Public Law 85-

585 amended the Stamp Act to remove the inviolate sanctuary provision

from WPAs. This is further defined in the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR) 50 as areas open to hunting, trapping, and fishing.

The Wetland District is comprised of Waterfowl Production Areas (fee title

ownership), wetland easements, and grassland easements in Ransom,

Richland, and Sargent Counties. Wetland easements and WPAs are

purchased with Federal Duck Stamp dollars to protect migration and

nesting areas for waterfowl. The Waterfowl Production Areas are fee title

areas, from 20 to more than 1,000 acres in size, that provide migratory bird

habitat. The Tewaukon Complex staff administers over 14,000 acres of

these WPAs in the three Counties (See Map 2). Wetland easements have

been purchased from willing landowners in the District over the past 30

years. In order to protect wetlands on described tracts from draining,

filling, leveling, or burning, the Service has purchased a perpetual real

property interest in them. District personnel are responsible for managing

over 35,000 acres protected by wetland easements. In 1998, grassland

easements were added to the District to protect prairie tracts from being

converted to farmland. Grassland easements allow grazing at any time, and

haying after July 15 to protect grasslands for wildlife habitat. To date,

Complex personnel are responsible for administering more than 10,386

acres of grassland easements.

Tewaukon Complex Easement Refuges

Easement were purchased on Lake Elsie, Wild Rice and Storm Lake

Refuges in 1934 as water and wildlife conservation projects. The Service

divested Lake Elsie in 1998. The real property interest that the Service

purchased in Wild Rice and Storm Lake Easement Refuges is limited, and

is similar to the interest that was purchased on some of the tracts around

Lake Tewaukon in the 1930’s. On these three refuges, the Service

purchased refuge easements which reserved the right to impound water,

maintain no hunting areas for migratory birds, and serve as wildlife

conservation demonstration areas.
24 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

The majority of the Tewaukon Complex is located in the tallgrass prairie

ecosystem while a small portion of western Ransom and Sargent Counties

lie in the mixed-grass ecosystem (See Figure 3). Of all the prairie types,

the tallgrass prairie is the most mesic with annual precipitation

averaging 20 inches for southeastern North Dakota. Extreme

seasonal temperatures range from -31 degrees to 100 degrees

Fahrenheit. The tallgrass prairie is characterized by grasses,

some over five feet tall, including big bluestem, Indian grass,

switchgrass, prairie cordgrass, and a variety of forbs including

golden Alexander, Maximilian sunflower, blazing stars, and

leadplant. The mixed-grass prairie is characterized by grasses

and forbs ranging from two to four feet tall including needleand-thread grass, sideoats grama, little bluestem, coneflowers,

aromatic aster and golden rod. These plant communities are

not separated by distinct boundaries but transition from

tallgrass to mixed-grass in the western part of the District.

This boundary transition depends primarily on precipitation.

Tallgrass plant species are commonly found on wetter sites and

mixed-grass species are often found on higher, drier sites. Sites

that have less than a 10 foot difference in elevation can have

very different plant communities. Soils are also different on

these sites. The majority of the Complex was farmed at one

time but several isolated remnant prairie tracts still exist.

The Complex is also located in the Prairie Pothole Region (See

Figure 4). The wetlands in this region are among the

continent’s most biologically productive systems. They provide

habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, amphibians,

and a variety of other wildlife. The wetlands are important for

maintaining and recharging groundwater supplies and

improving water quality, storage of

flood waters, and for trapping of

sediments. The prairie pothole

wetland complexes and their

associated grasslands are an integral

component of the prairie landscape,

providing a wide array of ecological,

social, and economic benefits. (U.S.

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture

Implementation Plan Update 1995).

The Complex lands are located in

several river watersheds including the

Sheyenne, Red River of the North,

and the Wild Rice River (Map 3). The

Wild Rice River, a western tributary

of the Red River of the North, flows

through the Refuge. The Wild Rice

River and several unnamed

tributaries provide a water source for

Refuge wetland impoundments that

attract migratory waterfowl which

rest, feed, and nest in the area.

The Tewaukon Complex is located on

the eastern edge of the Central

Migratory Bird Flyway and migrating

waterfowl are strongly influenced by

the James River Corridor. Birds from

the Mississippi Migratory Bird

Flyway, following the Lake TraverseMinnesota River system also use the

area. As a result, Tewaukon is a mixing point for birds associated with both

the Central and Mississippi Flyways (See Figures 1 and 2).

 Figure 3. Prairie Ecoregions

Figure 4. Prairie Pothole Region
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 25
26 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 27

Historical Resources, Cultural Values, and Uses

Four major glacial periods impacted the northern plains during the

Pleistocene Age (Pielou 1992). The most recent was the Wisconsin glacial

stage, which reached its maximum extent about 13 thousand years ago

(Mayewski et al. 1981). All the dominant landscape features of the Prairie

Pothole Region are products of that geological event including prairie

wetlands or “potholes” and the rich glacial till soil that gave rise to the

tallgrass prairie. The gently rolling landscape with a variety of depressions

or potholes was carved out as the glaciers receded.

The tallgrass prairie was once an estimated 190 million acres (Bailey 1995)

and stretched from southern Texas to southern Manitoba (See Figure 3)

and was the dominant vegetation type across the eastern portion of the

Great Plains during pre-settlement times (Steinauer and Collins 1996).

Shallow, seasonal temporary and permanent wetlands dotted the grassy

plain. Most of the original estimated 24 million acres were plowed for

agricultural production shortly after European settlement. The Service’s

Habitat and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET) office, through the use

of land satellite imagery, currently estimates that 275,000 acres of tallgrass

prairie remain in North Dakota, a 94 to 95 percent loss. In the Tewaukon

District, 118,700 acres are estimated to remain.

The Complex area has a rich history of use by prehistoric man. Three

periods of occupation have been documented through archaeological

excavation at the Refuge. The three main cultures described in the area

include the Plains Archaic (5500-500 B.C.), Plains Woodland (500 B.C. -

A.D.1000), and Plains Village (A.D. 1000 - 1780). Evidence indicates that

the cultures using this area had an equestrian nomadic life style (Jackson

and Toom 1999) which focused on subsistence big game hunting (especially

bison) and the gathering of wild fruits and plants (Haberman 1978). Fish

and bird (probably waterfowl) remains have been found in limited

quantities in archaeological sites. Fruits and plants utilized included

chokecherry, plum, and hawthorn (Haberman 1978), prairie turnip (a food

staple), Jerusalem artichoke, Indian potato, wild onion, arrow leaf, pond

lily, wild raspberry, and wild strawberry (Gilmore 1977, Weaver 1954). It is

believed that eventually some of these cultures grew or traded for corn,

squash, and beans as they became less nomadic.
28 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Land Use and Wildlife Species Changes

Prior to the migration of European settlers, the Complex area was used by

nomadic tribes primarily for subsistence. They consumed large ungulates

(bison and elk), birds, and plants. Very little farming took place, and the

majority of the grassland remained intact. As European settlers moved

into southeastern North Dakota, farming was introduced and the highly

productive cropping potential of the soils was discovered. Production crops

in the area include wheat and barley, corn and soybeans. Sugar beets are

planted in the rich Red River Valley. In more recent years, other crops

have been introduced including sunflowers, canola, and higher cash yield

crops that require irrigation such as potatoes and dry edible beans.

Currently, the majority of the land in the District capable of producing a

crop is farmed. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) administered

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture has had a tremendous affect on the

landscape for grassland birds. Cropland is enrolled in the CRP and is

planted to grassland cover. Annual payments are made to the landowner

for a period of 10 years. As of January 2000, over 144,000 acres of CRP

grassland have been planted in the Tewaukon District. A few areas of

native prairie still remain primarily due to poorer soil quality and cattle or

buffalo are raised on these sites. See Map 4 for existing land cover types

for the three Counties (Ransom, Sargent, and Richland).

With the advent of European settlement, many of the grassland dependent

wildlife species that historically used the area were either pushed out,

hunted to extinction or severely reduced. Some of these species included:

bison, elk, mule deer, antelope, grizzly bear, wolf, coyote, and sharptail

grouse (Bailey 1926).

Originally, trees were found in the prairie but were located only along

natural rivers and lakes. As more trees were planted for windbreaks and

other sheltered spots such as culverts, abandoned buildings, and rock piles

increased on the landscape, species of wildlife not previously found in the

area, or found in limited numbers, increased. Red-tailed hawks, great

horned owls, raccoons, woodchucks, striped skunks, white-tailed deer, and

red fox populations increased in response to agricultural and settlement

conversion. White-tailed deer are rarely mentioned by early explorers in

the Red River Valley region (Bailey 1926) but are numerous today. Several

species were introduced (either by natural events or by humans) from

other countries and have spread to North Dakota or were directly released.

These introduced species include house sparrows, ring-necked pheasants,

gray partridge, carp, cattle egrets, and pigeons (rock doves). Giant Canada

geese were originally found in the area but were hunted to extinction. They

were reintroduced in the 1970’s and are now found in record numbers.

“The ground was covered (with bison)

at every point of the compass, as far

as the eye could reach, and every

animal was in motion.”

- Alexander Henry 1801; Explorer

along the Red River Valley
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 29
30 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 31

Management by Unit

The planning team spent considerable time describing the variety of habitats

on the Complex Units (Refuge, District, Easement Refuges) in order to

explain the management actions needed to meet Complex goals. Each of

the Management Units are presented here to provide a logical step-down

from the broad purpose and vision statements to management decisions.

They are also useful in this document as a comparison with the

Environmental Assessment (EA) alternatives (Appendix F). The preferred

alternative (the CCP) represents a course of action felt to best meet

Complex objectives. Implementation of this alternative to meet its goals

and objectives will depend on increased staffing and funding. For more

information on funding, staffing, and implementation of the Plan, see the

Implementation and Monitoring Section.

Management of the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge and the Tewaukon

Wetland Management District is conducted out of the Refuge headquarters.

General information on the Complex will be discussed jointly, and the

Refuge and District specific information will be discussed in detail in their

management sections.

Special Management Areas

The Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge and Waterfowl Production Areas

are insufficient in size and have a history of intense management and

human impacts; for these reasons, they are not eligible to be included in

the National Wilderness Preservation System. The Wild Rice River which

flows through the Refuge has a history of human impacts and intense

manipulation including Refuge impoundments, making it ineligible for a

Wild and Scenic River Designation. Only two small areas in the Complex

meet the criteria for a Research Natural Area designation. These two

areas are on the Hartleben WPA and meet the criteria as an example of an

important or significant habitat type (wet tallgrass prairie). The Service

may consider this designation on these two sites in the future.

Interrelationships of Goals and Objectives

Complex goals and objectives are presented separately for the Refuge,

District, and Easement Refuges for ease of understanding and reference.

They are, however, not independent of each other. Goals and objectives for

all of the management units must be considered when conducting

management actions and programs. The Complex is a part of an ecosystem

where actions in one area may affect other wildlife and plant species and

their habitats. These relationships were considered when the goals and

objectives for each unit were developed.

The habitat goals and objectives are the primary criteria which refuge

managers will use to guide and evaluate their successes. Providing the

habitat components that are needed to support Complex wildlife species is

the focus of this plan. Habitat objectives are linked to wildlife objectives

and strategies. Without healthy and diverse habitat, wildlife will not exist.

Goals and objectives for wildlife, endangered and threatened species, and

interpretation and recreation provide additional information for managers

to refine specific actions and to assist in evaluating success of habitat

management and use of the Complex by the public. In order for refuge

managers to fully achieve the visions that have been developed for the

Complex, these objectives should be viewed holistically and applied

collectively. All objectives in this plan are for 15 years unless otherwise

stated in the objective.
32 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Tewaukon National

Wildlife Refuge (See Map 5 and 6)

Purpose

Authorizing legislation for the Refuge initiated land acquisition and defined

the Refuge purposes.

P For Refuge lands acquired under the Executive Order 9337, dated

April 24, 1943, the purpose of the acquisition is to reserve and set apart

certain public lands for the use of the Department of the Interior.

P For Refuge lands acquired under Public Land Order 286, dated June

26, 1945, the purpose of the acquisition is ...as a refuge and breeding

ground for migratory birds and other wildlife....

P For Refuge lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation

Act, 16 U.S.C. § 715d, as amended, the purpose of acquisition is ... for

uses as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose,

for migratory birds. 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation

Act)

As part of the planning process, the Complex staff and planning team

reviewed past national, regional, and Complex planning documents and

current planning guidance. Using the legislation and plans, the planning

team developed the following vision statement for the Refuge:

Vision: Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge will be preserved, managed

and enhanced as a part of the tallgrass prairie wetland ecosystem

capable of supporting migratory birds and other native wildlife

and plants for the benefit of present and future generations. The

Refuge will provide an environment where a diversity of native

tallgrass prairie, wetlands, plants, wildlife, and their natural

processes can be discovered and explored. It will provide a place

where people can learn about wildlife and their habitats and

enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 33
34 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 35
36 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 37

Habitat Management

Goal: Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity of native

flora, other grasslands and wetlands within the tallgrass prairie

ecosystem.

Grasslands

Native Prairie

The tallgrass prairie was once an estimated 190 million acres (Bailey 1995)

and stretched from southern Texas to southern Manitoba (Figure 3).

Tallgrass prairie was the dominant vegetation type across the eastern

portion of the Great Plains during pre-settlement times (Steinauer and

Collins 1996).

The tallgrass prairie ecosystem had frequent disturbances. Wildfires,

caused by natural events like lightning strikes, burned the prairie at a

frequency that varied widely but was estimated to be every two to five

years (Axelrod 1985, Bragg 1982, Bragg and Hulbert 1976). Lightning was

the primary cause of these wildfires and would have been most common in

mid-summer (Bragg 1982). Fires that were set intentionally or accidentally

by Native Americans increased the frequency of fire (Pyne 1994). Bison,

elk, mule deer, and a few white-tailed deer made up the larger herbivores.

Pocket gophers, ground squirrels, and insects (ants, grasshoppers) made

up the smaller herbivores (Bailey 1926). Large periodic climatic events

including drought, hail, tornados, and flooding also shaped plant

communities.

All these forces, wet periods, dry periods, herbivory, and fire shaped the

tallgrass prairie into a complex and diverse floral ecosystem. The plant

species composition of the tallgrass prairie was dominated by warm season

native grasses such as big bluestem, switchgrass, Indian grass intermixed

with little bluestem, sideoats grama, blue grama, prairie cordgrass and

western wheatgrass. Common cool season grasses included porcupine

grass, needle-and-thread, June grass, and green needle grass. Wildflowers

were plentiful and bloomed from early spring into late fall. The early

spring color of blue-eyed grass and white lady’s slipper orchid turned to

the orange of the prairie lily and white of the meadow anemone of early

summer. Late summer brought on a dazzling display of purple blazing

stars, and purple prairie clover and gave way in the early fall to the bright

yellow of Maximilian sunflower, sneezeweed, and the delicate white petals

of nodding ladies tresses. The sea of grass, as the prairie was described by

some early travelers, was frequently interrupted by a large number of

wetlands (120-160 basins/square mile) in a variety of sizes and depths. The

plants associated with the wetlands added to the vegetative diversity of the

tallgrass prairie. Woody species such as American elm, red elm, white ash,

box elder, willow, bur oak, chokecherry, and buffaloberry were limited to

stream and river corridors and some wetter areas protected from

disturbance (Bailey 1926). As many as 300 species of plants were thought

to be components of this ecosystem.

The present plant community classification used by the North Dakota

Natural Heritage Program is a refinement of Heidel’s (1986) Classification.

The following types of plant communities of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem

are described by indicator species in Heidels 1986 Classification. These

indicator species will provide guidance to refuge managers on existing

prairie health and a measure for prairie restoration success. Prairie

remnants occur of all these plant community types represented on the

Complex.

“The Herbage of this Plain in general [is]

rich and luxuriant consisting chiefly of

strong and succulent grass of many

varieties. In the season of flowers a

very large portion of this great plain

presents one continual carpet of soft

verdure, enriched by flowers of every

tint.”

- General George Sibley, 1825 on an

expedition through North Dakota

Blazing Star, Cindie Brunner
38 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Wet Prairie

This type is found in temporary wetlands, level low areas and in bands

surrounding deeper wetlands. It is dominated by prairie and wetlands

grasses and some sedges. Forbs may be moderately abundant to sparse.

Dominant species may include prairie cordgrass, switchgrass, and

northern reed grass. Forbs include Maximilian sunflower, prairie

dogbane, and golden alexanders.

Wet Mesic Tallgrass Prairie, Sand

This type is found in wet to mesic soils. It may grade into wet prairie

on wetter areas and mesic tallgrass prairie on drier areas. This prairie

type is dominated by tall, warm-season grasses with forbs that are

generally tall and showy. The sand subtype is subject to greater moisture

extremes and may have lower a diversity of forbs. Common grass

species include switchgrass, big bluestem, northern reedgrass, Baltic

rush, and Indian grass. Forbs may include tall blazing star, wild lily,

white camas, Maximilian sunflower, Canada anemone, and black-eyed

Susan.

Mesic Tallgrass Prairie, Sand

These types are found on relatively level areas of sand, lacustrine

deposits, or till. These types include tall grasses such as big bluestem

and Indian grass in most occurrences. On drier sites, mid-height grasses,

such as porcupine grass and little bluestem, increase in importance.

The sand subtype may have prairie sandreed in moderate amounts.

Forbs are usually diverse and may be abundant locally. Additional

grasses may include switchgrass and prairie dropseed. Some common

forbs include blazing star, leadplant, stiff goldenrod, hoary puccoon,

showy milkweed, white prairie clover, and stiff sunflower.

Central Mesic Tallgrass Prairie

Found on level to rolling topography or lower river valley slopes. Less

precipitation than mesic prairie in the eastern part of the State and

may contain more mixed-grass prairie components. It includes tall

grasses such as big bluestem and Indian grass in most occurrences.

Mid-height grasses such as porcupine grass and little bluestem are also

important. Forbs are usually diverse and may be abundant locally.

Additional grasses may include porcupine grass, green needle grass,

and sideoats grama. Some common forbs include narrow-leaved

blazing star, leadplant, stiff golden rod, hoary puccoon, showy

milkweed, white prairie clover, and stiff sunflower.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 39

Dry Mesic Tallgrass Prairie

This type is dominated by mid-height grasses. It is found on rolling to

rough topography with varying slopes. Soils are generally well-drained

to excessively drained. The till subtype of this community is commonly

found on hillsides and river valley slopes. Common grasses include

little bluestem, porcupine grass, June grass, sideoats grama, and Indian

grass. Prairie sandreed is common and sand bluestem is occasional on

sand substrates. Forbs can be abundant and include narrow-leaved

blazing star, yellow coneflower, stiff sunflower, alum root, purple

coneflower, thimbleweed, prairie smoke, and pasture sage. Sub-shrubs

are common and include leadplant, prairie wild rose, and buckbrush.

Mesic Mixed-Grass Prairie

This type occurs generally on glacial till of hillsides, slopes, and river

valleys. Common grasses include: green needle grass, bearded

wheatgrass, western wheatgrass, and porcupine grass. Common forbs

are similar to those in dry-mesic tallgrass and may include purple

coneflower, alum root, stiff sunflower, narrow-leaved blazing star, and

yellow coneflower. Shrubs and sub-shrubs include leadplant, prairie

wild rose, and buckbrush.

The Refuge lies along the western edge of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem.

Most of the Refuge was farmed prior to its establishment, and only 616

acres of native prairie remains. Most of the native prairie remaining on the

Refuge can be categorized as Wet Prairie, Central, and Dry Mesic Tallgrass

Prairie types. Historically, only the very wet or lands inaccessible to

farming remained uncropped. Management history of the sites included

prescribed fire, used periodically in the 1970’s to the present time and

limited haying. Little to no grazing has occurred on these areas.
40 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Prescribed Burning and Wildfires

The primary reason the native prairie is not in better condition is the lack

of periodic disturbance (Service Ecological Services Botanist, Kathy

Martin 1993; Barbour et al. 1987; Duebbert et al. 1981). Grassland species

of the northern great plains evolved under periodic disturbance and

defoliation from bison and fire (Eldridge 1992; Barbour et al. 1987). This

periodic disturbance is what made the prairie healthy and a place of

enormous diversity for thousands of years. Defoliations can be mimicked to

some degree by the periodic use of prescribed fire, grazing, and to a lesser

extent, haying. Fish and Wildlife Service botanists recommend that a

burning and/or mowing regime be used to enhance the tallgrass and low

prairie communities (Kathy Martin 1993). Periodic rejuvenation using fire,

grazing or haying is also recommended for planted cover in order to

maintain optimum vigor (Duebbert et al. 1981). Prescribed fire on the

Complex has typically been carried out in the spring and fall. More work is

being done to incorporate summer burning into the rotation to mimic

historic fire occurrence.

Since the 1960’s, Complex managers have used prescribed fire to restore,

change, and maintain the diversity in plant communities. Prescribed fire is

also used to reduce hazardous fuels on Complex grasslands. Hazardous

fuels have six inches or more of accumulated dead litter material. A large

amount of litter can cause additional control problems for fire suppression

efforts. Reducing these high amounts of litter can reduce fire intensity and

make wildfires easier to control. The Tewaukon Complex has an average of

one wildfire per year. Human caused fires account for 99 percent of all

wildfires on the Complex. Wildfires on the Complex are usually caused by

equipment or fires escaping from adjacent private land.

Fire is an important grassland management tool that can be utilized to

accomplish Complex habitat management objectives. Fire is also a tool that

can quickly destroy Federal or private equipment, buildings, and property

and hurt or kill those that work with it.

The following two objectives recognize that prescribed burning and

wildfires play an important role in Complex habitat management. The

objectives also recognize that fire inherently has human health, social, and

economic risks that other management tools do not.

Objective: Utilize prescribed fire, in an ecosystem management

context, applied in a scientific way under selected weather and

environmental conditions, on approximately 2,500 acres of grasslands

and 50 acres of wetlands annually to accomplish habitat management

objectives.

Strategies: T Maintain a current Complex Fire Management Plan and implement

the Plan to accomplish resource management objectives.

T Conduct all fire management programs in a manner consistent with

applicable laws, policies, and regulations.

Objective: Protect life, property, and other resources from wildfire by

safely suppressing all wildfires on Complex lands.

Strategies: T Use strategies and tactics that consider safety and values at risk. T Use prescribed fire to reduce hazardous fuels on Complex lands to

reduce the intensity and favorable conditions for wildfires.

More detailed information on wildfire suppression and prescribed burning

methods, timing, and monitoring can be found in a step-down Complex

Fire Management Plan.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 41

Native Prairie Management

Unlike most of the habitat management objectives described in this plan,

the following objective was not fundamentally driven by wildlife needs. The

planning team recognized that few remaining tracts of tallgrass prairie are

within the area that historically occurred in this ecosystem. Some of these

remaining tracts occur on Complex lands. These objectives recognize

managing and maintaining this rare and unique habitat and assumes

prairie associated wildlife will use these areas.

Objective: Preserve, restore, and enhance the diverse native floral

communities on 616 acres of the Refuge’s existing native prairie so

that greater than 75 percent of the plant community is composed of

indicator species that are suitable for each site using Heidel’s

classification (Heidel 1986).

Strategies:

T Conduct floristic surveys on existing native prairie on the Refuge to

establish baseline information on species composition to use for

comparison following management techniques.

T Develop specific monitoring techniques to annually evaluate these

native prairie areas in a step-down Monitoring Plan.

T Apply management tools (prescribed burning, mowing, grazing,

interseeding, chemical treatment, etc.) as appropriate.

Several nonnative plant species exist in Refuge native prairie tracts

including: leafy spurge, Canada thistle, Kentucky bluegrass, smooth

brome, Canada thistle, yellow and white sweetclover, and Russian olive

trees. These nonnative plant species can out-compete native plant species

when frequent disturbances (grazing and burning) and nonnative plant

control methods are not conducted. The Refuge uses a variety of nonnative

plant control methods including burning, mowing, chemical, and biological.

Without disturbance and nonnative plant control, these species will

increase and crowd out the native flora making the prairie unattractive to

many of the prairie butterflies and grassland migratory birds.

Objective: Reduce by 15 percent (measured as canopy cover) nonnative

plants (including leafy spurge, Canada thistle, Kentucky bluegrass,

smooth brome, sweet clover, Russian olive trees) in the 616 acres of

Refuge native prairie.

Strategies:

T Use a variety of techniques and tools including chemical, mechanical

and biological methods, prescribed burning, and grazing.

T Continue to evaluate weed control methods for effectiveness and

gather information on methods developed in the future.
42 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Tallgrass Prairie Management Approach

In an effort to develop a habitat-based approach to managing tallgrass

prairie, U.S. Geological Survey and Refuge staff worked to develop

management strategies that would guide grassland management on the

Refuge and District. The strategies published as a report provide information

to guide management efforts to maintain or restore native communities

within the tallgrass prairie on the Tewaukon Complex. It was not feasible

to provide information on all the species (plant and animal) that live in the

tallgrass prairie ecosystem. This approach was chosen to manage for

sensitive species (indicator species) because many of the environmental

stresses are reflected in these species population levels. Indicator species

that were chosen include four migratory grassland birds (upland sandpiper,

grasshopper sparrow, northern harrier, and bobolink) and three rare

prairie butterflies (Dakota skipper, regal fritillary, and powesheik skipper).

The criteria used for selecting the bird species were:

• Select species that are associated with tallgrass or mixed/tallgrass prairie.

• Select species of management concern using lists from the Audubon

Society Watchlist, Fish and Wildlife Service Nongame Migratory Birds

of Management Concern List or North Dakota Species of Special

Concern (Berkey et al. 1993).

• Select species for which the Complex is in the central part of the

species’ range, not on the periphery based on Breeding Bird Survey

(BBS) maps, Grassland Bird Home page (Sauer et al. 1995), and North

Dakota breeding bird maps (Stewart 1975).

Many species of invertebrates are excellent indicator species because their

habitat needs are very restrictive (Erhardt and Thomas 1991). For example,

some butterflies can only be found in high quality prairie habitat with

specific plants for nectar and larval food resources including Dakota

skipper and powesheik skipper. Some invertebrates are also sensitive to

local habitat changes (addition of roads, houses, wetland drainage, cropping of

prairie) and processes including grazing and fire (Schlicht and Orwig 1998).

For these reasons, three rare prairie butterflies (Dakota skipper, regal

fritillary, and powesheik skipper) were also added into the model. As more

information and research is conducted on these three butterfly species, the

model will be adapted to reflect any new or better information.

The following paragraphs are taken from “A Habitat-Based Approach to

Management of Tallgrass Prairies” (Schroeder and Askerooth 2000).

In tallgrass prairie habitats, grassland birds are of particular concern

because they have exhibited steeper, more consistent declines during

the past 25 years than any other group of North American birds

(Knopf 1995). Conservation of native prairie birds and other wildlife

depend on a variety of successional and diverse habitat conditions

within a large block of grass (Skinner et al. 1984; Renken and

Dinsmore 1987; Volkert 1992; Howe 1994; Madden 1996). Howe (1994)

recommends management for tallgrass assemblages that are diverse,

different from each other, and dynamic. Skinner et al. (1984) in a

Missouri grassland study suggests that management should provide a

wide range of grass cover heights during all seasons for the best

wildlife habitat. Madden (1996) emphasizes the need to manage for all

stages of prairie succession to provide for maximum grassland bird

diversity over decades of management. The habitat affinities of

grassland bird species are diverse, and species respond to similar

conditions in different ways (Wiens 1969; Herkert 1994).

The species richness of grassland birds is positively associated with the

size of the grassland area and large prairies are important for the

conservation of prairie bird populations (Herkert 1994). Herkert (1994)

notes that both area and vegetation structure significantly affect

grassland bird populations. Large areas that are uniform in plant

composition and structure may have less value than several smaller

areas with distinct and diverse vegetative components (Ryan 1986).
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 43

The most abundant introduced Eurasian grasses (i.e. Kentucky

bluegrass and smooth brome) tend to be more uniform in height and

density than native vegetation (Wilson and Belcher 1989).

Several studies suggest that grassland birds are experiencing large

population declines due to the loss of extensive areas of grasslands

(Samson 1980, Herkert 1994, Vickery et al. 1994). The useable area for

some grassland bird species is made smaller by the presence of trees in

the grassland or adjacent to the grassland. The shape of the grassland

area and its perimeter characteristics are as important to grassland birds

as the size of the grassland area (Helzer and Jelinski 1999). Grassland

birds that nested closer to wooded edges had higher predation rates on

the birds and their nests and increased parasitism of their nests (Johnson

and Temple 1986 and 1990, Burger et al. 1994). Some grassland species

avoid nesting near patch edges (including adjacent trees, shelterbelts

etc.) (Johnson and Temple 1986, Delisle 1995, Helzer 1996).

This research helped the planning team develop the next objective that

addresses the management of contiguous blocks of grassland cover for the

benefit of grassland nesting migratory birds and prairie butterflies. Six sites

were chosen to implement our tallgrass prairie management approach (See

Map 7). These sites were selected because they included tracts of native

prairie, were in areas with minimal woody vegetation greater than one

meter tall, and had access for management. Several of the sites have fields

of tame grass, composed primarily of smooth brome, warm season native

grass plantings, and a couple of crop fields. Two of the tracts are composed

entirely of native prairie that have never been broken for crop production;

the other sites have smaller tracts of native prairie. If this management

approach proves to be an effective method of habitat management and if

additional funds and staff become available, the management will be

expanded to additional areas on the Refuge.

This objective recognizes that the establishing Refuge legislation describes

setting lands aside as a breeding ground for migratory birds including

grassland migratory birds. Under management, these prairie pieces should

support a diversity of vegetation structure and flowering plants needed by

prairie dependent butterflies.

Objective: Manage the six Prairie Focus Areas (South Pool 4, Krause,

North Pool 2, Southwest Sprague Lake, NE 1/4 Section 36, and

Southeast of Railroad tracks - See Map 7): 1) to achieve an area of

contiguous grassland (greater or equal to 160 acres) that is greater

than 50 meters from woody vegetation (greater than one meter tall); 2)

contain a variety of vegetative heights on the area with 20 percent of

the vegetation height ranging from 10 - 20 centimeters, 20 percent

ranging from 20-30 centimeters, and 20 percent greater than 60

centimeters; 3) to increase native floral diversity so that greater than

75 percent of the vegetative composition is composed of indicator

species of the dry mesic tallgrass, central mesic tallgrass prairie, wet

prairie, mesic tallgrass prairie climax communities (Heidel 1986).

Strategies: T Provide the critical limiting habitat factors outlined in the “HabitatBased Approach to Management of Tallgrass Prairie ” (Schroeder and

Askerooth 2000) for a variety of vegetative heights, and no woody

vegetation greater than one meter tall on the six sites and 75 percent

of vegetative composition composed of indicator species (Heidel 1986).

Include specific management details of these areas in a step-down

management plan.

T Develop a detailed Monitoring Plan for the six sites. T Annually evaluate the vegetation using methods and techniques

developed in the Monitoring Plan for the six sites and apply

management tools (prescribed burning, mowing, grazing, interseeding,

chemical treatment, etc.) as appropriate to provide the limiting habitat

requirements for migratory grassland birds and rare butterflies.
44 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Introduced/Planted Cover

Dense Nesting Cover

Dense nesting cover (DNC) is comprised of one to two species of wheatgrass,

alfalfa, and sweet clover and planted to provide dense nesting habitat for

ground nesting birds, especially waterfowl. Duebbert et al. (1981) reported

that a minimum reading of two decimeters total visual obstruction is required

in mid-April to provide the cover preferred by waterfowl for nesting in the

Prairie Pothole Region. Thick cover helps conceal hen ducks from predators.

DNC stands once established, must receive management treatments every

few years to maintain optimum quality (Duebbert et al. 1981).

The Refuge has approximately 1,348 acres of DNC. DNC is one of the

primary grassland covers that Complex managers historically established

on previously farmed uplands in order to provide nesting cover for migratory

birds. DNC was primarily developed as a waterfowl nesting cover because

of the international importance of the Prairie Pothole Region to nesting

waterfowl. Haying has historically been the primary tool to rejuvenate

DNC fields. Every 10 to 15 years the fields must be broken up and farmed

for approximately three years to get rid of the smooth brome and Kentucky

bluegrass that invaded them. These field are usually reseeded to DNC.

The planning team recognized that most of the grassland dependent birds

that breed on the Refuge select nesting sites because of vegetative structure

and composition that provides cover and food requirements. Introduced/

planted cover objectives were developed to try and ensure that vegetative

cover on these sites remains attractive or is improved. Over a 15 year

period, the staff thought that maintenance of 80 percent of existing DNC

on the Refuge was an accomplishable objective.

Objective: Maintain 80 percent of DNC fields with two decimeters

visual observation obscurity to provide optimal nesting habitat for

ground nesting ducks (mallards, teal, etc.) until the fields can be

seeded back into native plant species.

Strategies:

T Annually monitor a selected sample of DNC fields on the Refuge for

visual obscurity using the Robel pole method.

T Apply management tools (prescribed burning, haying, grazing or

interseeding) as appropriate to maintain optimal nesting habitat for

ground nesting ducks.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 45
46 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 47

Planted Warm Season Natives and Other Grasslands

The Refuge has approximately 739 acres of planted warm season native

grass fields composed of three to four species including big bluestem, little

bluestem, Indian grass, and switchgrass. Tewaukon nest records for the

past nine years indicate that these stands do not attract nesting waterfowl

because they are low in species diversity. The Refuge also has over 1,199

acres of introduced grasses consisting primarily of smooth brome and

Kentucky bluegrass. These fields were generally planted to some other

cover type, but have been invaded. If these fields are managed with fire

and haying, they do provide marginal nesting cover for species like bluewinged teal but do not offer the structure preferred by many of the other

ground nesting birds like bobolinks, mallards, and gadwalls. Combined

with the rest of the objectives in the Refuge and District, 600 acres could

be converted to a diverse native floral community.

Objective: Over the next 15 years convert 600 acres of planted cover

(DNC, introduced grasses, and warm season native grass plantings) to

a diverse native floral community composed of 75 percent of the

climax species identified in Heidel’s Classification (1986).

Strategies:

T Gather existing information and initiate research on native plant

community restoration, interseeding techniques, chemical, and

mechanical treatments.

T Develop site specific restoration plans, funding sources, and a Monitoring

Plan; then begin restoration efforts. Apply management tools (prescribed

burning, mowing, grazing, interseeding, chemical treatment, etc.)

where appropriate.

T Annually evaluate fields through visual observations and treat nonnative

species such as smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, Russian olive,

thistle, and leafy spurge by using fire, grazing, chemical, mechanical,

and biological control.
48 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Wetlands

The Prairie Pothole Region encompasses a 300,000 square mile region

(Figure 4) and includes 25 million wetlands of various types (U.S. Prairie

Pothole Joint Venture Board 1995). In North Dakota, a great majority of

these wetland basins are less than 15 acres (Stewart 1975). 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). Within a prairie

wetland, water depth and duration of ponding determines the distribution

of plant species.

In the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United

States by Cowardin et al. in 1979, wetlands are described by vegetation,

water regimes (the length of time water occupies a specific area), and

water chemistry. Description of prairie potholes are listed below.

P Temporary wetlands: a shallow depressional area which holds water from

spring runoff, usually late May to early June. Temporary wetlands

frequently reflood during heavy summer and fall rains. Characterized by

smartweed, rushes, sedges, and grasses.

P Seasonal wetlands: a depression which holds water in normal years from

spring runoff until mid-July to early August. Commonly refloods with

frequent or heavy fall rains. Characterized by smartweed, rushes,

sedges, and some cattails.

P Semipermanent wetlands: a well-defined depression which holds water in

normal years throughout the summer. Generally only go dry in years

below normal runoff and precipitation. Characterized by a predominance

of cattail and bulrush vegetation with scattered open water areas.

P Permanent wetlands: a well defined basin which holds water throughout

the year. Only go dry after successive years of below normal runoff and

precipitation. Typically have a border of aquatic vegetation (usually

cattails) and a large open water area in the middle.

P Fens, or alkaline bogs, are distinguished separately because they are

saturated with water. They are dominated by grasses and sedges.

Prairie wetlands are dynamic in nature and go through various sequences

or stages. This process is influenced by alternating wet and dry periods.

These wet and dry periods can occur weekly, yearly, or last for several

years. Parts of an individual wetland may be in all or one of the stages

listed below at the same time. Temporary wetlands will go through all of

the stages but may not reach some of the higher water depths. It is this

alternating of wet and dry periods that make wetlands productive.

Wetlands that do not go through these stages lose productivity, and decline

in biotic and wildlife diversity.

Description of Stages:

P Dry - Expanses of bare mud flats characterized by annual vegetation

becoming replaced by perennial vegetation, the longer the wetland is in

the dry stage.

P Shallow - Water depth of approximately one inch to two feet. Some

emergent vegetation present.

P Mid-depth - Water depth of approximately two to four feet. Open water is

interspersed with emergent vegetation.

P Open water - Water depth greater than four feet with some emergent

vegetation around the edges.

“The entire face of the country is

covered with these shallow lakes,

ponds and puddles, many of which

are, however, dry or undergoing a

process of gradual drying out.”

 - Charles Froebel Traveled with

General Alfred Sully’s expedition in

1865 in Dakota Territory.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 49

Wetlands are also influenced by other natural forces such as fire and wildlife

impacts. During long periods of drought, prairie fires would burn the dry

organic layer of wetlands removing years of accumulated sediments. Large

herds of bison would trample the surrounding area and vegetation around

wetlands. Bison would lie down and create depressions or wallows in wetland

basins. They would remove soil, sediments, and plant seeds and take dust

bathes in dry wetland basins (Steinauer and Collins 1995). Bison wallows

were three to five meters (10 to 16 feet) in size (Collins and Barber 1985)

and would be free of vegetation. The large amount of hoof action would

create exposed soil areas where seeds were planted as they were pushed

into the soil. Bison also helped to decrease wetland sedimentation by

removing soil during wallowing on their thick shaggy coats (Costello 1969).

Muskrats also impact wetlands by removing cattails and rushes which

create open water areas.

Managed Wetlands

The Refuge receives water from four sources (see Map 5 and 6):

1) Wild Rice River

2) LaBelle Creek

3) Tributary to Hepi (Cloud’s) Lake

4) Tributary to Sprague Lake

The Refuge has 38 semipermanent and permanent wetlands with water

level management capabilities on both Tewaukon and Sprague Lake Units.

Historically, water management in these 38 wetlands has maintained

approximately three to four feet of water throughout the year. Water was

usually passed through the system in the spring; management levels were

reached in late spring as snow melt runoff slowed. If possible, wetlands were

refilled in the fall to store water in case of low precipitation in the winter

and spring. Drawdowns, though planned, were infrequent, short-term and

often difficult to do with water control structure capabilities. Often a plan

to dry out a managed wetland could not be achieved because local runoff

would refill the basin. Evaporation is the main option available to de-water

some Refuge pools. With a flow through system, outlet pool elevations are

often higher than the bottom of the pool which makes de-watering through

the structures in high water years impossible. Past management strategy

could be characterized as achieving an average which did not include the

natural large fluctuations that normally occur in prairie wetlands.

The planning team recognized the need to refine water management

techniques so managed wetland conditions would more closely correlate

with the natural processes of drying and flooding. The planning team also

recognized that objectives needed to be developed that would help

managers collect better water use and water quality data on managed and

non-managed wetlands. The planning team felt that a mixture of 20

percent of each stage (dry, shallow, mid-depth, open water) across Refuge

managed wetlands and a remaining 20 percent reserve to provide habitat

that is deficient in the watershed, was a way to quantify water

management objectives. For example, when watershed wetland conditions

are dry, the remaining 20 percent (reserve) of Refuge pools will be

managed to provide wet stages.
50 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Objective: Annually provide for approximately 20 percent in dry, 20 percent

in shallow, 20 percent mid-depth, and 20 percent open water wetland

conditions on Refuge managed wetlands and manage the remaining 20

percent as a reserve to adjust to local climatic and habitat conditions.

Strategies: T Develop a step-down Water Management and Monitoring Plan for

Refuge managed wetlands. Continue to provide annual Water

Management Plan/Water Use Reports for Regional Office review.

T Utilizing water level manipulations, alter water levels within and

amongst years to assure each unit proceeds through each of the

wetland categories during a three to five year period.

T Utilize fire manipulation to alter vegetation structure and mechanical

methods to alter vegetation and disturb soil as needed.

T Manipulate the 20 percent reserved category to meet habitat

deficiencies detected within Red River watershed by annually

assessing habitat conditions using information from the National

Weather Service and the Habitat and Population Evaluation Team

(HAPET) office.

T Manage Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes as open water habitats for

migratory waterfowl rest areas.

Objective: Reduce nonnative reed canary grass invasion in wetlands by

10 percent annually.

Strategy: T Apply management tools (prescribed burning, mowing, grazing,

interseeding, chemical treatment, etc.) as appropriate to reduce

invasion of nonnatives.

Water Rights

Water rights for the Tewaukon NWR were established in 1934 pursuant to

Section 8270 (repealed 1943) of the Compiled Laws of North Dakota for the

year 1913. On August 30, 1937, plans and data were submitted documenting

the United States’ right to use waters tributary to each dam to its spillway

capacity, and after each dam was filled to spillway capacity, an additional

amount of water to maintain this level to stimulate aquatic vegetation for

migratory waterfowl foods. In 1964, the Refuge was issued three water

right permits authorizing use of additional water needed as a result of

developments under the Refuge Annual Master Development Plan. (See

Appendix D for a more complete description of water rights).

The State Engineer’s Office has raised questions about the adequacy of the

Refuge’s water rights. The Service has agreed that it will review water

rights and management on all North Dakota refuges and provide updated

information on capacity and water use. Tewaukon NWR will be one of the

first to be evaluated in this effort. Additional data collection capabilities on

the Refuge need to be developed in order to more accurately record water

use. Water use is currently calculated using acre-feet tables that correspond

to water elevations on Refuge pools. Each year a report is compiled on

water use and proposed management in the Refuge Water Management

Plan and forwarded to the North Dakota State Engineer. This report

meets the North Dakota statutory requirement for an annual operations

plan for all impoundments containing 1,000 acre-feet or more.

Objective: Protect existing water rights and clarify water rights needs

on Refuge wetlands in order to provide long-term protection of water

resources.

Strategies: T Improve Refuge water use database by installing data loggers on four

dams and three major tributaries of the Wild Rice River and gages in

every managed pool on the Refuge.

T Document Refuge water use and maintain records annually.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 51

Water Quality

Two water quality surveys have been conducted in the Wild Rice Watershed

(Map 3). The first was conducted in 1996, by the North Dakota Department

of Health’s Water Quality Division and the Wild Rice Soil Conservation

District (SCD). The goal of the study was to implement an assessment

project in order to gather sufficient data to document water quality trends,

quantify pollutants, and identify potential nonpoint source pollution within

the Wild Rice Watershed. The sampling was done for one year, 1996. Water

quality variables monitored included: total ammonia as nitrogen, conductivity,

total phosphorus, nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen,

total suspended solids, and fecal coliform bacteria. Six monitoring stations

were located upstream from the Refuge, one was on LaBelle Creek and

one was located downstream of Lake Tewaukon. The station downstream

from Lake Tewaukon had the highest net yield for all the water quality

variables. The report attributed part of this to the accumulation of excessive

nutrients from upstream sources. Controlling upstream pollution and

nutrient sources is the best way to decrease the amount of nitrates and

sediments from entering the Refuge.

Since 1996, a water quality survey has been conducted by Sisseton-Wahpeton

Sioux Tribe’s Office of Environmental Protection. The goal of this study

was to enhance and protect the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge by

ultimately setting water quality standards. Data has been collected for the

last four years. The 1998 raw data was received and currently the Refuge

is waiting for the report on the study’s findings.

The planning team developed the following objective to improve the water

quality of the Wild Rice River as it comes into the Refuge. This would be

accomplished through cooperative private land agreements to established

vegetative buffers and riparian areas designed to improve water quality for

aquatic plants, wildlife, and fish. The planning team felt that in 15 years a

reduction of nitrates and sediments by 15 percent could reasonably be

accomplished.

Objective: Reduce annual Wild Rice River watershed nitrate inputs

and sediment loads as it comes into the Sprague Lake Unit, and

LaBelle Creek as it enters the Tewaukon Refuge Unit by 15 percent.

Strategies: T Determine the parameters to monitor water quality in the Wild Rice

River and LaBelle Creek as they enter the Refuge and implement a

water quality monitoring program.

T Work with Department of Health to conduct a land-use survey to

further pinpoint the land-use practices that are influencing the water

quality of the Wild Rice River Watershed. This survey should include a

stream/riparian area assessment including current vegetation

conditions and composition and land-use practices. Utilize the land

survey to implement a Clean Water Act Section 319 Watershed

Cleanup Project.

T Develop or use existing Partners for Wildlife Program and USDA

programs to partner with upstream landowners who farm/ranch along

the River to establish vegetative buffer zones, reduce livestock impacts

along the Wild Rice River, and decrease sediment loads and

contaminants.

T Partner with U.S. Department of Agriculture buffer strip program to

establish stabilizing and filtering vegetation along Wild Rice River and

LaBelle Creek to prevent erosion and sedimentation.

T Work with landowners to restore riparian vegetation and wetlands

along the Wild Rice River and LaBelle Creek in order to decrease

sediment loads, contaminants, and help reduce flooding.
52 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Non-Managed Wetlands

The Refuge has over 1,500 acres of non-managed prairie wetlands. These

wetlands are diverse in nature and include temporary, seasonal, and

semipermanent types. The majority of these wetlands are surrounded by

grassland cover while a small portion are found in cropland. Not much

information has been gathered about their health or condition.

The wetlands in Refuge cropland are subject to varying degrees of siltation.

Cultivating wetland basins (disturbing the vegetation) has contributed to

soil erosion. Wetlands in agricultural fields receive more sediment from

surrounding areas than wetlands surrounded by grasslands (Gleason and

Euliss 1998). Other wetland impacts include increased turbidity, sediments,

and a decrease of invertebrate production, a food source for other wildlife

(Gleason and Euliss 1998). One of the control measures that could reduce

sediment in agricultural fields is vegetative buffer strips around wetland

basins (Dillaha et al. 1989). A need exists for more work on methods to

restore pool depth in silted-in wetlands, evaluation of sedimentation effects

on wetland functions, and effective ways to reduce sediment inputs

(Gleason and Euliss 1998).

Five common nonnative plants that have invaded Refuge non-managed

wetlands are smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, leafy spurge, Canada

thistle, and reed canary grass. No purple loosestrife has been observed on

the Refuge. These nonnative plants can dominate a wetland and decrease

overall plant diversity.

Objective: Determine the quality and health parameters of nonmanaged prairie wetlands in order to preserve their natural

productivity, longevity, and function.

Strategies:

T Gather baseline information on Refuge wetland conditions and identify

potential and existing threats.

T Implement management methods to reduce or eliminate threats to

wetland productivity and function.

T Coordinate with County Weed Boards and document control efforts

involving nonnative wetland species such as purple loosestrife on and

off Service lands.

Objective: Reduce nonnative plant (Kentucky bluegrass, leafy spurge,

Canada thistle, and reed canary grass) invasion in wetlands by 10

percent annually.

Strategy:

T Apply management tools (prescribed burning, mowing, grazing,

interseeding, chemical treatment, etc.) as appropriate to reduce

invasion of nonnatives.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 53

Native Woodlands

Historically Refuge woody vegetation occurred along riparian corridors

and around some wetlands. Bailey (1926) states that these southeastern

North Dakota riparian woodlands were composed of American elm, red

elm, white ash, box elder, willow, bur oak, serviceberry, chokecherry,

buffaloberry, and rose. Today native woody vegetation is still present on

the shores of Lake Tewaukon, on the peninsula that juts out into the Lake,

and along LaBelle Creek.

Managing native woodlands has had little emphasis in previous Refuge

planning efforts. The planning team recognizes that while this habitat

component makes up a very small portion of the Refuge land base, it is

important habitat for thrushes, orioles, warblers, and other tree nesting

birds that reproduce on the Refuge. The establishing Refuge legislation

language sets aside this area as a breeding ground for migratory birds.

Managers need to have a better plan for the perpetuation of the native tree

resource and the migratory birds that breed there.

Objective: Maintain native woody vegetation on the Lake Tewaukon

peninsula, on the shore of Lake Tewaukon, and along LaBelle Creek

corridor to provide roosting habitat, food, and cover for migratory and

resident birds and other wildlife.

Strategies:

T Coordinate with a forest resource specialist to evaluate health of

existing native wooded sites and provide recommendations for a

management plan.
54 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Wildlife

Goal: Preserve, restore, and enhance the diversity and abundance of

migratory birds and other native wildlife with emphasis on

waterfowl, grassland and wetland-dependent birds.

Waterfowl (Ducks, Geese, and Swans)

North America’s greatest duck producing area is known as the Prairie

Pothole Region (Figure 4). This area includes south central Canada,

eastern North and South Dakota, western Minnesota, and north central

Iowa. The Refuge provides nesting habitat for 13 species of waterfowl, and

migrating food and resting habitat for 21 species of waterfowl. Blue-winged

teal, mallards, gadwall, northern pintails, and northern shovelers are

common nesters in grassland habitats while redheads, canvasbacks, and

ruddy ducks nest overwater in Refuge wetlands. Wood ducks nest in

Refuge trees. Large flocks of Canada geese, snow geese, and ducks use

Refuge crop fields to feed during spring and fall migration. Prior to 1900,

the giant Canada goose was distributed throughout North Dakota. Hunting

pressure, egg collecting, and habitat destruction decimated this population

during the 1900’s. Restoration of giant Canada goose populations began in

the1930’s with considerable effort made in the 1960’s-1970’s (Lee et al.

1984). The Refuge was a release site for some of the restoration efforts.

Since then, the return of the giant Canada goose to North Dakota has been

a huge success story. Resident Canada geese populations have grown from

their reintroduction populations in the 1970’s to levels that yield 10-15 area

crop depredation complaints per year.

Waterfowl Nesting

The Refuge is surrounded by intense agricultural use, that severely alters

the surrounding natural landscape. The Refuge provides the majority of

quality waterfowl upland nesting habitat in the area. The Conservation

Reserve Program (CRP) has greatly increased grassland cover throughout

the Complex in the past 10 years. However, the continued presence of this

cover on the landscape depends on funding for this U.S. Department of

Agriculture program. In areas with intense agriculture, nesting ducks and

their eggs are one of the most abundant, vulnerable, and desirable prey

types available to red foxes (Sargent et al. 1984). Large tracts of thick

residual cover require more effort for foxes to search. As grasslands are

fragmented and tracts become smaller, nesting ducks become more

vulnerable. Predation has been identified as a principal cause of nest loss

(Sargent and Raveling 1992). At the Refuge, the major predators on ducks

and duck eggs include: red fox, striped skunk, raccoon, mink, and

Franklin’s ground squirrel. Avian predators including northern harriers,

red-tailed hawks, and great horned owls prey on duck and young. Gulls can

also destroy nests on islands. The red fox is the main ground nesting duck

predator in southeastern North Dakota. Red fox will not only eat and

destroy eggs but will kill the hens if possible. Red fox kill an estimated

242,000 dabbling ducks annually in North Dakota during the three month

(approximate) fox denning season (Sargent et al. 1984). Removal of

predators (primarily red fox) can cause nest success to increase from 8

percent (Sargeant et al. 1995) to an average 30 percent (Refuge nest

success records1990 - 1998). A nesting success of approximately 15 to 20

percent is suggested to maintain stable duck populations of the five most

common species of dabbling ducks (Cowardin et al. 1985, Greenwood 1986,

Klett et al. 1988). In severely altered landscapes, like the Refuge, intensive

management such as predator control is the only efficient way to increase

nest success (Clark and Nudds 1991, Nudds and Clark 1992). The most

effective time to conduct predator control is in the spring when red fox are

caring for their young and little movement of foxes occurs in and out of an

area (Sargeant et al. 1993).

“Refuges Are Places Where Wildlife

Comes First.”

- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -

Fulfilling the Promise, 1999

“The original northern prairies were

strewn with small lakes, potholes, and

marshes and veined with tiny creeks ...

Through spring, summer, and fall these

regions were darkened with clouds of

waterfowl of all kinds.”

- John Madson, 1982, Where the Sky

Began
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 55

Other activities that increase nesting success have been researched,

discussed, and examined to determine the most economical, feasible, and

effective method. One possibility includes purchasing enough additional

tracts of land adjacent to the Refuge to create a large enough block of

contiguous grassland habitat to increase nest success. This approach would

be similar to USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). To provide

for grassland cover on 100 acres of cropland for a 10-year period would cost

$40,000 to $50,000 assuming a $40 to $50 per acre, per year payment. This

would not be economically possible at this time. Predator proof fences are

another way to increase nesting success. Three predator fences (100 total

acres) have been built on the Refuge. Predator fences cost approximately

$100,000 per fence for materials and contracted labor to build. They are

labor intensive and involve many staff hours to maintain. Nesting success

is high in predator fences. According to Refuge nest dragging information

(1987-1999), an average nest success for the fences is 85 percent. Predator

control on the entire Refuge for two to three weeks in the spring of the

year averages about $2,500. This focused predator control effort effectively

and efficiently meets our nesting success objective.

To develop the next objective, the planning team looked at following

information: 1) the importance of the Refuge to nesting waterfowl; 2) the

extensive research that has been done to evaluate predator impacts on

nesting populations; 3) and the nest monitoring studies that have been

conducted on the Refuge. A nesting success of 30 percent (Mayfield) was

chosen because it maintains stable Refuge duck populations and

contributes to the overall duck population.

Objective: Maintain an average upland duck nesting success of at least

30 percent (Mayfield) to increase waterfowl production on the Refuge.

Strategies:

T Continue to annually monitor upland duck nesting success utilizing

standard nest search methods on selected Refuge uplands.

T When the average nesting success falls below 30 percent (Mayfield)

and wetland conditions are favorable, initiate predator (red fox,

raccoon, skunk, mink, and feral cat) control in the spring prior to the

waterfowl nesting season, for approximately two to three weeks.

Fox, Cindie Brunner
56 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Planted Foods

Historically, the majority of Refuge uplands were farmed. Since these lands

have been acquired, most of the cropland has been seeded to grassland cover

(See Map 8 and 9). Currently, the Refuge has approximately 500 acres of

cropland. Corn, millet, and winter rye or winter wheat are left as a Refuge

share for migrating waterfowl and resident wildlife in the winter. Refuge

farm cooperators maintain Refuge food plots on a 25:75 crop share basis.

The number of interested cooperators is dwindling due to the small field

sizes and the decreased variety of approved herbicides. It is important to

note that approximately 135 acres of cropland are considered necessary to

support migrating waterfowl and resident wildlife. Crop sharing is currently

the only method available to provide this resource. Cooperators could be

compensated for planting only 135 acres of cropland if an annual funding

source could be developed.

Farming on refuges is controversial. National and regional trends in refuge

management have emphasized scaling back or terminating farming programs

to reduce chemical use and restore natural vegetation. Biological reasons for

maintaining the Tewaukon farming program identified in the 1996 Cropland

Management Plan included providing food sources for migrating waterfowl,

wintering deer (approximately 300), and other resident species. The

relationship between the Refuge farming program and regionally popular

game species, primarily deer and pheasants, was discussed by the planning

team. The planning team recognized that establishing Refuge legislation

language describes providing habitat for “other wildlife” in addition to

migratory birds.

Refuge cropland food sources can also be linked to two waterfowl

overpopulation concerns. Though the overall contribution of Tewaukon

Refuge crop fields to the growth of mid-continent snow goose numbers is

minimal, the availability of grain food sources has been linked to improved

snow goose survival and the damage this population is doing on tundra

nesting grounds. Local populations of Canada geese also have experienced

rapid growth in the past 10 years due in part to their use of Refuge crop

fields. The planning team recognized that many biological factors exist in

addition to Refuge cropping that affect Canada Goose populations, such as

record water levels in area wetlands and changes in crop rotations like the

addition of soybeans. The crop damage that local Canada geese are causing

in Richland and Sargent Counties has resulted in an increased number of

complaints in the past five years. This resulted in the establishment of an

experimental 1999 September hunting season to try and curb the growth of

this population.

There are also less tangible benefits to providing small grain and row crops

on a small portion of Refuge uplands such as the reduction, or perceived

reduction of crop depredation on private lands. After discussing these

issues, the planning team developed the following cropland objective.

Objective: Maintain no more than 135 acres of cropland as a Refuge

share to provide green browse and millet/corn for migratory

waterfowl.

Strategies:

T Work annually with farm cooperators to plant and maintain Refuge

food plots on a 25:75 crop share basis. Work to find alternative methods

to the existing crop share farming program.

Canada Goose, Cindie Brunner
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 57
58 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 59
60 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 61

Migratory Birds

The Refuge was established as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory

birds (See Appendix A for a list of bird species observed on the Refuge).

Migratory birds and habitat management for migratory birds will continue

to be emphasized at the Refuge. Waterfowl have historically received

management priority due to the Refuge’s location in the Prairie Pothole

Region. The concern over the decline of other migratory birds in the

country has increased the availability of information on other nesting bird

species, Refuge management priorities will expand to include other

migratory bird species at risk.

Shorebirds

Thirty-seven species of shorebirds and 28 species of sandpipers commonly

cross the interior plains during spring and fall migrations (Skagen 1997).

The habitat used by migratory shorebirds consists of small, shallow wetlands

or wet muddy areas. Shorebirds inhabit the prairie region from mid-March

through mid-October depending on weather and water conditions. Shorebird

populations migrating through the Great Plains tend to be scattered and

they stop periodically to replenish fat reserves (Skagen 1997). Shorebirds

are flexible in their migration stops because prairie wetland levels and

conditions are highly variable. Eighteen species of shorebirds breed in

North Dakota (Stewart 1975). A variety of shorebirds use the Refuge when

wetland conditions meet their needs.

Wading Birds

Like shorebirds, the number of wading birds (herons, egrets, rails, bitterns)

breeding on the Refuge fluctuates with the availability of water. A heron

colony has existed on the Refuge since 1993 when water returned to the

southeastern North Dakota. Great blue herons, great egrets, doublecrested cormorants, and black-crowned night herons nest in the colony

located in dead trees in Pool 7A. No record exists of a heron colony on the

Refuge prior to 1993.

Raptors

Raptors (including eagles, hawks, falcons, and owls) can be seen on the

Refuge. The three most common hawks nesting on the Refuge are the redtailed hawk, northern harrier, and the Swainson’s hawk. Great horned owls

are the most common owl nesting on the Refuge. Several species of raptors

migrate through the Refuge in the spring and fall. Most notable are bald

eagles which follow the waterfowl migrations and can be regularly seen

around Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake.

Grassland Migratory Birds

Herkert (1995) looked at the data from the North American Breeding Bird

Survey between 1996 and 1993 and found that grassland migratory bird

species are declining faster than any other group of breeding species in the

Midwestern United States. Bobolinks and western meadowlarks showed

the greatest decline (Herkert 1995). Habitat fragmentation is one of the

causes of population decline in grassland birds (Samson 1980, Herkert 1994,

Vickery et al. 1994). Habitat size is important for some grassland birds

(Samson 1980, Herkert 1994, Vickery et al. 1994) and the amount of edge

(the area where two different habitats overlap or are adjacent to each other)

of that patch of habitat is also important (Helzer and Jelinski 1999). Some

grassland species avoid nesting near different habitat edges such as a

grassland patch overlapping or adjacent to a woodland patch (Johnson and

Temple 1986, Delisle 1995, Helzer 1996). Higher predation on nests and

birds and parasitism of nests increased for grassland birds the closer they

were to wooded edges (Johnson and Temple 1986 and 1990, Burger et al.

1994). See Refuge Habitat Grassland Section for more discussion on

grassland migratory bird habitat.

“Then, one day in late February or early

March, the migrants began returning to

the old prairie. They brought spring

with them, and a surge of life and

excitement... serried flocks of ducks

and geese beyond number, and endless

wedges of curlews and plovers...giant

cranes, and a multitude of small

minstrels – warblers, larks, singing

sparrows, longspurs, redwings, and a

host of others... The prairie pulse

quickened; it was spring again, with the

birds come home.”

- John Madson, 1982, Where the Sky

Began

Meadowlark, Cindie Brunner
62 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Woodland Migratory Birds

Some woodland migratory bird species have increased their number in

North Dakota from 1967 to 1993 such as the western kingbird, brown

thrasher, and song sparrows along with species like American robins,

house sparrows, cliff swallows, and barn swallows that are associated with

people and structures (Johnson et al. 1997).

The following objectives were developed to help Refuge Managers and

Biologists gather additional information about the populations of birds that

breed on the Refuge in order to determine how to best provide habitat for

their life needs. (See Refuge Grasslands Native Prairie section for further

information.)

Objective: Monitor relative abundance and breeding status for four

tallgrass prairie indicator bird species in the six areas identified for

grassland bird management to provide feedback and information on

the tallgrass prairie habitat management approach.

Strategies: T Develop a step-down Monitoring Plan to address changes over time in

relative abundance on a local scale and breeding documentation of the

four indicator species (northern harrier, upland sandpiper, bobolink,

and grasshopper sparrow) on the six Prairie Focus Areas.

Objective: Initiate a baseline breeding bird survey on the Refuge to

monitor local breeding migratory bird population changes over time.

Strategies: T Participate in local area Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) route.

Migratory Bird Disease Outbreaks

The first documented migratory bird disease outbreak on the Refuge occurred in

April 1991. This was a small outbreak, 79 total birds were collected (76

snow geese, 1 white front goose, and 2 lesser scaup) on Lake Tewaukon.

The cause of the disease was avian cholera. Another small disease outbreak

occurred in August of 1999 in Pool 7A and Pool 3. Ten ducks, one Canada

goose, one cormorant, and one least sandpiper were collected from the two

sites. Except for the Canada goose, botulism was determined to be the

cause of death in all of the birds. Water levels in Pool 7A had been dropped

quickly to allow for the replacement of a structure. Rapid water

fluctuations and warm weather are favorable conditions for botulism.

Procedures for attempting to contain migratory bird disease outbreaks are

similar for most of the diseases encountered on the Refuge. These

procedures include monitoring wetlands for dead or dying birds, immediate

collection of dead birds, submitting specimens to the National Wildlife

Health Center, and safe and proper disposal of the remaining carcasses.

Promptly removing dead and dying birds from the disease outbreak area

decreases the exposure that other birds and other animals have to the

carcasses.

Objective: Respond to and contain migratory bird disease outbreaks by

applying safe and proper procedures as recommended by National

Wildlife Health Center protocol.

Strategies: T Manage water level conditions on the Refuge to minimize conditions

known to precipitate diseases outbreaks.

T Submit carcasses to the National Wildlife Health Center for evaluation

and determination of cause of death.

T Properly follow disease mitigation procedures to limit impacts to

migratory bird populations.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 63

Native Resident Wildlife

Mammals

The tallgrass prairie ecosystem was a vast and diverse habitat for a variety

of wildlife. Bison, grizzly bear, wolves, elk, antelope, mule deer, bobcat, moose,

and river otter (Bailey 1926) once lived in the tallgrass prairie wetland

ecosystem. Today, these species are either not found here at all or are

present in very low numbers. White-tailed deer are the only common

Refuge large animal left from the group of large mammals historically

found on tallgrass prairie. White-tailed deer numbers have increased in

response to changes associated with agricultural and settlement. Today

approximately 200-300 white-tailed deer winter on the Refuge, taking

advantage of the shelterbelts and cropland. Only one objective was

developed by the planning team to address specifically managing the

Refuge white-tailed deer population. Many of the other habitat objectives

will support deer populations.

Objective: Maintain an average winter deer population of no more

than 250 to minimize vegetative and crop damages on Refuge and

adjacent lands.

Strategies:

T Work cooperatively with the ND Game and Fish Department to adjust

Refuge deer hunting permits, monitor wintering deer numbers, and

determine carrying capacity.

Various other small and medium sized mammals can be found on the

Refuge including: jumping mice, raccoons, eastern cottontails, white-tailed

jackrabbits, long-tailed weasels, woodchucks, beaver, muskrats, mink,

badgers, coyotes, and red foxes. Habitat management described in the

CCP is expected to sustain these populations.

Objective: Develop a specific Monitoring Plan to gather baseline

information for small and medium mammal populations on the

Refuge.

Resident native birds are few due to very cold and snowy winters that limit

food and shelter. Though classified as migratory birds, great horned owls,

woodpeckers, white-breasted nuthatches, chickadees, and horned larks are

a few of the birds that are present on the Refuge year-round. Many of the

habitat objectives will affect these populations. Habitat management

described in the CCP is expected to sustain these populations.

Upland Game Birds

Only one species of native upland game bird, the sharp-tailed grouse, can

be found on the Refuge. Sharp-tailed grouse are few in number and only

spotted occasionally on the Refuge. There has been a lot of debate about

the presence of greater prairie chickens which were not thought to occur in

North Dakota prior to the late 1870’s (Stewart 1975). By 1884, prairie

chickens were as common as sharp-tailed grouse and spread rapidly

throughout the State (Stewart 1975). Downward population trends started

in the early 1940’s; by 1972, fewer than 400 birds existed in North Dakota

(Johnson et al. 1997). The planning team did not develop management

objectives for prairie chickens since they have not been documented on the

Refuge nor for sharp-tailed grouse since their occurrence on the Refuge is

limited to occasional sightings.
64 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Reptiles and Amphibians

Throughout the world there has been an apparent decline of amphibian

species (Yoffe 1992; Blaustein 1994; Corn 1994). The prairie has had a

longer decline than most other places (Corn and Peterson 1996). Northern

leopard frogs almost disappeared from tallgrass prairies in Wisconsin and

Minnesota in the 1960’s and 1970’s (Gibbs et al. 1971; Hine et al. 1981). The

cause of decline is not well known although commercial harvest (Gibbs et

al. 1971), and contamination from agricultural chemicals (Hine et al.1981)

are two of the more likely causes. Of the 124 species of reptiles and

amphibians that occur in prairie habitats in central North America, 42

species are associated with grassland habitats, 38 are primarily aquatic or

require permanent water (i.e. leopard frogs); 28 use forests or woody

vegetation (grey treefrog), and 16 species are use a variety of habitats

(tiger salamander) (Corn and Peterson 1996). Protection of prairie reptiles

and amphibians has not received much attention from a management or

conservation perspective. Because of the sharp decline of wetland and

prairie habitat in the tallgrass prairie, the abundance of aquatic species is

just a fraction of their former abundance (Corn and Peterson 1996).

Little population information exists for many refuge species such as

reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, or invertebrates that fit the

description of “other wildlife,” as described in establishing Refuge

legislation language. In order to provide better background for refuge

managers to evaluate options, basic population data need to be collected as

described in the following objectives.

Objective: Develop a specific Monitoring Plan to gather baseline

information for amphibian and reptile populations on the Refuge.

Tiger Salamander, Cindie Brunner
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 65

Nonnative Wildlife

In the Fish and Wildlife Service manual under the Populations Management

section (7 Refuge Manual 8.1), the issue of nonnative species introduction

and management is addressed by policy. The policy states that the National

Wildlife Refuge System exists for the protection and management of plants

and animals native to the United States. This policy directs refuge

managers “to prevent further introductions of exotic (nonnative) species on

national wildlife refuges (including all lands and WPAs) except where an

exotic (nonnative) species would have value as a biological control agent (an

example would be leafy spurge beetles and tiger muskies) and would be

compatible with the objectives of the refuge.”

Healthy populations of several species of wildlife both nonnative to North

America and to North Dakota can be found on the Refuge. These

nonnative species compete with native wildlife for food, water, cover, and

space. Some species, like cats and dogs, will kill other native wildlife for

food and sport. Other species, like house sparrows and starlings, outcompete native species for resources like nesting cavities that could be

used by bluebirds, tree swallows, and house wrens. Carp do a great deal of

habitat damage by destroying wetland vegetation that is utilized by water

birds and other fish species. Carp also occupy a large amount of habitat

that could be occupied by native fish species. Other nonnative species, like

the ring-necked pheasant, are not known to directly compete with nesting

Refuge species. The following objective was developed to address the

range of options Refuge managers will use to manage these species.

Objective: Restrict the spread of existing and additional nonnative

animal species (carp, house sparrows, and feral dogs and cats).

Strategies: T Reduce population densities of carp to maintain a total biomass of less

than 30.0 kg/survey as recommended in the 1996 Fisheries

Management Plan in Refuge waters by applying appropriate

management tools including the addition of predator fish (i.e., tiger

muskies), minimum size limits on predator fish (northern pike and

walleyes), water management, chemical control, and commercial

harvest.

T Apply, when appropriate, management tools (including lethal,

nonlethal methods and habitat manipulation) that eliminate or limit the

expansion of introduced animal species such as feral dogs and cats,

house sparrows, and carp.

T Gather existing information and promote additional research on

management techniques and affects of nonnative species on native

flora and fauna.

Objective: Refrain from carrying out additional management

activities that specifically encourage population expansion of existing

introductions (pheasants, gray partridge) to the detriment of native

species.

For example, the best habitat management to improve Refuge pheasant

populations, outside of requesting much milder winters and a dry springtime,

would be to establish more large blocks of shrubs and trees for winter

cover and incorporate more, or change the distribution of winter food plots.

Both of these techniques would be harmful to grassland nesting migratory

birds that avoid shrub and tree edges and have poorer reproductive

success in smaller blocks of grassland cover (Helzer and Jelinski 1999).

When considering management options, this objective guides managers to

favor native grassland nesting migratory birds. A number of objectives

occur in this Plan, such as maintaining cropland (i.e., millet bales),

increasing the density of grassland cover, and using predator control, that

will still provide pheasant habitat and improve their nest success.
66 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Wildlife Disturbance

The demand for wildlife associated recreation has increased dramatically

over the last 20 years. Outdoor recreation can affect wildlife behavior (i.e.,

feeding, resting) and survival to varying degrees.

Wildlife seek refuge from all forms of disturbance, particularly those

associated with loud noise and rapid movement. After reviewing several

thousand journal articles and books, Dahlgren and Korschgen (1992)

reported that studies indicate that water users were the primary cause of

most disturbances to waterfowl. Listed in order of decreasing disturbance

are: rapid overwater movement and loud noise (powerboating,

waterskiing); overwater movement with little noise (sailing, wind surfing,

rowing, canoeing); little overwater movement or noise (wading, swimming);

and activities along shorelines (fishing, bird-watching, hiking and traffic).

These disturbances can decrease the amount of time a bird spends feeding

by seven times and increases the amount of time a bird incurs high energy

costs associated with flight (Edington and Edington 1986).

Wildlife expend considerable energy and effort in order to successfully

reproduce and raise young. Disturbance at this time of year by humans can

scatter broods and separate adults from young thus increasing their risk of

predation, exposure, and starvation due to inexperience in finding food

(Sherwood 1965). In studies in England and Germany, an 80 percent

decrease of waterfowl nests and an 85 percent decrease in duck pairs were

related to the increasing number of anglers during the breeding season

(Reichholf 1976, Åhlund and Götmark 1989). Disturbance from observers

caused a 10 percent nest abandonment rate by mallards using artificial

nest baskets in an Iowa study (Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992).

Winter survival of resident wildlife, i.e., white-tailed deer, can be caused by

a variety of disturbances ranging from snowmobiles to cross-country

skiers. Human caused wildlife disturbance during the winter can increase

additional stress and can lead to the death of wildlife.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 67

Migrating Wildlife Habitat

Bird migration periods vary from year-to-year depending on regional

resource availability, climatic events along the migration corridors, and the

bird species. For example, Refuge peak waterfowl migration in the spring

occurs from March through April while peak bobolink migration usually

occurs from May through early June. The number of birds that use the

Refuge as a resting and feeding area varies widely from year-to-year

depending on available water and food in the surrounding region. For

example, in March of 1993 the only available open water in our region was

Lake Tewaukon and at that time, an estimated 700,000 snow geese used the

lake. Compared to the fall of 1999, when open water was available all over

the region, only an estimated 5,000 snow geese used the Refuge.

Current Refuge road closures effectively limit angling disturbance of

waterbirds to 5 percent of Lake Tewaukon and less than 10 percent of the

Sprague Lake shorelines. The majority of Refuge anglers fish the shoreline

areas adjacent to roads and trails open to vehicles. Road closures will also

limit the amount of waterbird disturbance from wildlife observers and

photographers. To limit disturbance to migratory waterbirds, the road

around Lake Tewaukon and the trail around the south side of Sprague

Lake will be closed to vehicles from October through April. The Point

(peninsula that juts out into Lake Tewaukon) will be closed to all public

entry from October through April.

In September, the Refuge is open to walk-in archery hunters and youth

deer hunters. These activities generate less than 40 visitors a year to the

Refuge and provide minimal disturbance to migrating birds. The Refuge is

closed to all hunting during the peak fall migration period in October.

Objective: Manage the Refuge as a protected resting and feeding area

for migratory birds during the spring and fall migration periods.

Strategies:

T Manage Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake as open water rest areas

for migratory water birds.

T Close Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake to boat traffic from October 1

through April 30 during the peak migration period.

T Close the road around Lake Tewaukon and the trail south of Sprague

Lake to vehicles from October 1 through April 30. Close the Point to all

public entry from October 1 through April 30 to reduce disturbance to

migratory water birds.

T During the primary waterbird fall migration period (October), close all

hunting activities for white-tailed deer and ring-necked pheasant

hunting season on the Refuge.

T Gather existing information on public disturbance and its effects on

wildlife and promote further research on this issue on the Refuge.
68 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Nesting Birds and Other Breeding Wildlife

The nesting and rearing season for birds and other wildlife on the Refuge

lasts from April through August. Wildlife utilize grassland, wetland, and

tree and shrub habitats to reproduce and raise young. Providing areas of

minimal human disturbance during this season was recognized by the

planning team as important for wildlife survivability.

Currently, visitor use is primarily associated with the main Refuge road

around Lake Tewaukon and the area east of County Road 12. It is recognized

that a disturbance occurs to wildlife and habitat during activities such as

hiking, photography, and wildlife observation. These disturbances include

trampling of vegetation, flushing of nesting birds, scattering young, and

occasional death from vehicles. Approximately 15 percent of the Refuge is

open to wildlife-dependent recreation during the nesting and reproductive

season. Currently, Refuge use in this area is limited to driving the Lake

road and fishing along the shoreline. Few visitors venture off established

roads and trails into the grassland and wetland habitats. If an increase in

this type of use occurs, a reevaluation of the use and possible rezoning of

open areas or the development of established walking/observation trails

can mitigate impacts that may occur.

Objective: Manage the Sprague Lake Unit (except for the Lake) and

the area west of County Road 12 on the Tewaukon Unit as a closed

area to the public from April through August to reduce disturbance to

wildlife nesting and reproduction.

Strategies:

T Identify limited access areas to the public through signs, news

releases, and pamphlets and provide information to the public about

the impacts of human disturbance to wildlife.

T Evaluate exceptions for public access on these areas based on activities

requested and their potential impacts to nesting and reproducing

wildlife.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 69

Wintering Wildlife Habitat

On the Refuge, winter encompasses the months of December through

February. Stress periods for wildlife are predominately associated with

cold temperatures and snow which vary from year-to-year. In the winter of

1997, extreme weather including eight blizzards, over 100 inches of snow,

and a severe ice storm in April caused mortality in deer, pheasants, and

other wildlife. Providing areas of minimal human disturbance during this

season was recognized by the planning team as important for wildlife

survivability.

Winter recreation on the Refuge is limited to ice fishing and access for ice

fishing on Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes. Other user groups which have

inquired about winter public use activities include cross-country skiers, ice

skaters, dog sled users, and snowshoe users. These activities have not been

allowed in the past due to the potential disturbance to wildlife and safety

issues.

Objective: Manage the Refuge (except for ice fishing on Tewaukon

and Sprague Lake) as a closed area from January through April to

reduce disturbance to wintering resident wildlife.

Strategies:

T Maintain the road as closed around Lake Tewaukon and the trail south

of Sprague Lake to vehicles from January through April 30. Maintain

the Point as closed to all public entry from January through April 30 to

reduce disturbance to wintering resident wildlife.

T Limit vehicle use (including snowmobiles) to access for winter ice

fishing to specific areas on Lake Tewaukon, the north boat ramp, east

boat ramp, and access from County Road 12. Limit vehicle use to

access for winter ice fishing on Sprague Lake to the boat ramps (west

and east).

T Winter hiking, snowshoeing, ice skating, cross-country skiing, and

other recreational activities not associated with recreational fishing

access on Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes will not be permitted.

T Identify limited access areas to the public through signs, news

releases, and pamphlets and provide information to the public about

the impacts of human disturbance to wildlife.
70 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Endangered Species

Goal: Contribute to the preservation and restoration of endangered,

threatened, rare, and unique flora and fauna that occur, or have historically

occurred in the area of Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge.

With the delisting of the peregrine falcon from the Federal Endangered

Species List, only the federally threatened bald eagle is known to occur or

have been observed on the Refuge. Bald eagles are regularly sighted

during the spring and fall migration periods.

Only two federally listed endangered species likely used the Refuge

historically, the whooping crane and the gray wolf. These species have

never been recorded on the Refuge since files have been kept. Records of

whooping crane nests and young birds indicate that breeding birds

formerly occurred in southeast North Dakota, but mostly in the more

central region (Stewart 1975). Whooping cranes more likely only migrated

through the Refuge. Historically, gray wolves were found throughout

North Dakota and were known as plains wolves or buffalo wolf (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife 1995). Gray wolves were extirpated from North Dakota

through shooting, trapping, and poisoning but occasional sightings have

been reported in this District since 1985.

Service Species of Concern

Species that appeared on the Fish and Wildlife Service Species of Concern

List (1995) and occur or may have occurred historically on the Tewaukon

Refuge include:

Birds Black tern, Ferruginous Hawk, Loggerhead shrike

Insects Regal fritillary butterfly

Black terns are associated with semipermanent and permanent wetlands

with emergent stands of vegetation. Black tern young and nests have been

observed on the Refuge (Tewaukon staff notes). Ferruginous hawks have

occasionally been observed during migration. Loggerhead shrikes have

been seen occasionally on the Refuge, but no nests or territorial males have

been recorded (Tewaukon staff notes).

With the exception of the black tern, the other bird species of management

concern are seen only occasionally on the Refuge during migration. Since

little information exists about Refuge breeding populations of black terns,

the status of this species will best be addressed under the baseline

breeding bird survey objective in the Refuge Migratory Bird Section.

Rare Butterflies

In 1996, Tim Orwig surveyed the Refuge native prairie sites for rare

butterflies. Regal fritillary butterflies, and powesheik skippers were

recorded on two Refuge sites. Both the regal fritillary and the powesheik

skipper are found exclusively on native prairie sites. The larvae of these

butterflies feed on native grasses and a variety of native forbs when they

are adults. A list of the other butterflies observed are in Tim Orwig’s 1996

report.

Since the health of prairie communities and the species diversity of the

prairies has been previously identified in the Plan as a management

objective, the following objective was developed as a method for evaluating

native prairie diversity. Three rare butterflies, regal fritillary, powesheik

skipper, and Dakota skipper were chosen as indicator species in the “A

Habitat-Based Approach to Management of Tallgrass Prairies” (Schroeder

and Askerooth 2000).

Objective: Develop a Monitoring Plan to measure relative abundance

of three rare butterflies in the six Prairie Focus Areas to provide

feedback and information to the tallgrass prairie habitat management

approach.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 71

Public Use and Recreation

More than 30 million people visit national wildlife refuges every year. The

vision for the future in the Fulfilling the Promises (1999) states that:

“The National Wildlife Refuge System of the next century will provide

the American people a legacy of wildlife, a place where visitors are

welcome, opportunities for stewardship and a system to appreciate.”

The Refuge Improvement Act recognizes the importance of compatible

wildlife-dependent recreation. The Act identifies hunting, fishing, wildlife

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and

interpretation as the six priority public uses.

Given the long legislative history that encourages compatible wildlifedependent public uses on refuges and the long history of wildlife related

public use on Tewaukon Refuge, several objectives were developed by the

planning team to continue providing the six priority recreational uses:

fishing, hunting, wildlife observation and photography, interpretation and

environmental education.

Goal: Provide recreational and educational opportunities for persons of all

abilities to learn about and enjoy tallgrass prairie wetland ecosystem, the

fish and wildlife found there, and the history of the Refuge in a safe and

compatible manner.

Fishing

Historical references documenting native fish in eastern North Dakota list

yellow perch, Northern pike, and bullheads (Cvancara 1983). Fish

populations have been highly variable in Lake Tewaukon. In the 1940’s,

strong populations of northern pike, walleye, crappies, and perch were

present. After carp became established in 1943, fishing steadily declined

until 1955. Rough fish removal, heavy stocking, and minimum size limits

for Northern pike and walleye, and low water conditions in Refuge pools

have helped to improve desirable fish populations and limit carp numbers.

Currently, fish species present on the Refuge include carp, walleye,

Northern pike, yellow perch, black bullhead, yellow bullhead, black

crappie, white sucker, fathead minnow, golden shiner, and tiger muskie. No

endangered or threatened fish species have been sampled on Refuge.

Lake Tewaukon has been an important public recreational spot since the

1880’s. Historic uses on Lake Tewaukon included extensive boating,

swimming, and fishing. When Refuge and flowage easements were secured

in the 1930’s, it was with the support of local landowners and the sportsmen’s

clubs. Their support of additional land acquisition, came with the provision

that recreational fishing would continue and be improved on the Refuge

(1954 resolution by area wildlife clubs and 1955 response letter from the

Service in Refuge files). The 1962 Tewaukon Master Plan addresses this

understanding between the local community and the Service: “When land

acquisition was initiated, it was with the understanding that recreational

use of the lake would be continued and improved.”

Past fisheries improvement projects have included:

P Managing Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes at higher elevations (1970).

P Placing artificial reefs of Christmas trees to enhance shelter for various

species (1988, 1991) and

artificial fish structures (1997).

P Carp removal projects (1985,

1989, 1990 and 1993) in Lake

Tewaukon.

P Installing an aeration system in

Lake Tewaukon (1986).

“Natural resource management is 90

percent managing the public and 10

percent managing the resource”

- Unknown

Northern Pike, Cindie Brunner
72 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes are managed as open water migratory bird

rest areas. Because they are large (Lake Tewaukon 1,000 acres and

Sprague Lake 184 acres) and relatively deep (8 to 9 feet), they offer the

best opportunity on the Refuge to provide recreational fishing. Though fish

may intermittently occur in other Refuge pools, wetland management

objectives developed to benefit migratory birds, do not provide favorable

conditions for fish (See Refuge Managed Wetland Section). Recreational

fisheries will only be managed on Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes and all

other Refuge pools will remain closed to recreational fishing.

The original compatibility determination completed in 1994, limited fishing to

Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes. The compatibility determination was reviewed as

part of this planning process and determined to be adequate, appropriate and

current (See Appendix G). Stipulations on fishing include closing the two lakes to

boat fishing and portions of lakeshore roads during the spring and fall waterbird

migration periods.

Currently, fishing facilities on the two Lakes include three boat ramps on Lake

Tewaukon and two on Sprague Lake. An accessible fishing dock and ramp,

outdoor rest rooms, picnic tables, picnic shelter and informational kiosks are

available on Lake Tewaukon (See Map 10-13). A public use summary guide is

available to anglers and describes Refuge specific regulations and opportunities.

A Refuge Fisheries Management Plan was completed for Tewaukon and

Sprague Lakes for 1996 - 2005. This Plan discusses several ways to

improve recreational fish population conditions in Tewaukon and Sprague

Lakes. The following objective adopts those recommendations.

Objective: Maintain populations of sport fish including northern pike

greater than 35 kg/survey total biomass, walleyes greater than 30 kg/survey

total biomass, and perch greater than 10 kg/survey total biomass in

Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes in accordance with the 1996-2005 Refuge

Fisheries Management Plan.

Strategies: T Reduce population densities of carp to maintain a total biomass of less than 30

kg/survey in Refuge waters. (See CCP Nonnative Objective and Strategies).

T Work cooperatively with the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Assistance

Office and the ND Game and Fish Department to determine and

implement fish stocking rates, harvest regulations, water

management, monitoring of fish populations, and law enforcement.

T Maintain water levels at an average depth of approximately nine feet

in Lake Tewaukon and eight feet in Sprague Lake.

T Maintain use of an aerator during October through March in Lake

Tewaukon to help prevent the winterkill of fish species.

Objective: Provide public fishing opportunities in Lake Tewaukon and

Sprague Lake when compatible.

Strategies: T Provide shore fishing opportunities on the two lakes year-round. T Provide boat fishing opportunities on the two lakes from May 1 to

September 30.

T Work cooperatively with the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Assistance

Office and the ND Game and Fish Department to stock the lake with fish for

public fishing opportunity.

T Work cooperatively with the ND Game and Fish Department to

conduct law enforcement patrols to ensure special regulation

compliance and provide a quality experience for all visitors.

T Work cooperatively with local groups to maintain and improve fishing facilities

including five boat ramps, an accessible fishing pier and four public use areas

(see Refuge Map 10 - 13) with rest rooms, picnic tables, and information

kiosks.

T Identify open fishing areas to the public through signs, news releases, and

pamphlets and inform the public about Refuge regulations and opportunities.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 73
74 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 75
76 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 77
78 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 79
80 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 81

Hunting

Tewaukon Refuge is open for ring-necked pheasant and white-tailed deer

hunting. Waterfowl and other migratory bird hunting is contrary to Refuge

purposes as a “inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds.” A Refuge Hunting

Regulations and Map pamphlet is available to hunters in the fall and

describes Refuge specific regulations and opportunities.

The Refuge is open to youth gun hunters and bow hunters for white-tailed

deer in September and the deer rifle permit season in November. Archery

season for deer reopens in November after the deer gun season to reduce

hunting group conflicts and provide for a more safe hunter experience. All

North Dakota State regulations apply. Refuge deer tags for the deer gun

season are issued by the ND Game and Fish Department.

The Refuge is open to pheasant hunting after the close of the deer gun

season in November through the end of the general State Season. Nontoxic

shot is required. All North Dakota State regulations apply.

Objective: Provide public opportunity for pheasant hunting in November

and December after the fall waterfowl migration. Deer hunting

opportunities will also be provided during the months of September,

November, and December before and after the waterfowl migration.

Strategies: T Continue to provide a Youth deer gun season in September, archery

deer hunting in September and December, and a deer gun season in

November. Continue to provide a pheasant hunting season after the

deer gun season in November and December.

T Work cooperatively with the ND Game and Fish Department to conduct

law enforcement patrols to ensure special regulation compliance and

provide a quality experience for all visitors.

T Work cooperatively with the ND Game and Fish Department to

distribute deer gun permits and manage hunting seasons.

T Maintain parking areas and provide maps and pamphlets to provide

information about Refuge hunting regulations and access.

T Identify open hunting areas to the public through signs, news releases,

and pamphlets and inform the public about Refuge regulations and

opportunities.

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Wildlife observation and photographic opportunities are available yearround on the Refuge east of County Road 12 (Map 10 - 13). Access to closed

areas of the Refuge are by request only.

Objective: Provide public opportunity for wildlife observation and

photography year-round on the east side of County Road 12 from May

through August and November through December.

Strategies: T Maintain the eight mile Prairie Lake auto tour around Lake Tewaukon

to ensure a safe and quality experience from May 1 through

September 30.

T Develop an accessible wildlife observation platform and interpretive

hiking trail on the Refuge.

T Identify open wildlife viewing and photography areas to the public

through signs, news releases, and pamphlets and inform the public

about Refuge regulations and opportunities.
82 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Interpretation

Currently, the Refuge has a small Visitor Center in the administrative

headquarters. Three exhibits have been developed and installed at this site.

Seven kiosks with information panels are located at the Visitor Center and

the four public use areas and on the Lake Tewaukon overlook. A Prairie

Lake Auto Tour has been developed around Lake Tewaukon and a short

accessible prairie walk is located adjacent to the headquarters. A variety of

pamphlets are available about the Service, the Refuge System, the Tewaukon

Refuge, and other natural resources at the Visitor Center and kiosks.

Objective: Promote public awareness and advocacy of Refuge resources

and management activities that conserve the regions’ natural,

cultural, and historical resources in the visitor center and use signs,

exhibits, pamphlets, and programs elsewhere on the Complex.

Strategies:

T Develop a new Refuge general brochure, wildlife list (including

mammals, amphibians, and butterflies), and a Dakota Tallgrass Prairie

Project brochure.

T Maintain and update current brochures when necessary (including

Public Use Summary and Map, Hunting Regulations and Map, Bird

List, Refuge Map, and Prairie Lake Auto Tour).

T Provide visitor information and access to the Refuge Visitor Center on

weekends during the months of July, August, September, October, and

November which coincides with increased visitation.

T Develop three interactive, accessible interpretive exhibits for the

Visitor Center on tallgrass prairie, wetland values and functions, and a

Refuge orientation map.

T Expand the Visitor Center for more informational exhibits, space for

visitors, and special events.

T Develop an accessible tallgrass prairie trail in a managed prairie site

adjacent to the Refuge Visitor Center to promote awareness about

tallgrass prairie values and management efforts.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 83

Environmental Education

Over the last 10 years, the Refuge staff has aspired to develop an

environmental education and outreach program on a local and statewide

scale. Refuge staff have worked to educate and inform the public about a

variety of natural resources, Refuge management activities and programs,

and local, regional and national fish, wildlife, and habitat issues.

Objective: Environmental education programs and activities will focus

on the native prairie/wetland ecosystem and Refuge natural, cultural,

and historic resources. These activities will be designed to develop

awareness and promote advocacy for Refuge resources and

management activities.

Strategies:

T Present a program at each of the 15 local schools once a year to

educate young people about natural resources and issues and promote

an understanding of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mission and

purpose of the Tewaukon Complex.

T Continue to host an annual Tewaukon Field Day with the ND

Extension Service, Cogswell Gun Club, and Tewaukon Rod and Gun

Club as partners.

T Coordinate and promote the North Dakota Jr. Duck Stamp Program

with several State wildlife groups.

T Participate in three County conservation tours with County Soil

Conservation Districts each year.

T Conduct or host at least five school and group tours per year.

Public Outreach

The staff at the Refuge has worked to improve the public outreach

program including news releases, programs, tours, presentations to local

and interested groups, attending meetings, participating in local, County,

and State activities and briefing Congressionals.

Objective: Develop awareness and foster an understanding of Complex

resource issues and management activities through public outreach

that develops Service and Refuge advocacy.

Strategies:

T Visit local wildlife and community groups two times per year to provide

information on Refuge activities, management, and issues.

T Visit with congressional offices annually to keep them up-to-date on

Refuge activities, management, and issues.

T Develop and maintain a Tewaukon Complex Website.

T Participate in one County fair each year.

T Host a Refuge Open House every year.

T Write 12 news releases for local and State newspapers annually.

Conduct television and radio spots upon request.
84 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Cultural Resources

The majority of the cultural resource information for the Refuge were

complied in Jackson and Toom’s 1999 report, “Cultural Resources

Overview Studies of the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge, Sargent

County, North Dakota and the Waubay National Wildlife Refuge, Day

County, South Dakota.” Additional information can be found in the report:

“Archaeological Test Excavations at Lake Tewaukon (325A211): A

Protohistoric Occupation Site in Southeastern North Dakota” by Thomas

W. Haberman, 1978, University of North Dakota Historic (A.D. 1780 -

present). Sites on the Refuge include the Langie family cemetery on the

western shore of Lake Tewaukon and the campsite of General Sibley’s

military troops at Camp Parker on July 2 and 3, 1863, on the eastern shore

of Parker’s Bay.

Less than 5 percent of the Refuge has been surveyed for cultural

resources. The majority of the cultural sites have been documented in

gently sloping to moderately-well to well-drained soils, especially along

Lakes. These areas offered the best sites for human occupation. Other

areas are on the Refuge with similar soil and site characteristics that have

not been surveyed and could be targeted.

Recommendations for the cultural resources at the Refuge were compiled

from the two cultural resource reports mentioned previously. These

recommendations include a comprehensive evaluation of the Refuge for

cultural resources, protection of three existing sites from Lake shore

erosion (and needed periodic test excavation monitoring), and nomination

of several sites for the Natural Register of Historic Places.

Objectives were developed to protect, inventory, and inform the public

about Refuge cultural resources.

Objective: Preserve and protect existing cultural resources and future

discoveries of archaeological sites when they are discovered on Refuge

lands.

Strategies:

T Continue to coordinate cultural resource inventories on construction

and development sites. Work cooperatively with U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service archaeologist and State Historical Preservation Office prior to

all proposed actions.

T Conduct a Class II cultural resource survey (sample inventory of

project site for distribution and density over a larger area) on 1/3 of

the Refuge areas that were not previously surveyed.

T Coordinate and develop an agreement with the Sisseton-Wahpeton

Sioux tribe for any discovery of human remains.

T Provide a protective cabinet to preserve archaeological resources

recovered in the University of North Dakota survey on the Refuge.

Objective: Increase public awareness of the significance of the

cultural and archaeological resources located on Tewaukon Refuge

Complex.

Strategies:

T Maintain Tewaukon’s artifact display and interpretive panels.

T Develop additional interpretive materials for new information and

sites.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 85

Partners

The National Wildlife Refuge System recognizes that strong citizen

support benefits the System. These benefits include the involvement and

insight of citizen groups in Refuge resource and management issues and

decisions, which helps managers gain an understanding of public concerns.

Partners yield support for Refuge activities and programs, raise funds for

projects, are activists on behalf of wildlife and the Refuge System and

provide support on important wildlife and natural resource issues. In

Fulfilling the Promises, the Service identified the need to forge new and

nontraditional alliances and strengthen existing partnerships with States,

Tribes, nonprofit organizations and academia to broaden citizen and

community understanding of and support for the National Wildlife Refuge

System.

A variety of people including but not limited to scientists, birders, anglers,

hunters, ranchers, farmers, outdoor enthusiasts, and students have a great

deal of interest in Tewaukon Complex’s management, wildlife species, and

habitats. This can be evidenced by the number of visitors to the Refuge and

the partnerships that have been developed which are listed in Appendix I.

The Complex staff will strive to maintain these partnerships. New partnerships

will be formed with interested organizations, local civic groups, community

schools, Federal and State governments, and other civic organizations if

funding and staff are available.

Goal: Promote partnerships to preserve, restore, and enhance a diverse,

healthy, and productive prairie/wetland ecosystem in which the Tewaukon

Refuge serves as a model and demonstration area.

Objectives: Create opportunities for new and maintain existing

partnerships among Federal, State, and local agencies, organizations,

schools, corporations, and communities to promote the understanding

and conservation of ecosystem and Refuge resources, activities, and

management.

Strategies:

T Maintain coordination with the ND Game and Fish Department to

conserve, protect, and manage lands for wildlife.

T Work with the Bureau of Reclamation and area landowners on the

Kraft Slough National Wildlife Refuge acquisition project. Once the

land is transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, develop a

management plan for the area.

T Implement and support the goals and objectives of the Drift Prairie

Wetland Enhancement Project through the North American Wetlands

Conservation Act.

T Continue to support and coordinate the Refuge Fishing Tournament

each year with the Tewaukon Rod and Gun Club and the Cogswell Gun

Club.

T Continue to support and coordinate the Tewaukon Field Days each

year with the ND Extension Service, Tewaukon Rod and Gun Club,

the Cogswell Gun Club, and local 4-H groups.

T Identify and promote new partnerships to support restoration,

protection, enhancement, and preservation of tallgrass prairie and its

flora and fauna.
86 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Volunteer Program

The 1998 Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act

promotes understanding and conservation of fish, wildlife and plants, and

cultural and historical resources of the Refuge. The purposes of the Act are

to 1) encourage the use of volunteers to assist in the management of

refuges; 2) to facilitate partnerships between the Refuge and nonfederal

entities; 3) to promote public awareness of the resources of the Refuge and

public participation in the conservation of the resources; and 4) to

encourage donations and other contributions.

Objectives: Foster a volunteer program that supports Complex goals

and objectives and provides a quality experience for volunteers.

Strategies:

T Utilize a variety of sources to recruit volunteers with diverse

experiences.

T Provide room and board for volunteers while they are working at the

Complex.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 87

Tewaukon Wetland

Management District

Purpose

The purpose for the Tewaukon Wetland Management District is determined

by the legislation that authorized Waterfowl Production Area and wetland

easement acquisition. Lands were acquired primarily to benefit migratory

birds. P For District lands acquired under the Public Law 85-585, dated August

1, 1958, the purpose of the acquisition is to assure the continued

availability of habitat capable of supporting migratory bird populations

at desired levels.

P For District lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Hunting and

Conservation Stamp Tax, 16 U.S.C. § 718, as amended, for the

purpose: “...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© (Migratory Bird

Hunting and Conservation Stamp Tax).

Since March of 1996, North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA)

funds have been used to acquire grassland easements in the three County

Tewaukon District. Grassland easements are acquired only with companion

wetland easements. P The North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Public Law 101-233 -

December 13, 1989, as amended in 1990, 1994, and 1998 is an Act to

conserve North American wetland ecosystems and waterfowl and

other migratory birds and fish and wildlife that depend upon such

habitats.

Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) conservation easements have also

been transferred to the Complex for administration. P Conservation easements are executed by quitclaim deed through the

State Executive Director of the Farm Service Agency, its successors or

assigns, for the United States Department of Agriculture. The

easements are under the authority and in furtherance of the provisions

of Federal law, including sections 331 and 335 of the Consolidated

Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981, 1985), Executive

Order 11990 providing for the protection of wetlands, and Executive

Order 1198 providing for the management of floodplains, and section

1314 of the Food Security Act of 1985 authorizing the Farmers Home

Administration to grant easements for conservation purposes.

As part of the planning process, the Complex staff and planning team

reviewed past national, regional, and Complex planning documents and

current planning guidance. Using the legislation and plans, the planning

team developed the following District vision statement.

Vision

The Tewaukon Wetland Management District will be preserved,

restored, and enhanced as a part of the tallgrass prairie wetland

ecosystem capable of supporting habitat for migratory birds and other

native wildlife for the benefit of present and future generations. The

District will provide a learning environment where a diversity of

tallgrass prairie, wetlands, plants, wildlife, and natural processes can

be found. Provide opportunities where people can enjoy wildlife

associated recreation.
88 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Description of the District

The Tewaukon Wetland Management District is comprised of over 14,000

acres of fee Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA) (Map 2), 35,000 acres of

wetland easements, 10,400 acres of grassland easements, and 112 wetland and

45 grassland acres in FmHA easements in Ransom, Sargent, and Richland

Counties.

Waterfowl Production Areas

The majority of Waterfowl Production Areas in the Tewaukon Wetland

Management District were purchased in the 1960’s. WPAs are owned in fee title

by the Service. Historically, acquisition of WPAs focused on larger

semipermanent wetlands, and 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 adjacent to wetlands for waterfowl

production. When considering a WPA 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 adjacent the Refuge

or another WPA as higher priorities for acquisition. Currently, the Service

purchases on average one WPA in this District every three years.

Wetland Easements

The Small Wetlands Acquisition Program was authorized by Congress in 1958

by an amendment to the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act. The purpose of the program is to ensure long-term protection of

waterfowl breeding habitat, primarily on wetlands in the Prairie Pothole

Region of the United States. Wetland easements are perpetual and prohibit

filling, leveling, draining, and burning of wetlands under easement.

Wetland easements are a real property interest the Service has purchased

from a willing landowner and are a permanent fixture to the land title. The

land remains in private ownership. Since 1962, when the Wetlands Program

began, the Service has acquired a perpetual real property interest in more than

two million wetland acres for waterfowl production in the Great Plains states.

Grassland Easements

Conversion of grasslands to cropland has generated a need for upland

habitat protection adjacent to wetlands. The loss of upland nesting cover

and plant foods have reduced the value and productivity of wetlands for

nesting waterfowl and their broods, and other migratory birds and wildlife.

Grassland easements, like wetland easements, are perpetual easements

that protect both existing and restored grasslands. The purposes of the

perpetual grassland easement program are: to improve and protect the

water quality of wetlands, maintain upland nesting habitat for ground

nesting birds, protect highly erodible soils, and provide an alternative to

the purchase of uplands in fee title, leaving land in private ownership.

Grassland easements are real property interests that the Service

purchases from landowners to prohibit any alteration of permanent

grassland cover including cropland conversion or development, and haying

or mowing until after July 15. Grazing is not prohibited or regulated under

the grassland easement. Funding for grassland easements comes from a

variety of sources including Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation

Stamp Act (with Governor approval), NAWCA grants, and Land and Water

Conservation Funds.

ND FmHA Conservation Easements

These Conservation Easements were developed by the United States

Congress under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of

1985 to help farmers reduce their debt load on farmland and to protect

natural resources. The easement prohibits farming, mowing, haying,

burning, filling, dumping, wood cutting, draining, or altering vegetation

(includes grazing) on easement lands. Some wetlands on FmHA tracts

have less restrictive easements that only prohibit draining, filling, leveling,

or burning. Currently, the Tewaukon District has six FmHA Conservation

Easements protecting 112 wetland and 45 grassland acres.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 89

Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs)

Management on fee WPAs is limited by funding, staff time, and the availability of

cooperators. To efficiently maximize budgets and time, the planning team divided

the WPAs into three priority management levels: high, moderate, or low. The

criteria used to determine a WPA’s ranking was size of the tract, potential

waterfowl recruitment (See Map 14), and those with unique resources (i.e.,

tallgrass prairie, rare plants, and wildlife). A breakout of the priority level

criterial for WPAs is as follows:

High Priority Level WPAs

P Over 160 acres in size

P Attract ducks 108 to 121 pairs/square mile (red) or 85 to 107 (yellow)

on the thunderstorm map (Map 14)

P Had unique resources (tallgrass prairie areas)

Moderate Priority Level WPAs

P Between 100 to 160 acres in size

P Attract ducks 55 to 84 pairs/square mile (dark green); 37 to 54 pairs/

square mile (light green) on thunderstorm map (Map 14)

P Unique resources (native prairie)

Low priority level WPAs

P Under 100 acres in size

P Attract ducks 36 pairs/square mile (grey) to anything below 18 pairs/

square mile (blue) on thunderstorm map (Map 14)

P Access and management potential low

All Tewaukon District WPAs were placed in different priority levels and

are listed in Appendix L and shown on Map 15.

Some management and activities would continue on all of the WPAs

regardless of their priority levels. Those include:

P All WPAs will be open to hunting, fishing, and trapping according to

North Dakota State regulations. All other public activities will require

a Special Use Permit and will be evaluated to determine if they are

compatible with District purposes.

P All border fences and signs will be maintained.

P Weed control will continue on all tracts.

P All WPAs would continue to receive law enforcement protection of

resources and public safety.

P Roadside mowing will be done by October 1 according to State

regulations.

The differences in habitat management for each of the priority levels are

outlined in the objectives.

Many of the District habitat management, wildlife, and public use goals

and objectives are similar to Refuge goals and objectives. Much of the

supporting text for these goals and objectives is also similar. Supporting

text and historical background for each section can be found in the Refuge

portion of the Plan unless they are specific to the District.
90 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Habitat Management

Goal: Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity of native

flora, other grasslands, and wetlands within the Tallgrass Prairie wetland

ecosystem.

Grasslands

Native Prairie

Approximately 3,100 acres of native prairie are scattered on various

Waterfowl Production Areas. Many of these areas were inaccessible for

agriculture because they are sandy, rocky, or wet. Historically, management of

these areas has consisted of some haying and limited grazing and fire.

Disturbance events occurred infrequently leaving the majority of the

native prairie tracts in a degraded condition. Nonnative plants such as

smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, leafy spurge, Canada thistle, Russian

olive trees, and sweet clover have invaded the sites.

The primary reason native prairie is not in better condition is the lack of

periodic disturbance (ND Ecological Services Botanist, Kathy Martin

1993; Barbour et al. 1987; Duebbert et al. 1981). See Refuge section on

native prairie for further discussion. For prescribed burning and wildfire

objectives and strategies see Refuge Native Prairie Prescribed Burning

Section.

Several objectives were developed by the planning team to manage and

preserve native prairie sites.

Objective: Preserve, restore, and enhance diverse native floral

communities so that greater than 75 percent of the plant species

composition is composed of climax species on all native tallgrass

prairie tracts on WPAs. (Refer to Heidel’s Classification 1986 of floral

communities of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem and desired indicator

species in the Native Prairie Refuge section.)

Strategies:

T Develop a Monitoring Plan for native prairie on high priority level

WPAs to determine species composition and relative abundance.

T Reduce exotic plants (leafy spurge, Canada thistle, Kentucky

bluegrass, smooth brome, Russian olive trees, sweet clover) by 15

percent through chemical, mechanical, biological techniques,

prescribed burning, and grazing.

T Continue to gather information on methods developed in the future for

nonnative plant control techniques and their effects on the native flora

and fauna.

“The most remarkable features of this

region are the intervals of level

prairie....where the horizon is as

unbroken as that of a calm seas...the

long grass...bending gracefully to the

passing breeze as it sweeps along the

plain, gives the ideas of waves, and the

solitary horseman on the horizon is so

indistinctly seen as to complete the

picture by the suggestion of a sail...”

- John Lambert, topographer, report

to Governor Stevens on a expedition

from the Mississippi River to the

Columbia River.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 91
92 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 93

Several nonnative plant species exist in District native prairie tracts

including: leafy spurge, Canada thistle, Kentucky bluegrass, smooth

brome, Canada thistle, yellow and white sweetclover, and Russian olive

trees. These nonnative plant species can out-compete native plant species

when frequent disturbances (grazing and burning) and nonnative plant

control methods are not conducted. The District uses a variety of nonnative

plant control methods including burning, mowing, chemical, and biological.

Without disturbance and nonnative plant control, these species will

increase and crowd out the native flora making the prairie unattractive to

many of the prairie butterflies and grassland migratory birds.

Objective: Reduce by 15 percent (measured as canopy cover) nonnative

plants (including leafy spurge, Canada thistle, Kentucky bluegrass,

smooth brome, sweet clover, Russian olive trees) in the 3,100 acres of

native prairie on Waterfowl Production Areas.

Strategies: T Use a variety of techniques and tools including chemical, mechanical

and biological methods, prescribed burning, and grazing.

T Continue to evaluate weed control methods for effectiveness and

gather information on methods developed in the future.

Enhancing Native Prairie

Research outlined under the native prairie section in the Refuge portion of

the CCP (See Refuge Habitat Grassland Section for more information)

helped the planning team develop the next objective that addresses the

management of contiguous blocks of grassland cover in the District for the

benefit of grassland nesting migratory birds and prairie butterflies. Three

sites were chosen to focus our grassland management. These sites were

selected because they contained over 160 acres of upland habitat, have

existing native prairie, were WPAs in the high priority level, had existing

or potential for populations of native prairie butterflies, and had access for

management. Under management, these prairie pieces should support a

diversity of flowering plants needed by prairie dependent butterflies, one

of our indicator species. If this management approach proves to be an

effective method of habitat management and if additional funds and staff

become available, the management will be expanded to additional high

priority level WPAs in the District.

Objective: Manage three WPAs (Hartleben/Aasar WPA, Gainor WPA,

and the Gunness WPA) (Map 15): 1) to achieve an area of contiguous

grassland (greater or equal to 160 acres) that is greater than 50 meters

from woody vegetation (greater than 1 meter tall); 2) contain a variety

of vegetative heights on the area with 20 percent of the vegetation

height ranging from 10 to 20 centimeters, 20 percent ranging from 20

to 30 centimeters, and 20 percent greater than 60 centimeters; 3) to

increase native floral diversity so that greater than 75 percent of the

vegetative composition is composed of indicator species of the dry

mesic tallgrass, central mesic tallgrass prairie, wet prairie, mesic

tallgrass prairie climax communities (Heidel 1986).

Strategies: T Provide the critical limiting habitat factors outlined in the “HabitatBased Approach to Management of Tallgrass Prairie” (Schroeder and

Askerooth 2000) for a variety of vegetative heights, and no woody

vegetation greater than 1 m tall on the three WPAs. Include specific

management details of these areas in a step-down management plan.

T Develop a detailed Monitoring Plan for the three WPAs. T Annually evaluate the vegetation using methods and techniques

developed in the Monitoring Plan for the three WPAs and apply

appropriate management tools (prescribed burning, mowing, grazing,

interseeding, chemical treatment, etc.,) as appropriate to provide the

limiting habitat requirements for migratory grassland birds and rare

butterflies.
94 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Protecting Native Prairie

Historically, an estimated 4,750,000 acres of tallgrass prairie was found in

North Dakota. Currently, only 275,000 acres of tallgrass prairie remain,

which is a 95 percent decline. An estimated 118,700 acres still remain in the

Tewaukon District. The U.S. Forest Service manages 70,000 acres of land

as the Sheyenne National Grasslands, the largest contiguous tract of native

prairie (approximately 50,000 acres) in the District. The Service owns in

fee title approximately 3,700 acres of native prairie in Ransom, Sargent,

and Richland counties, and the Nature Conservancy owns 1,100 acres of

native prairie in Ransom county. The remaining 60,900 acres are

predominately in private ownership and have been identified in the 1998

report from the North Dakota Natural Heritage Program survey of

tallgrass prairie in Sargent, Ransom, and Richland Counties. Currently,

the Service has protected over 10,400 acres of tallgrass prairie through

grassland easements from willing sellers with two NAWCA grants.

Priority under NAWCA grants is given to native prairie tracts with good

wetland complexes or unique and rare resources. Landowner demand for

grassland easements has been high and a need exists for more funding.

Currently, a Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Project is being developed to secure

additional funds for grassland easements and fee title through Land and

Water Conservation Act. This project includes the tallgrass prairie region

in both North and South Dakota. The Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Project

targets tallgrass prairie remnants that do not have high densities of

associated wetlands.

Objective: Through a combination of voluntary partnerships,

easements, and fee title land acquisition, preserve the remaining

estimated 60,900 acres of existing native prairie tracts within the

tallgrass prairie ecosystem to provide nesting areas for grassland

nesting birds and protection for unique and rare plant and animal

communities.

Strategies:

T Work cooperatively with the ND Heritage Program to identify

remaining tracts of native prairie within the Red River Watershed.

T Work cooperatively with County commissioners to improve their

recommendations to the Governor for State approval of fee title

purchases of grassland habitat from willing sellers.

T Investigate and develop new funding sources (i.e., Dakota Tallgrass

Prairie Project) for fee title and easement purchases. An estimated $5

million for easement offers will be needed to accomplish this objective.

Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, 16USC

668dd, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has the authority to enforce the

provisions of grassland easements (conversion of grassland cover and

haying or mowing before July 15). The following objective was developed

to ensure that grassland easement interests are protected.

Objective: Protect all grassland easement real property interests from

development or conversion in Ransom, Richland, and Sargent

Counties.

Strategies:

T Annually monitor all grassland easement tracts for violations and work

with landowners to correct any violations.

T Work cooperatively with landowners to develop grassland management

plans and guidelines and provide technical assistance for grassland

issues to promote healthier grasslands.

“Within one human lifetime, the prairies

have passed from wilderness to become

the most altered habitat in this country

and one of the most disturbed, ecologically

simplified and over-exploited regions in

the world. The essence of what we risk

losing when the grasslands are destroyed

is not a species here or a species there,

but a quality of life, the largeness and

wildness that made this country

remarkable.”

- Adrian Forsyth, Ecologist
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 95
96 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 97

Introduced/Planted Cover

Dense Nesting Cover

The District has approximately 1,800 acres in dense nesting cover (DNC)

on WPAs. Historically, haying has been the predominate management tool

to maintain the fields. After 10 to 15 years, the fields have been broken up

and farmed for approximately three years, then replanted. The following

objectives have been developed to manage these sites.

Objective: Maintain 30 percent of DNC fields on High Management

Priority WPAs and 10 percent on Moderate Management Priority

WPAs with 7.87 inches (2 decimeters) observation obscurity to provide

optimal nesting habitat for waterfowl.

Strategy:

T Develop a plan for DNC fields in the step-down Monitoring Plan to

annually evaluate DNC fields and then apply management tools

(prescribed burning, haying, grazing, or interseeding) as appropriate.

Planted Cover

There are approximately 1,800 acres of nonnative grass (smooth brome and

Kentucky bluegrass), 82 acres of cropland, and 1,900 acres of warm seeded

native grass (3 to 4 species) on the District. The majority of the cropland is

in the form of food plots maintained by partners under the Adopt-A-WPA

program on the Klefstad, Asche, and Smith WPAs. These fields will be

converted to a more diverse native plant community as opportunity and

funding become available.

Objective: Convert 400 acres of tame grass, cropland, and warm season

native grass plantings on High Management Priority WPAs and 150

acres of Moderate Management Priority WPA fields to a diverse native

floral community to develop larger contiguous blocks for migratory

bird species and other prairie wildlife.

Strategy:

T Develop site specific restoration plans, funding sources, and a

Monitoring Plan. Then begin restoration efforts. Apply management

tools (prescribed burning, mowing, grazing, interseeding, chemical

treatment, etc.,) where appropriate.
98 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Wetlands

Very little data has been collected on WPA wetlands. A variety of

agricultural operations (cultivation, herbicide application, etc.,) take place

on sites that are hydrologically related to WPA wetlands. Without baseline

data, it is difficult to determine if these activities pose any threats to

wetlands. In addition, water management projects and irrigation in the

vicinity of WPAs may be affecting the hydrology of these wetlands.

The following objective was developed to help managers evaluate the

impacts activities outside WPAs have on wetlands.

Objective: Protect the quality and health of all prairie wetlands to

preserve their natural productivity, longevity, and function on WPAs.

Strategies: T Gather baseline information on existing wetland conditions on 10

percent of the High priority WPA wetlands, determine monitoring

parameters, and identify external threats.

T Document and coordinate with the County Weed Board and State to

control nonnative wetland species such as purple loosestrife and reed

canary grass on and off Service lands.

Water Rights

The only water control structure on a Waterfowl Production Area is on the

Gainor WPA in Sargent County. The structure is located adjacent to a legal

drain that runs through the northern section of the WPA. The structure is

used to hold water back in the spring in a large wetland. Currently, no

State recognized water rights exist for Waterfowl Production Areas.

Objective: Clarify the legal mechanism to acquire water rights on the

Gainor WPA.

Protecting Wetlands

It is estimated that approximately 60 percent of the original wetland

acreage has been drained in North Dakota (Tiner 1984). The primary

drainage comes from surface ditches constructed to dry land out for

agricultural production (Tiner 1984). Another threat to wetlands is the

gradual siltation of basins caused by soil erosion from adjacent cropland

and cultivation of entire wetlands (Kantrud et al. 1989). Herbicide and

insecticide use also has the potential to highly impact wetland-dependent

wildlife populations by eliminating food and cover (Hudson et al. 1984; Hill

and Camardese 1986). Despite the impacts to wetlands that are caused by

agricultural production, wetlands in farm fields are important to wetlanddependent wildlife. Given this background, the following objectives were

developed for wetland acquisition. Priority tracts for wetland acquisition

(fee title) will include parcels of at least 80 acres of uplands, tracts adjacent

to WPAs, and sites with a variety of temporary and seasonal wetlands.

Objective: Protect an average of 100 acres/year of wetland habitat

through easements or fee title purchase from willing sellers for

waterfowl and other migratory birds.

Strategies: T Identify high priority tracts in the District using the Thunderstorm

map and other tools.

T Work cooperatively with County commissioners to improve their

recommendations to the Governor for State approval of fee title

purchases of wetland habitat and associated uplands from willing

sellers.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 99

Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, 16USC

668dd, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has the authority to enforce the

provisions of wetland easements (draining, filling, leveling, or burning of

wetlands). This objective discusses the Service’s intention to protect the

real property interest that was acquired when the easement was purchased.

Objective: Protect all wetland easement real property interests from

development, draining or conversion in Ransom, Richland, and Sargent

Counties.

Strategies: T Annually monitor, through aerial and ground checks, all wetland

easements for violations.

T Work cooperatively with landowners to correct drain, fill, and burning

violations.

Protecting Fens

A fen, also called an alkaline bog, is a wetland primarily composed of organic

soil material (peat or muck) that takes thousands of years to develop. Surface

water is sometimes lacking although the bottom soils are saturated by alkaline

groundwater seepage (Stewart and Kantrud 1972). Fens usually have a pH of 4.0 -

7.5 and are dominated by grasses, especially sedges (Crum 1988). Common

plant species found in fens are Carex aquatilis (sedge), northern reedgrass, broadleaved cattail, softstem bulrush, hoary willow, and fowl mannagrass (Stewart and

Kantrud 1972). Fens are extremely rare and occupy less than 1 percent of the

wetlands in the nation and are usually small in size. No fens are identified on

District lands. Since these wetland types are so rare, the following

objective was developed to provide protection for these sites.

Objective: Identify and protect existing fens in the District through

easements, fee title purchases from willing sellers, and cooperative

agreements with private landowners.

Strategies: T Work cooperatively with the ND Heritage Program, other interested

groups or individuals and landowners to identify existing fens in the District.

Riparian Zones

Riparian zones can be described as that portion of the land that is located

adjacent to a stream, river, or body of water. The band of vegetation that

grows in the riparian zone is influenced by the presence of water in the

channel. Three major rivers are in the District: the Red River of the North, Wild

Rice River, and the Sheyenne River. Several smaller creeks and natural drainages

are associated with these Rivers. Riparian vegetation varies along these areas

from tall cottonwood trees to willows and grasses. Most of the riparian zones in

southeast North Dakota are farmed to the river banks, heavily grazed, or annually

hayed. These practices generally degrade water quality and native aquatic

resources including fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, mollusks, and invertebrates.

Since riparian sites are known to be diverse in wildlife species and generally

support higher population densities than surrounding uplands, the following

objective was developed.

Objective: Improve water quality and native aquatic resources within

riparian zones of the Red River of North Watershed within the riparian

areas.

Strategies: T Using existing USDA programs and other partner resources, develop

opportunities under the Partners for Wildlife Program and NAWCA

grants to establish vegetative riparian zones on 5 percent of land along

rivers and tributaries in the Red River Watershed.

T Protect existing vegetation along rivers and tributaries in the Red

River Watershed by working cooperatively with USDA, other

agencies, organizations, and private landowners.
100 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Wildlife

Goal: Preserve, restore, and enhance the diversity and abundance of

migratory birds and other native wildlife with emphasis on waterfowl,

grassland, and wetland-dependent birds.

Waterfowl

In 1985 and 1986, nest searches on five WPAs in the District were conducted.

Three of the WPAs were trapped for predators during 1985 and two were not

trapped. The average nesting success for the two WPAs that were not

trapped was 17 percent (Mayfield). The three WPAs that were trapped had

a nesting success of 33 percent (Mayfield). A nesting success of

approximately 15 to 20 percent is suggested for stable duck populations of

the five most common species of dabbling ducks (Cowardin et al. 1985,

Greenwood 1986, Klett et al. 1988). The WPAs in the District are

predominately surrounded by cropland, like islands of habitat in a sea of

black dirt. In these types of severely altered landscapes, intensive

management (such as predator control) might be the only way to increase

nest success (Clark and Nudds 1991, Nudds and Clark, 1992). Using tools

like the Thunderstorm Map (Map 14), which shows the correlation between

duck pairs/square mile and wetland density, seven Waterfowl Production

Areas that had the highest potential to attract ducks were chosen as areas

to concentrate our most intensive management efforts.

Objective: Maintain an average duck nesting success of at least 30

percent Mayfield on seven WPA complexes in the district (Evanson/

Anderson, Evanson, Nelson/Klefstad, Palensky/Wyum/Kaske, Smith/

Tanner/Buckmiller, Englevale Slough, and Weaver/Coit) for waterfowl

production (Map 15).

Strategies:

T Work cooperatively with Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, local

sportsmen, and private landowners to fund and implement a predator

control program on these WPA complexes.

T If funded, annually monitor duck nesting success using standard nest

dragging techniques for the seven WPA complexes.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 101

Migratory Birds

For more information, see discussion on priority management areas for

grassland migratory birds and butterflies in Refuge Habitat Grassland

Section.

Objective: Monitor relative abundance and breeding status of four

tallgrass prairie indicator bird species on the three WPAs as identified

for grassland bird management and to provide feedback and information to

the tallgrass prairie habitat management approach.

Strategy: T Develop a step-down Monitoring Plan to address changes over time in

relative abundance on a local scale and documentation of breeding of

the four indicator species (northern harrier, upland sandpiper,

bobolink, and grasshopper sparrow) on the three WPAs (Map 15).

Migratory Bird Disease Outbreaks

The first large disease outbreak in the Tewaukon District occurred in April

1990 near the town of Sheldon in Ransom County. Approximately 970 birds

were collected from a large privately-owned wetland (160 acres in size) and

from wetlands within a five mile radius. The majority of dead birds were

snow geese. About six ducks and one Canada goose were also collected.

The National Wildlife Health Center was never able to determine the

cause of death although necrotic enteritis was suspected. Another large

die-off of snow geese occurred in November 1990 on Kraft Slough in

Sargent County. A total of 421 snow geese and one mallard were collected.

In this incidence, the National Wildlife Health Center confirmed necrotic

enteritis as the cause of the die-off.

In the fall of 1998, another disease outbreak occurred on the District. This

outbreak occurred in some large wetlands in western Richland County and

the Kraft Slough area in western Sargent County. Several sites were

monitored, and birds were collected from each of the areas and sent to the

National Wildlife Health Center. The total number of dead birds for all the

sites was 3,873. A wide variety of birds were affected including American

coots (1,450) and ducks, both divers and dabblers (1,530). The remaining

number included shorebirds, grebes, gulls, egrets, cormorants, blackbirds,

and rails. Botulism was determined by the National Wildlife Health Center

to be the cause of death. Another botulism die-off occurred on the same

wetlands in 1999. Coots and ducks were the predominate species found.

Environmental conditions, dropping water levels, exposed mud flats, and

hot temperatures provided favorable conditions for botulism.

Procedures for attempting to contain migratory bird disease outbreaks are

similar for most of the diseases encountered on the District. These

procedures include monitoring wetlands for dead or dying birds, immediate

collection of dead birds, submitting specimens to the National Wildlife

Health Center, and safe and proper disposal of the remaining carcasses.

Promptly removing dead and dying birds from the disease outbreak area

decreases the exposure that other birds and animals have to the carcasses.

Objective: Respond to and contain migratory bird disease outbreaks by

applying safe and proper procedures as recommended by National

Wildlife Health Center protocol.

Strategies: T Submit carcasses to the National Wildlife Health Center for evaluation

and determination of cause of death.

T Properly follow disease mitigation procedures to limit impacts to

migratory bird populations.
102 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Native Resident Wildlife

Mammals

Little is known about the native mammals on Waterfowl Production Areas.

White-tailed deer use many of the WPAs in the District. Some of the other

mammals include beaver, muskrat, mink, woodchuck, Franklin’s ground

squirrel, thirteen-lined ground squirrel, cottontail rabbit, white-tailed

jackrabbit, badger, raccoon, and striped skunk. Not much is known about

the variety of weasels, bats, shrews, mice, voles, and pocket gophers on

District lands. No baseline surveys have been conducted for small

mammals. The following objective was developed to collect baseline data

that will enable managers to better manage and assess threats to wildlife

resources.

Objective: Develop a Monitoring Plan to gather baseline data on small

mammals on the following high priority WPAs: Hartleben WPA

Complex; Gunness WPA; Biggs/Berndt WPA; Weaver/Coit; and

Sargent County Krause WPA (Map 15).

Reptiles and Amphibians

Reports of reptile and amphibian species in the District include work by

Hoberg and Gause (1992). Four species of toads (great plains, American,

Canadian, and Woodhouse’s) and three species of frogs (northern leopard,

wood frog, and western chorus) have been documented in the District

(Hoberg and Gause 1992). Hoberg and Gause (1992) reported specimens of

the tiger salamander, mudpuppy (Ransom County), northern prairie skink,

western painted turtle, common snapping turtle, plains garter snake, and

western hognose snake. Red-bellied snakes have been observed by the

Tewaukon staff on the Hartleben WPA.

Objective: Develop a Monitoring Plan to gather baseline data on

amphibians and reptiles on the following high priority WPAs:

Hartleben WPA Complex; Gunness WPA; Biggs/Berndt WPA; Weaver/

Coit; and Sargent County Krause WPA (Map 15).

Upland Game Birds

One of the resident (nonmigratory) native birds on the District is the

sharp-tailed grouse. Prior to 1900, this species was common throughout the

State (Coues 1878, Johnson 1964, Judd 1892). Currently, sharp-tailed

grouse are found predominately in the mixed-grass prairie that is relatively

undisturbed by excessive grazing or farming (Stewart 1975). Sharp-tailed

grouse group in the spring on communal dancing grounds called leks. No

leks are currently known to occur on Fish and Wildlife Service lands.

Occasionally birds have been observed on the Ransom County Waterfowl

Production Areas. No prairie chickens are known to occur on District

lands. See Refuge Resident Native Wildlife Section for discussion on

prairie chickens.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 103

Nonnative Wildlife

For further information on the Service’s policy on nonnative wildlife, see

the Refuge Wildlife Nonnative Section.

Objective: Restrict the spread of existing and additional nonnative

animal species (carp, house sparrows, and feral dogs and cats).

Strategies:

T Gather existing information and promote additional research on

management techniques and affects of exotic species on native flora

and fauna.

T Apply, when appropriate, management tools (including lethal and

nonlethal methods and habitat manipulation) that eliminate or reduce

the expansion of exotic animal species.

Objective: Refrain from carrying out management activities that

specifically encourage population expansion of existing introductions

(pheasants, gray partridge) to the detriment of native species. For

more discussion see Refuge Wildlife Nonnative Section.
104 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Endangered Species

Goal: Contribute to the preservation and restoration of endangered,

threatened, rare, and unique flora and fauna that occur or have historically

occurred in the District.

With the delisting of the peregrine falcon from the Federal Endangered

Species List, only the federally threatened bald eagle and western prairie

fringed orchid are known to occur or have been observed on the Tewaukon

WMD. Bald eagles are regularly sighted during the spring and fall

migration periods. Two endangered species, whooping cranes and gray

wolves, historically occurred in the District. Occasionally, these species are

sighted in the District today. The planning team did not develop

management objectives for bald eagles since they are only migratory

visitors to the District.

Whooping Cranes

Whooping cranes historically nested in North Dakota. Records of

whooping crane nests and young birds indicate that breeding birds once

occurred locally on the southern Drift Plains, but were more common in

the central and northeastern region (Stewart 1975). Whooping cranes more

than likely migrated through the District. In June 1999, four whooping

cranes were sighted in the Havana area by Refuge staff (visual observation

documented by Siekaniec 1999). The planning team did not develop

management objectives for whooping cranes since they are only rare

migratory visitors to the District.

Gray Wolves

Historically, gray wolves were found throughout North Dakota and were

known as plains wolves or buffalo wolves (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 1995).

Gray wolves were extirpated from North Dakota through shooting, trapping,

and poisoning but occasional sightings have been reported in 1985, 1990, and

1991. The planning team did not develop management objectives for gray

wolves as they have not been regularly documented on the District.

“Extinction of species, the silent crisis of

our time, diminishes our world...and a

commitment to the preservation of

species diversity is fundamental to an

optimistic view of the future of our own

species.”

- Harrison B. Tordoff, 1988, Minnesota’s

Endangered Flora and Fauna
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 105

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid

The western prairie fringed orchid is a perennial plant of the North American

tallgrass prairie and is found in native, calcareous prairies and sedge meadows.

The western prairie fringed orchid was listed as a threatened species under the

Endangered Species Act in 1989. Approximately 90 percent of known

western prairie fringed orchids in the United States occur in the Red River

Valley of North Dakota and Minnesota. Currently, the largest population

exists on the Sheyenne National Grasslands in Ransom and Richland

Counties. The remaining plants are found on adjacent private land. Some

of these areas are protected by Service grassland easements. No known

populations of western prairie fringed orchids exist on Waterfowl

Production Areas. The primary cause of the orchid’s decline was

conversion of prairie to cropland. Hydrologic changes that drawdown or

contaminate the water table may also adversely affect the species (Fish

and Wildlife Service Recovery Plan 1996). The Federal status of this plant

requires the Service to develop strategies for recovery. The following

objectives were developed because prairie fringed orchids are a federally

listed threatened species. Current funding is available in two NAWCA

grants to protect orchid habitat and the largest populations of these plants

are found in Tewaukon District counties.

Objective: Work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological

Services Division, Forest Service, and private landowners with existing

populations of western prairie fringed orchids to protect and enhance

orchid habitat.

Strategies:

T Work with the ND Heritage Program to identify existing and historical

populations of orchids on private land.

T Work cooperatively with private landowners to develop grazing

systems and conservation plans to maintain self-sustaining orchid

populations on private land.

T Work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species

Division to implement actions needed in the orchid recovery plan.

T Protect 300 acres of orchid habitat through grassland easements or fee

title purchase from willing sellers.

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid, Cindie Brunner
106 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Service Species of Concern

Species that appeared on the Fish and Wildlife Service Species of Concern

List (1995) and occur or have historical records in the Tewaukon District

include:

Birds: Black tern

Ferruginous Hawk

Loggerhead shrike

Insects: Dakota skipper

Regal fritillary butterfly

Fish: Greater redhorse

Western silvery minnow ** (Red River - 1930)

Mollusks: Elktoe

Plants: Handsome sedge

** Species with historic records only.

Rare Birds

Black terns are associated with semipermanent and permanent wetlands

with emergent stands of vegetation. Black tern young and nests have been

observed throughout the District (Tewaukon staff notes). Ferruginous

hawks appear to have been distributed throughout North Dakota but may

no longer exist except as an occasional migrant in eastern section of North

Dakota (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 1995). Loggerhead shrikes have been seen

occasionally throughout the District, but no nests or territorial males have

been recorded (Tewaukon staff notes). Stewart (1975) reports sightings of

pairs and territorial males in all three Counties and a nesting record from

1950 to 1972 in the western edge of Richland County. Specific management

objectives were not developed for black terns since District wetland habitat

objectives would provide and protect habitat that would meet their needs.

Rare Prairie Butterflies

Of particular interest are three rare prairie butterflies: the Dakota skipper,

powesheik skipper, and the regal fritillary because they are only found on

native prairie sites that have diverse plant communities. Dakota skipper

habitat consists of mesic tallgrass to mid-grass native prairie. Larval foods

include little bluestem and needle-and-thread grasses. Nectar plants

include yellow and purple coneflower, white prairie clover, black-eyed

susans, and white camus (Royer 1997). Powesheik skippers require

undisturbed wet to mesic prairie habitat composed of sedges for larval food

and available nectar sources that include yellow coneflower and black-eyed

susans (Royer and Marrone 1992). The principal habitat requirements for

the regal fritillary are large extensive native tallgrass prairie tracts with

native violets and nectar supplies including long-headed coneflower, blackeyed susans, fleabanes, and blazingstars (Royer and Marrone 1992).

Two butterfly inventory surveys were conducted by Tim Orwig in 1995 and

1996 on a number of District prairie and wetland sites. In 1995, the Krause

WPA and Hartleben WPA were surveyed, and in 1996, the Hartleben

WPA, Aaser WPA, Krause WPA, Gunness WPA, and McGill WPA were

surveyed. Powesheik skippers and regal fritillary butterflies were found on

the Hartleben WPA, Krause WPA (Tewaukon staff sightings), and Aaser

WPA. Powesheik skippers were observed on the Gunness WPA, a broadwinged skipper was spotted on the Aaser WPA, and one Dakota skipper

was seen both in 1995 and 1996 on the Hartleben WPA. Presence of these

rare butterflies on these isolated prairies requires specific management

techniques designed to maintain their populations. Swengel (1996)

suggested dividing prairie sites into smaller management units (one third

of tract size) has been described as a preferred management technique in

order to limit the impacts of a particular management activity like fire or

haying affecting on the entire tract. Swengel (1996) found haying to be the

favored management strategy to maintain skipper habitat and

recommended large uniform management treatments be avoided.

Monarch Butterfly, Cindie Brunner
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 107

The following objectives were developed to ensure the survival of native

prairie butterfly populations.

Objective: Maintain populations of rare prairie butterflies including

powesheik skipper, Dakota skipper, and regal fritillary on native

prairie sites on the Hartleben, Aaser, and Gunness WPAs.

Strategies:

T Develop a Monitoring Plan to gather data on species occurrence,

relative abundance, and locations of rare butterflies.

T Schedule management activities (prescribed fire, haying) on prairie

sites with populations of prairie butterflies on small tracts. Avoid

treating entire sites with the same tool in the same or following year.

Objective: Develop a Monitoring Plan to gather information on

species composition and relative abundance on other known rare

butterfly populations within the District on suitable sites every three

years.

Objective: Evaluate reintroduction of the three rare butterflies on

suitable native prairie sites.

Greater Redhorse

The greater redhorse is in the sucker family and prefers large streams

with clear water and bottoms composed of clean sand or gravel. The

greater redhorse has been found in the Red River of the North and lower

Sheyenne Rivers; however, no recent observations have been made. The

greatest threats to the redhorse are changes to its river habitat including,

dams, channelization, pollution, destruction of riparian areas, and

increased water speed and turbidity due to increased drainage into the

river (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). The planning team did not

develop specific management objectives for greater redhorse as they are

not known to occur on District Service lands.

Elktoe Mussel

The elktoe mussel is found in water of a specific depth and flow that provides

a certain mix of river bottom components found in the riffle sections of

streams (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 1995). The elktoe mussel is also listed on

the American Fishery Society Endangered Species list as a species of

“special concern.” Specimens have been collected recently in the Red River

of the North (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). The planning team did

not develop specific management objectives for elktoe mussels as they are

not known to occur on District Service lands.

Handsome Sedge

Only three records exist for the handsome sedge in North Dakota, and

they occur in Richland County in about one mile of river valley (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 1995). The planning team did not develop specific

management objectives for handsome sedge as they are not known to occur

on District Service lands.
108 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Rare and Unique Species (North Dakota State Listed)

Animals

Northern (Greater ) Prairie Chicken - State Threatened

Mountain Plover - State Extirpated

Pugnose shiner - State Endangered

Greater redhorse - State Threatened

Prairie skink - State Threatened

Plants

See Appendix C

Prairie Chicken

There has been a lot of debate over greater prairie chickens which were

not thought to occur in North Dakota prior to the late 1870’s (Stewart

1975). By 1884 prairie chickens were as common as sharp-tailed grouse and

spread rapidly throughout the State (Stewart 1975). Downward population

trends started in the early 1940’s until by 1972 fewer than 400 birds existed

in North Dakota (Johnson et al.1997). Several records indicated historical

breeding on District lands (Tewaukon file records). In 1993, 50 prairie

chickens were released on the Englevale Slough WPA Complex by the ND

Game and Fish Department. In recent years, no prairie chickens have been

found on the Englevale Slough WPA. The planning team did not develop

specific management objectives for prairie chickens as they are not known

to occur on District Service lands.

Mountain Plover

A record on July 29, 1921, (Lincoln 1925) reports a mountain plover in the

vicinity of Carter’s Slough near Hankinson in Richland County. This is the

only known record for this bird in the District. The planning team did not

develop management objectives for mountain plovers they are not known

to occur on District Service lands.

Prairie Skink

Prairie skinks were observed on the Hartleben WPA in 1997 and 1998.

Prairie skinks are active during the summer and are found in sandy areas

and grassland in eastern North Dakota. Specific management objectives

were not developed for prairie skinks since District prairie habitat

objectives would provide necessary habitat.

Rare Species Objectives

The following objectives were developed to direct the conservation of rare

species utilizing protection and management techniques. Objectives also

identify opportunities to conserve these species if any are found on

Complex lands in the future. Consideration for other District management

objectives that overlap with other agency and organization conservation

goals and objectives would be taken into account.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 109

Small White Lady’s Slipper

The small white lady’s slipper is a perennial plant in the orchid family. It is

found in wet to mesic, calcareous, tallgrass prairies, sedge meadows, and

fens. This plant needs full sun exposure or only light shade (Bowles 1983,

Case 1987). It is ranked on the North Dakota Natural Heritage State List

as “imperiled in the State.” One of the largest population of white lady’s

slippers in North Dakota exists on the Hartleben WPA and averages

approximately 200 plants. This site has historically been in an annual late

haying regime. Haying and prescribed fire (early spring or late fall) are

currently being applied on the site to maintain populations of lady’s

slippers.

Objective: Maintain and monitor an average population of 200-300

small white lady’s slippers on the Hartleben WPA.

Strategies:

T Develop a Monitoring Plan to measure species relative abundance and

evaluate habitat management techniques including haying and

prescribed burning.

Objective: Determine habitat suitability for North Dakota State listed

rare and unique wildlife and plant species on WPAs within the district.

Strategies:

T Work cooperatively with ND Game and Fish Department, ND

Heritage Program, and Nature Conservancy to initiate a baseline

survey on suitable sites to determine presence or absence of these

species on WPAs.

Objective: Protect North Dakota State listed wildlife and plant species

habitat to maintain North Dakotas native biodiversity.

Strategies:

T Work cooperatively with Federal, State, local government agencies,

nongovernmental agencies, and private landowners to identify,

document, and protect critical habitat for State listed wildlife and

plants through easements, fee title purchase from willing sellers, and

cooperative agreements.

White Lady’s Slipper, Cindie Brunner
110 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Public Use and Recreation

WPA tracts are open to hunting, fishing, and trapping according to Title 50

CFR. At this time, stocked fisheries are not developed on WPAs. The

following objectives were designed to provide information to the public and

some background about the wildlife and habitat resources found there.

Goal: Provide the public with quality opportunities to learn about and

enjoy tallgrass prairie wetland ecosystems, the fish and wildlife, and

history of the District in a safe and compatible manner.

Hunting and Trapping

Objective: Provide public opportunity for hunting and trapping

according to State and Federal Regulations on all Waterfowl

Production Areas.

Strategies:

T Work cooperatively with the ND Game and Fish Department to

conduct law enforcement patrols on the District to ensure compliance

and provide a quality experience for all visitors.

Interpretation/Environmental Education

Very little interpretation currently exists on Waterfowl Production Areas

due to the long distances that are required to maintain sites and limited

funding. All environmental education efforts for the Complex are

conducted through the Refuge.

The General Federation of Women’s Cultura Club of Hankinson has

partnered with the Fish and Wildlife Service to develop an interpretive

walking trail on the tallgrass prairie on the Hartleben WPA.

Objective: Through signs, pamphlets, and programs provide

interpretation of the region’s natural, cultural, and historical

resources and District management and activities to promote public

awareness and advocacy.

Strategies:

T Develop a District public use pamphlet and map.

T Maintain the prairie walking trail on the Hankinson WPA native

prairie site to provide information and educational interpretation of tall

grass prairie ecosystem.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 111

Cultural Resources

No thorough cultural resource surveys have been conducted on the District.

A few WPAs had cultural evaluations (Class I and II) conducted where

rights-of-way or construction was proposed. Several historic trails are near

or cross Waterfowl Production Areas. These trails include the Fort

Ransom-Fort Wadsworth Trail which narrowly misses the Klefstad WPA

and crosses the Lundstad WPA in Sargent County. The 1863 General

Sibley Expedition may have crossed the J. Palensky WPA and the Metzen

WPA where some native prairie remains. Colonel McPhail’s return route in

1862 is believed to have crossed or come close to the Arneson, Blikre,

Chose, Skonseng, Strander, Peterson, Holt, Grindstead, Weaver, and Dick

WPA’s in Ransom County. His party also traveled close to the Bauer WPA

in Sargent County. The Twin Lakes Stockade, an overnight camp on the

Fort Abercrombie-Fort Wadsworth Trail, is located one-half mile south of

the Bladow WPA in Richland County (Refuge Manager Troester memo to

Regional Director, January 31, 1972). An expedition to determine the

suitability for a railroad occurred in 1853 to 1855 crossing Richland and

Ransom Counties was documented by Issac Stephens. Two objectives were

developed to improve baseline cultural resource data which will yield

better information for refuge managers.

Objective: Conduct cultural resource inventories on construction and

development sites as necessary.

Strategies: T Work cooperatively with the Service archaeologist and SHPO (State

Historic Preservation Officer) prior to all proposed actions.

Objective: Preserve and protect existing cultural resources and future

discoveries of archaeological sites associated with Refuge lands.

Strategies: T Annually conduct cultural resource surveys (Class II) on 10 percent of

WPAs not previously surveyed.

T Coordinate and develop an agreement with the Sisseton-Wahpeton

Sioux tribe on any discovery of human remains.

Partners

Goal: Promote partnerships to preserve, restore, and enhance a diverse, healthy,

and productive tallgrass prairie ecosystem in which the District plays a role.

Objectives: Create opportunities for new and maintain existing partnerships

among Federal, State and local agencies, organizations, schools,

corporations, and communities to promote the understanding and

conservation of ecosystem and Refuge resources, activities, and

management.

Strategies: T Maintain coordination with the ND Game and Fish Department to

conserve, protect, and manage lands for wildlife.

T Continue to work with the Red River Area Sportsmen Club and the

Sargent County Pheasants Forever on the Adopt-A-WPA program and

look for other opportunities to improve the program.

T Implement and support the goals and complete the work detailed in

the Drift Prairie Wetland Enhancement Project I and II funded under

the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and the Dakota

Tallgrass Prairie Project when funded.

T Preserve, restore, and enhance wetland, riparian, and grassland

habitat on private lands.

T Work with other organizations to improve duck nesting success in the

district on private lands especially in areas of high waterfowl recruitment

(Zones of Opportunity). Organizations include ND Game and Fish

Department, Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, and Natural Resource

Conservation Service.
112 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Tewaukon Easement Refuges

Purpose

The purpose for the Tewaukon Easement Refuges is determined by

legislation that authorized acquisition although the easement interest in

these lands was acquired primarily to benefit migratory birds. P Easement Refuges were established by Executive Order 6910 on

November 26, 1934 which provided for acquisition of easements for

flowage, refuge purposes (no hunting), and filing of water rights.

Habitat Management

Originally, five easement refuges existed in the Tewaukon District. These

included: Tewaukon, Clouds Lake, Lake Elsie, Storm Lake, and Wild Rice

Easement Refuges. When the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge was

established, only three easement refuges remained, including Lake Elsie,

Storm Lake, and Wild Rice. Two tracts of land on the south side of the

Tewaukon Unit are easement refuges, and several flowage easements are

on the west side of the Tewaukon Unit along the Wild Rice River. The

landowners in these locations probably elected not to complete a fee title

transaction at the time these transactions were completed on other portions

of the Refuge. Over time, the structures that impounded water on Wild

Rice and Storm Lake Easement Refuges deteriorated and were not

repaired. Waterfowl use decreased with an increase in housing development,

gravel pit development, and recreational boating on Lake Elsie. The Wild

Rice Easement Refuge is no longer providing waterfowl values due to a

lack of permanent water with the loss of the water control structure. Storm

Lake is still important, especially for diving ducks and western and piedbilled grebes. It is located adjacent to the town of Milnor, and a golf course

was developed on the north side in 1974 which included impacts to 1.7 acres

of fee title property. An agreement between the Service and the Milnor golf

course and City of Milnor has been implemented to minimize these fee title

impacts.

In 1998, the Service divested Lake Elsie Easement Refuge after 53 years

of human activity altered the privately owned uplands to the point where

they provide little value for wildlife. It is the station’s desire to eventually

divest the Wild Rice Easement Refuge as well. Storm Lake is still

beneficial to wildlife and should remain a part of the Refuge System. The

easement refuge deed does not regulate any uses of the upland areas and

makes it difficult to manage for wildlife purposes.

Objective: Protect all easement refuge property interests from

hunting, draining, or conversion in Sargent County.

Strategies: T Annually monitor two refuge easements for conflicts. T Work cooperatively with landowners to resolve conflicts.

Objective: Divest the Wild Rice Easement Refuge as it no longer

serves its original purpose.

Water rights for Wild Rice, Lake Elsie, and Storm Lake Easement Refuges were

established in 1934 pursuant to Section 8270 (repealed 1943) of the Compiled Laws

of North Dakota for the year 1913. The State Engineer’s Office has raised

questions about the validity of the water rights for the Wild Rice and Storm Lake

Easement Refuges. The Service affirmatively relinquished the water rights for

Lake Elsie in February 1999 after Congress terminated Refuge status.

Objective: Maintain existing water rights on Storm Lake Easement

Refuge. T Strategy: Replace/repair deteriorated structure at Storm Lake.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 113

Kraft Slough

The initial stage of the Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU) project was

authorized on August 5, 1965. As part of that authorization, Kraft Slough

was to be developed as Taayer Reservoir. The Reservoir was designed to

regulate irrigation flows in the lower James River Valley of the Missouri

River basin and the Wild Rice River Valley of the Red River of the North.

Taayer Reservoir and its associated wildlife area consisted of 8,385 acres.

It included Kraft Slough, Pickell Slough, Lake Taayer, an unnamed

wetland, and associated uplands in the area. This Plan was described in the

Bureau of Reclamation’s (Reclamation) Environmental Impact Statement,

Initial Stage GDU, INT FES 74-3, January 10, 1974.

The GDU Reformulation Act of 1986 (Reformulation Act) was signed by

the President on May 12, 1986. The Reformulation Act modified the 1965

GDU project authorization in several ways which would affect the

disposition of Kraft Slough. Taayer Reservoir was de-authorized. The

establishment of a refuge at Kraft Slough was authorized.

The Reformulation Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to “... acquire

up to 5,000 acres in the Kraft and Pickell Slough areas and to manage the

area as a component of the National Wildlife Refuge System giving

consideration to the unique wildlife values of the area. In acquiring the

lands which comprise the Kraft and Pickell Slough complex, the Secretary

is authorized to acquire wetlands in the immediate vicinity which may be

hydrologically related and nearby uplands as may be necessary to provide

for proper management of the complex. The Secretary is also authorized to

provide for appropriate visitor access and control at the refuge.”

Reclamation has been acquiring lands to develop the Refuge and upon

development, will transfer the administration of the Refuge to the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. The unit at this time consists of 1,695 acres

purchased from willing sellers.

Due to concerns expressed by adjacent landowners and the public, the

Service has conducted an evaluation of maintaining the hunting

opportunities as they now exist when the area becomes a national wildlife

refuge. The evaluation showed that the use would be compatible and could

continue. Other than providing technical assistance, the Complex staff is

not involved in the acquisition or management of the unit at this time.

These responsibilities are currently the Bureau of Reclamation’s until such

time that acquisition is complete and the unit is transferred to the Service.
114 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Implementation and Monitoring

Personnel

Current staffing at the Refuge consists of eight permanent and eight

seasonal employees. One of the positions, Tallgrass Prairie Biologist, is

shared with South Dakota. A recent national evaluation of complexity and

minimum staffing requirements of the Complex indicated that an

additional 10 permanent staff is suggested. Additional seasonal staff will be

required to implement the strategies in the CCP and effectively monitor

the flora and fauna, to determine if the goals and objectives in the Plan are

met.

At this time, the Refuge has an annual base budget of $374,000 to maintain

salaries for eight full-time permanent personnel and annual operating

expenses for the Refuge and Wetland Management District. The current

budget represents the minimum needed to maintain current annual

activities and does not adequately support Complex habitat management,

biological monitoring, maintenance, public use, and educational programs

and all Complex facilities and structures.

The following chart shows the current staff and the proposed additional

staff required to fully implement the CCP. If all positions are funded, the

Refuge Complex staff will be able to carry out all aspects of this Plan. This

would provide maximum benefits to wildlife, maximum efficiency, improve

facilities and provide for increased public use. Projects that have adequate

funding and staffing will receive priority to accomplish. Staffing and

funding are requested for the 15-year period of the Plan.

*shared with other stations in North and South Dakota.

C d urrent Propose

Complex Project Leader, GS-13 Complex Project Leader, GS-13

Supervisory Refuge Operations Specialist, GS-11 Supervisory Refuge Operations Specialist, GS-12

Refuge Operations Specialist, GS-9/11

C 1 omplex Biologist, GS-9 Complex Biologist, GS-1

Biologist, GS-9

Biological Technician, GS-7

Seasonal Biological Technicians, GS-4 to GS-6 (2) Seasonal Biological Technicians, GS-4 to GS-7 (3)

Private Lands Biologist, GS-9

T * allgrass Biologist, GS-11* Tallgrass Biologist, GS-12

Law Enforcement Officer, GS-11*

Outdoor Recreation Planner. GS-11

Seasonal Public Use Staff, GS-7/9 (2)

Fire Management Officer, GS-9*

Career Seasonal Range Technician, GS-6* Career Seasonal Range Technician ,GS-7*

Seasonal Range Technicians, GS-3 to GS-6 (5)* Seasonal Range Technicians, GS-3 to GS-6 (6)*

A 8 dministrative Assistant, GS-6/7 Administrative Assistant, GSAdministrative Assistant, GS-6/7

E 0 quipment Operator, WG-10 Equipment Operator, WG-1

M 8 aintenance Worker, WG-8 Maintenance Worker, WGCareer Seasonal Maintenance Workers, WG-8

Career Seasonal Tractor Operator, WG-7
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 115

Funding Needed to Implement This Plan

Projects required to implement the Tewaukon CCP are listed in Appendix

J. This Appendix shows the funding needed to implement the CCP through

two different systems. The first system is the Refuge Operation Needs

System (RONS). This documents requests to Congress for funding and

staffing needed to carry out projects above the existing base budget.

Amounts shown below include a start-up cost of implementing each

program with actual yearly costs that are significantly less. The other

system is the Maintenance Management System (MMS) which documents

the equipment, buildings, and other existing property that require repair

or replacement.

Twelve of the current RONS projects directly support the implementation

of the CCP. A synopsis of the projects in priority order follow.

Other funding needs include the maintenance or replacement of existing

equipment and facilities. In the past, the Complex has had a large backlog of

these funding needs. However, in recent years, much has been accomplished

in funding these backlogs. Below is a list of remaining needs required to

implement the CCP and maintain the structures and equipment to safe

standards for the 15 years of the Plan.

Vehicles $1,339,250

Equipment $ 561,585

Public Use Facilities $ 300,000

Buildings and Facilities $ 50,000

Water Control Structures and dikes $ 900,000

Roads, gates and fences $ 73,500

$3,224,335

A list of the top ten items is located in the Maintenance Management

System list in Appendix J.

RONS Projects

Construction

Funding

General

Funding

1. Upland Restoration for grassland nesting birds $ 209,000

2. Biological info. collection and monitoring to support

management of wildlife and habitat

$ 254,000

3. Noxious plant control to improve habitat for wildlife $ 148,000

4. Tallgrass restoration for declining grassland nesting

birds

$ 325,000

5. Protection of resources including wetlands,

grasslands, and safety of public

$ 270,000

6. Assistance to private landowners to improve wildlife

habitat

$ 185,000

7 0 . Improvement of staff facilities and support $ 0 1,000,00 $ 155,00

8. Improvement of Public Education and Recreation

Facilities and staff

$ 0 1,500,000 $ 383,00

9. Fire management program to improve wildlife habitat

and protection of wildfires

$ 242,000

10. Protection, documentation, and interpretation of

existing cultural resources

$ 77,000

11. Protection and clarifying of water rights on

Complex to support water bird needs

$ 467,000

12. Predator control to improve grassland bird nesting

success on the Complex

$ 382,000

T 0 OTALS $ 0 2,500,00 $3,067,00
116 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Step-Down Management Plans

Service managers have traditionally used the Refuge Manual to guide field

station management actions. The policy direction given through the Manual

has provided direction for developing a wide variety of plans which are used

to prepare annual work schedules, budgets, public use, safety, and land

management actions. The CCP is intended as a broad umbrella plan which

provides general concepts and specific wildlife, habitat, endangered

species, public use, and partnership objectives. The purpose of step-down

management plans is to provide greater detail to managers and employees

who will implement the strategies described in the CCP.

Under the CCP, the Complex staff will revise or develop several step-down

plans for the Refuge and District. Complex step-down plans to be revised

include:

Public Use Plan Water Management Plan

Cropland Management Plan Upland Management Plan

Fisheries Management Plan Fire Management Plan

Staff will also develop Habitat and Wildlife Monitoring Plans.

Partners

Partnerships require extensive staff time to coordinate, develop, and

maintain. Long-term commitments including funding and staff time are

needed to maintain a strong and lasting relationship with partners.

Without appropriate staffing, we run the risk of losing our current

partners and not developing new partners. Several of the objectives in the

CCP depend on partner support and funding. Many of our wildlife, habitat,

and public use programs would not continue without the additional funding

and support from partners. Without partners, many of the habitat

protection, restoration, and enhancement projects would go unfunded.

Over time, the diversity of wildlife species will begin to decline as the

habitat degrades. Partners are essential in fully implementing the CCP for

the Tewaukon Complex.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 117

Monitoring and Evaluation

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term management of

natural resources that is directed over time by the results of ongoing

monitoring activities and other information. Habitat, wildlife, and public

use management techniques and specific objectives will be regularly

evaluated as results of the monitoring program and other new technology

and information become available. These periodic evaluations will be used

over time to adapt both the management objectives and techniques to

better achieve management goals.

Monitoring is an essential component of the CCP. Monitoring strategies

have been integrated into many of the goals and objectives. Specific details

including monitoring strategies, methods, techniques, and locations will be

outlined in a step-down Complex Monitoring Plan. In this CCP, habitat

monitoring receives the primary emphasis. Many of the wildlife species on

the Complex are migratory birds. Migratory birds are impacted by a

variety of factors (drought, disease, pollution, habitat destruction, etc.,) on

their wintering and nesting grounds and all along their migration

pathways. Determining whether or not a habitat manipulation on a Refuge

field or wetland is wholly responsible for a Refuge migratory bird

population change is difficult. Managers can strive to gather current

information about the critical habitat needs for targeted species and then

design Habitat Management Plans and strategies to met these needs. The

habitat can then be monitored to determine if the management strategies

are providing the critical habitat needs of a wildlife species. For example, if

one of the critical habitat needs for bobolinks is vegetative structure at a

specific density, managers can manipulate vegetation to achieve this

structure and density. Whether or not bobolink use increases on the

manipulated field, when the vegetation structure and density meet the

conditions that bobolinks prefer, may or may not be directly tied to the

manipulation. Monitoring bobolink populations in the manipulated field

over a long period of time can provide some general local population trend

information and document bird use. Managers must then carefully evaluate

the bird use data to try and determine if a direct correlation exists to the

habitat manipulation.

All habitat management activities will be monitored to assess whether the

desired effect on wildlife and habitat components has been achieved.

Baseline surveys will be conducted for wildlife species for which existing or

historical numbers and occurrence is not well known. It is also important to

conduct studies to monitor wildlife responses to increased public use

including fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and environmental

education.

Monitoring should be designed and developed with Universities and/or

Government research divisions when stringent protocols or complex data

analysis is needed. Applied research can help to answer habitat, wildlife,

and public use management questions. Complex staff will work with

researchers to ensure that the research is applicable and compatible with

Complex objectives.

This CCP is designed to be effective for a 15-year period. Periodic review

of the CCP will be required to ensure that established goals and objectives

are being met and strategies are being implemented. Ongoing monitoring

and evaluation will be an important part of this process.

Key monitoring needs are identified throughout the CCP. A step-down

Complex Monitoring Plan will incorporate and describe how, when, and

who will conduct the monitoring.
118 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Plan Amendment and Revision

The CCP will guide management on the Complex for the next 15 years.

CCPs are ultimately signed by the Regional Director, Mountain Prairie

Region 6, thus providing regional direction to the station project leader. A

copy of the CCP will be provided to all those who are interested. The

project leader at the station will review the CCP every five years to

determine if it needs revision. In the case of severe circumstances, the

project leader has the authority to modify management actions to respond

appropriately. The Plan will be revised no later than 2015.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Preparers

The planning team was comprised of:

Allison Banks, Planning Branch, Division of Realty

Sandra Siekaniec, Project Leader

Jack Lalor, Refuge Operations Specialist

Kristine Askerooth, Biologist

Brian Kietzman, Wildlife Resource Management Biologist, ND Game

and Fish Department

The CCP and accompanying EA were written by Sandra Siekaniec,

Kristine Askerooth, and Jack Lalor. Both documents were reviewed by

Tewaukon Complex staff, Regional Office staff, Biological Resources

Division, and other Service offices.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 119

Appendix A. Tewaukon NWR

Complex Species Lists

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex Bird List

(Species known to nest on the Complex are marked with an *)

Loons

Common Loon Gavia immer

Grebes

Pied-billed Grebe* Podilymbus podiceps

Horned Grebe 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

Bitterns, Herons, and Egrets

American Bittern* Botaurus lentiginosus

Least Bittern* Ixobrychus exilis

Great Blue Heron* Ardea herodias

Great Egret* Anlea Alba

Snowy Egret Egretta thula

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis

Green Heron* Butorides virescens

Black-crowned Night Heron* Nycticorax nycticorax

New World Vultures

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura

Swans, Geese, and Ducks

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens

Canada Goose* Branta canadensis

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus

Wood Duck* Aix sponsa

Gadwall* Anas strepera

American Wigeon* Anas americana

American Black Duck Anas rubripes

Mallard* Anas platyrhyncos

Blue-winged Teal* Anas discors

Northern Shoveler* Anas clypeata

Northern Pintail* Anas acuta

Green-winged Teal* Anas crecca

Canvasback* Aythya valisineria

Redhead* Aythya americana

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris

Lesser Scaup* Aythya affinis

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes curcullatus

Common Merganser Mergus merganser

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator

Ruddy Duck* Oxyura jamaicensis
120 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Osprey, Kites, Hawks, and Eagles

Osprey Pandion haliaetus

Bald Eagle 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 Hawk* Buteo swainsoni

Red-tailed Hawk* Buteo jamaicensis

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos

Falcons and Caracaras

American Kestrel* Falco sparverius

Merlin Falco columbarius

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus

Gallinaceous Birds

Gray Partridge* Introduced Perdix perdix

Ring-necked Pheasant* Introduced Phasianus colchicus

Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus

Greater Prairie-Chicken Tympanuchus cupido

Rails

Virginia Rail* Rallus limicola

Sora* Porzana carolina

American Coot* Fulica americana

Cranes

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis

Plovers

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola

American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus

Killdeer* Charadrius vociferus

Stilts and Avocets

American Avocet* Recurvirostra americana

Sandpipers and Phalaropes

Greater Yellowlegs Ttinga melanoleuca

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria

Willet* Catoptrophorus semipalmatus

Spotted Sandpiper* Actitis macularia

Upland Sandpiper* Bartramia longicauda

Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres

Red Knot Calidris canutus

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 alphina

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus

Common Snipe* Gallinago gallinago

Wilson’s Phalarope* Phalaropus tricolor

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 121

Skuas, Jaegers, Gulls, and Terns

Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan

Bonaparte’s Gull Larus philadelphia

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis

California Gull Larus californicus

Herring Gull Larus argentatus

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia

Common Tern Sterna hirundo

Forster’s Tern* Sterna forsteri

Black Tern* Chlidonias niger

Pigeons and Doves

Rock Dove Introduced Columba livia

Mourning Dove* Zenaida macroura

Cuckoos and Anis

Black-billed Cuckoo* Coccyzus erythropthalmus

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus

Typical Owls

Eastern Screech-Owl Otus asio

Great Horned Owl* Bubo virginianus

Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca

Long-eared Owl Asio otus

Short-eared Owl* Asio flammeus

Nightjars

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus

Swifts

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica

Hummingbirds

Ruby-throated Hummingbird* Archilochus colubris

Kingfisher

Belted Kingfisher* Ceryle alcyon

Woodpeckers

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Downy Woodpecker* Picoides pubescens

Hairy Woodpecker* Picoides villosus

Northern Flicker* Colaptes auratus

Tyrant Flycatchers

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi

Eastern Wood-Pewee* Contopus virens

Willow Flycatcher* Empidonax traillii

Least Flycatcher* Empidonax minimus

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus

Western Kingbird* Tyrannus verticalis

Eastern Kingbird* Tyrannus tyrannus

Shrikes

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus

Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor

Vireos

Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus

Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus

Red-eyed Vireo* Vireo olivaceus

Crows, Jays, and Magpies

Blue Jay* Cyanocitta cristata

Black-billed Magpie Pica pica

American Crow* Corvus brachyrhynchos

Larks

Horned Lark* Eremophila alpestris
122 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

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 and Chickadees

Black-capped Chickadee* Poecile atricapillus

Nuthatches

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis

White-breasted Nuthatch* Sitta carolinensis

Creepers

Brown Creeper* Certhia americana

Wrens

House Wren* Troglodytes aedon

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes

Sedge Wren* Cistothorus platensis

Marsh Wren* Cistothorus palustris

Kinglets

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula

Thrushes

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis

Veery Catharus fuscescens

Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus

Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus

American Robin* Turdus migratorius

Mimic Thrushes

Gray Catbird* Dumetella carolinensis

Brown Thrasher* Toxostoma rufum

Starlings

European Starling* Introduced Sturnus vulgaris

Wagtails and Pipits

American (Water) Pipit Anthus rubescens

Sprague’s Pipit Anthus spragueii

Waxwings

Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus

Cedar Waxwing* Bombycilla cedrorum

Wood Warblers

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla

Yellow Warbler* Dendrocia petechia

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica

Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendrocia coronata

Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens

Palm Warbler Dendrocia palmarum

Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea

Blackpoll Warbler Dendrocia striata

Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia

American Redstart* Setophaga ruticilla

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis

Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis

Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia

Common Yellowthroat* Geothlypis trichas

Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 123

Tanagers

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea

Sparrows and Towhees

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 Sparrow* Ammodramus savannarum

Baird’s Sparrow* Ammodramus bairdii

Le Conte’s Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii

Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni

Fox Sparrow Passerella 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

Smith’s Longspur Calcarius pictus

Chestnut-collared Longspur* Calcarius ornatus

Cardinals, Grosbeaks, and Allies

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis

Rose-breasted Grosbeak* Pheucticus ludovicianus

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea

Dickcissel Spiza americana

Blackbirds and Orioles

Bobolink* Dolichonyx oryzivorus

Red-winged Blackbird* Agelaius phoeniceus

Western Meadowlark* Sturnella 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

Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus

American Goldfinch* Carduelis tristis

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus

Old World Sparrows

House Sparrow* Introduced Passer domesticus
124 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Mammals with ranges within the area of

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex:

*Documented sightings

Arctic Shrew Sorex articus

Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus

Northern Water Shrew Sorex palustris

Pygmy Shrew Microsorex hoyi

Northern Short-tailed Shrew* Blarina brevicauda

Least Shrew Cryptotis parva

Keen’s Myotis Myotia keeni

Little Brown Myotis* Myotis lucifungus

Eastern Red Bat Lasiurus borealis

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus

Eastern Cottontail* Sylvilagus floridanus

White-tailed Jackrabbit* Lepus townsendii

Woodchuck* Marmota monax

Franklin’s Ground Squirrel* Citellus franklini

Richardson’s Ground Squirrel* Citellus richardsoni

Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel* Spermophilus tridecemlineatus

Eastern Fox Squirrel* Sciurus niger

Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus

Plains Pocket Gopher* Geomys bursarius

Plains Pocket Mouse Perognathus flavescens

Beaver* Castor canadensis

Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis

White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus

Deer Mouse* Peromyscus maniculatus

Northern Grasshopper Mouse* Onychomys leucogaster

Southern Red-backed Vole* Clethrionomys gapperi

Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster

Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus

Common Muskrat* Ondatra zibethicus

Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius

Western Jumping Mouse* Zapus princeps

Coyote* Canis latrans

Red Fox* Vulpes vulpes

Common Raccoon* Procyon lotor

Long-tailed Weasel* Mustela frenata

Least Weasel Mustela nivalis

American Mink* Mustela vison

American Badger* Taxidea taxus

Striped Skunk* Mephitis mephitis

White-tailed Deer* Odocoileus virginianus

Moose* Alces alces

Historical

American Bison Bison bison

Bobcat Lynx rufus

Elk or Wapiti Cervus canadensis

Gray Wolf Canis lupus

Grizzly Bear Ursus horribilis

Mule Deer Odocoileus virginianus

Pronghorn Antelope Antilocapra americana

River Otter Lutra canadensis
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 125

Amphibians and reptiles with ranges within the area of

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex:

*Documented sightings

Mudpuppy* Necturus maculosus

Tiger Salamander* Ambystoma tigrinum

Eastern Tiger Salamander* Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum

Blotched Tiger Salamander* Ambystoma tigrinum melanostictum

Gray Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum diaboli

American Toad* Bufo americanus

Great Plains Toad* Bufo congnatus

Canadian Toad* Bufo hemiophrys

Woodhouse’s Toad Bufo woodhousii

Gray Treefrog Hyla vericolor

Western Chorus Frog* Pseudacris triseriata

Common Snapping Turtle* Chelydra serpentina

Painted Turtle* Chrysemys picta

Prairie Skink* Eumeces septentrionalis

Smooth Green Snake Opheodrys vernalis

Red-bellied Snake* Storeria occipitomaculata

Plains Garter Snake* Thamnophis radix

Common Garter Snake* Thamnophis sirtalis

Native Fish in the Red River Basin (Peterka and Koel 1996)

Chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon castaneus

Silver lamprey Ichthyomyzon unicuspis

Lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens

Longnose gar Lepistoseus osseus

Bowfin Amia calva

Goldeye Hiodon alosoides

Mooneye Hiodon tergisus

Ciscoe Coregonus artedii

Whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis

Quillback carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus

White sucker Catostomus commersoni

Northern hogsucker Hypentelium nigricans

Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus

Silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum

Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum

Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum

Greater redhorse Moxostoma valenciennesi

Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum

Largescale stoneroller Campostoma oligolepis

Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera

Brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni

Common shiner Luxilus comutus

Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana

Pearl dace Margariscus margarita

Hornyhead chub Nocomis biguttatus

Golden shiner Notemigonus chrysoleucas

Pugnose shiner Notropis anogenus

Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides

River shiner Notropis blennius

Bigmouth shiner Notropis dorsalis

Blackchin shiner Notropis heterodon

Blacknose shiner Notropis heterolepis

Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius

Rosyface shiner Notropis rubellus

Sand shiner Notropis stramineus

Weed shiner Notropis texanus

Mimic shiner Notropis volucellus

Northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos

Finescale dace Phoxinus neogaeus

Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus

Fathead minnow Platygobio gracilis

Blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus

Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus

Black bullhead Ameiurus melas

Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis
126 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus

Stonecat Noturus flavus

Tadpole madtom Noturus gyrinus

Central mudminnow Umbra limi

Northern pike Esox lucius

Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus

Burbot Lota lota

Trout-perch Percopsis omiscomaycus

Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus

Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides

White crappie Pomoxis annularis

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Rainbow darter Etheostoma caeruleum

Iowa darter Etheostoma exile

Least darter Etheostoma microperca

Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum

Yellow perch Perca flavescens

Logperch Percina caprodes

Blackside darter Percina maculata

River darter Percina shumardi

Sauger Stizostedion canadense

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum

Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens

Mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi

Brook stickleback Culaea inconstans

Introduced (nonnative) Fish

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss

Brown trout Salmo trutta

Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis

Common carp Cyprinus carpio

Flathead chub Platygobio gracilis

Muskellunge Esox masquinongy

Tiger muskie Esox lucius X E.masquinongy

White bass Morone chrysops
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 127

Appendix B. Plant Species

Mentioned in CCP and EA

Alumroot Heuchera richardsonii

American elm Ulmus americana

Baltic rush Juncus balticus

Bearded wheatgrass Agropyron subscundum

Big bluestem Andropogon gerardii

Black-eyed susan Rudbeckia hirta

Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis

Box elder Acer negundo

Buckbrush Symphoricarpos occidentalis

Broad-leaved cat-tail Typha latifolia

Bur oak Quercus macrocarpa

Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis

Chokecherry Prunus virginiana

Fowl mannagrass Glyceria striata

Green needle grass Stipa viridula

Grey headed coneflower Ratibidia pinnata

Handsome sedge Carex formosa

Hardstem bullrush Scirpus acutus

Hoary puccoon Lithospermum canescens

Hoary willow Salix candida

Indian grass Sorghastrum nutans

Intermediate wheatgrass Agropyron intermedium

June grass Koeleria pyramidata

Leadplant Amorpha canescens

Little bluestem Andropogon scoparius

Intermediate wheatgrass Agropyron intermedium

Maximilian sunflower Helianthus maximilianii

Meadow anemone Anemone canadensis

Narrow-leaved blazing star Liatris punctata

Needle-and-thread Stipa comata

Nodding lady tresses Spiranthes cernua

Northern reedgrass Calamagrostis stricta

Pasture sage Artemisia ludoviciana

Porcupine grass Stipa spartea

Prairie cordgrass Spartina pecinata

Prairie dogbane Apocynum cannabinum

Prairie sandreed Calamovilfa longifolia

Prairie smoke Geum triflorum

Prairie wild rose Rosa arkansana

Purple coneflower Echinacea angustifolia

Purple prairie clover Dalea purpurea

Red elm Ulmus rubra

Sand bluestem Andropogon hallii

Showy milkweed Asclepias speciosa

Sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula

Small white lady’s slipper Cypripedium candidum

Sneezeweed Helenium autumnale

Softstem bulrush Scirpus tabernaemontani

Stiff goldenrod Solidago rigida

Stiff sunflower Helianthus rigidus

Switchgrass Panicum virgatum

Tall blazing star Liatris pycnostachya

Thimbleweed Anemone cylindrica

Western prairie fringed orchid Platanthera praeclara

Western wheatgrass Agropyron smithii

White ash Fraxinus americana

White aster Aster ericoides

White camass Zigadenus elegans

White prairie clover Dalea candida

Wild lily Lilium philadelphicum

Yellow coneflower Ratibidia columnifera
128 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Introduced

Alfalfa Medicago sativa

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria

Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea

Russian olive Eleagnus angustifolia

Smooth brome Bromus inermis

White sweet clover Melilotus alba

Yellow sweet clover Melilotus officinalis
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 129

Appendix C. ND State Rare

and Unique Plant Species

These plant species are pulled from the ND Natural Heritage Program

data files and only include species that are found in the Tewaukon WMD

and are of greatest concern (S1 or S2).

North Dakota Natural Heritage State Rankings

S1 - Critically imperiled in state

S2 - Imperiled in state

 ND Heritage

Common Name Scientific Name Ranking

Adder’s-tongue fern Ophioglossum pusillum S2

Bicknells sunrose Helianthemum bicknellii S1

Blue Cohosh Caulophyllum thalictroides S1

Bog Violet Viola conspersa S2

Brook flatsedge Cyperus bipartitus S1S2

Delicate sedge Carex leptalea S2

Dotted smartweed Polygonum punctatum S2

Downy hawthorn Crataegus mollis S1

Dutchman’s breeches Dicentra cucullaria S1

Dwarf spikerush Eleocharis parvula S1S2

Early Panic-grass Panicum praecocius S2

Foxtail sedge Carex alopecoidea S2

Green kneeled cottongrass Eriophorum viridicarinatum S1

Handsome sedge Carex formosa S1

Hooked crowfoot Ranunculus recurvatus S1

Large yellow lady’s slipper Cypripedium planiipetalum S2

Large-leaved pondweed Potamogeton amplifolius S2

Loesel’s Twayblade Liparis loeselii S2

Low flatsedge Cyperdus diandrus S2

Marsh bellflower Campanual aparinoides S2

Marsh horsetail Equisetum palustre S2

Meadow horsetail Equisetum pratense S2

Meadow onion Allium canadense S1

Moonwort Botrychium minganense S1

Nodding ladies tresses Spiranthes cernua S1

Oakfern Gymnocarpium dryopteris S1

Prairie mimosa Desmanthus illinoensis S1

Purple sandgrass Triplasis purpurea S1

Richardson’s sedge Carex richardsonii S1

Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis S2

Showy lady’s slipper Cypripedium reginae S2

Sicklepod Arabis canadensis S1

Slendar cottongrass Eriophorum gracile S1

Small yellow lady’s slipper Cypripedium parviflorum S2

Spiral sedge Carex convoluta S1

Spring cress Cardamine bulbosa S1

Southern watermeal Wolffia columbiana S2

Spiny naiad Najas marina S1

Stout wood reed Cinna arundinacea S1

Sweetflag Acorus calamus S2

Upright pinweed Lechea stricta S1

Wahoo Euonymus atropurpureus S2

W. Prairie fringed orchid Patanthera praeclara S2

White lady’s slipper Cypripedium candidum S2

Wooly beach-heather Hudsonia tomentosa S1

Zigzag Goldenrod Solidago flexicaulis S1S2
130 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Appendix D. Tewaukon

Complex Water Rights

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Water Rights

Declaration of Filing dated September 1, 1934, for Lake Tewaukon (Pool 1)

and East and West White Lakes (Pools 12 and 11) (including Cutlers Marsh

- Pool 2) for 7,198 acre-feet storage and 4,251 acre-feet seasonal use from

the Wild Rice River.

Declaration of Filing dated September 1, 1934, for 397 acre-feet storage

and 312 acre-feet seasonal use, for Cloud’s Lake, now called Hepi Lake

(Pool 8), from an unnamed tributary. Water use in Pools 5 through 10 are

covered under this Right, with Hepi Lake to be drawn down to fill these

pools.

Permit No. 1261, for 7,139 acre-feet from the Wild Rice River (4,852 acrefeet storage and 2,287 acre-feet seasonal use) for additional storage and

seasonal use in Lake Tewaukon, Cutlers Marsh, and West White Lake; 409

acre-feet seasonal use to replace water diverted from the watershed by

Sargent County Water Conservation District project; and total storage and

seasonal use for Pools 3 and 4. The priority date is December 28, 1964.

Permit No. 1262, for 1,130 acre-feet (635 acre-feet storage and 495 acrefeet seasonal use) for Sprague Lake (Pool 14) from an unnamed tributary

with a priority date of December 28, 1964.

Permit No. 1263, for 236 acre-feet for Mann Lake (Pool 13) and 450 acrefeet for Horseshoe Slough (Pool 16) for a total of 686 acre-feet from the

Wild Rice River with a priority date of December 28, 1964.

Permit No. 3816, for 571 acre-feet (474 acre-feet storage and 97 acre-feet

annual use) from the Wild Rice River for the Nickeson Bottoms, a tract

owned jointly by ND Game and Fish Department, Bureau of Reclamation,

and the Service. The priority date is August 15, 1985.

Wild Rice Easement Refuge Water Rights

Declaration of Filing dated September 1, 1934, for 80 acre-feet storage and

120 acre-feet seasonal use from the Wild Rice River.

Storm Lake Easement Refuge Water Rights

Declaration of Filing dated September 1, 1934, for 729 acre-feet storage

and 516 acre-feet seasonal use from an unnamed tributary within the Wild

Rice/Red River basin.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 131

Appendix E.

Key Legislation/Policies

 (in alphabetical order)

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.

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.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (1940): The Act prohibits the

taking or possession of and commerce in bald and golden eagles, with

limited exceptions. The enacting clause of the original Act stated that the

Continental Congress in 1782 adopted the bald eagle as the national

symbol; that the bald eagle became the symbolic representation of a new

nation and the American ideals of freedom; and that the bald eagle

threatened with extinction.

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the Corps of

Engineers (404 permits) for major wetland modifications.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986): The purpose of the Act is

“To promote the conservation of migratory waterfowl and to offset or

prevent the serious loss of wetlands by the acquisition of wetlands and

other essential habitat, and for other purposes.”

Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires all Federal agencies to carry

out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species.

Executive Order 11987, Exotic Organisms (1977): This Executive Order

requires Federal agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to: restrict the

introduction of exotic species into the natural ecosystems on lands and

waters owned or leased by the United States; encourage States, local

governments, and private citizens to prevent the introduction of exotic

species into natural ecosystems of the U.S.; restrict the importation and

introduction of exotic species into any natural U.S. ecosystems as a result

of activities they undertake, fund, or authorize; and restrict the use of

Federal funds, programs, or authorities to export native species for

introduction into ecosystems outside the U.S. where they do not occur

naturally.
132 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management (1977): Each Federal

agency shall provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood

loss and minimize the impact of floods on human safety, and preserve the

natural and beneficial values served by the floodplains.

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (1977): This order

directs all Federal agencies to avoid, if possible, adverse impacts to

wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of

wetlands. Each agency shall avoid undertaking or assisting in wetland

construction projects unless the head of the agency determines that there

is no practicable alternative to such construction and that the proposed

action includes measures to minimize harm. Also, agencies shall provide

opportunity for early public review of proposals for construction in

wetlands, including those projects not requiring an EIS.

Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice (1994): This order

provides minority and low_income populations an opportunity to comment

on the development and design of Reclamation activities. Federal agencies

shall make achieving environmental justice part of their missions by

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and

adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies,

and activities on minority populations and low_income populations.

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 System.

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996): Directs Federal land

management agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of

Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid adversely

affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate,

maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites.

Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian

Tribal Governments (1998): The United States has a unique legal

relationship with Indian tribal governments as set forth in the Constitution

of the United States, treaties, statutes, Executive orders, and court

decisions. Since the formation of the Union, the United States has

recognized Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations under its

protection. In treaties, our Nation has guaranteed the right of Indian

tribes to self-government. As domestic dependent nations, Indian tribes

exercise inherent sovereign powers over their members and territory. The

United States continues to work with Indian tribes on a

government_to_government basis to address issues concerning Indian

tribal self-government, trust resources, and Indian tribal treaty and other

rights.

Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act of August 9, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 777-

777k), as amended: This Act, commonly referred to as the “DingellJohnson Act”, provides aid to the States for management and restoration

of fish having material value in connection with sport or recreation in

marine or fresh waters. Funds from an excise tax on certain items of sport

fishing tackle are appropriated to the Secretary of Interior annually and

apportioned to States on a formula basis for approved land acquisition,

research, development and management projects.

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of September 2, 1937 (16 U.S.C.

669-669i), as amended: This Act, commonly referred to as the “PittmanRobertson Act”, provides to States for game and nongame wildlife

restoration work. Funds from an excise tax on sporting arms and

ammunition are appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior annually and

apportioned to States on a formula basis for approved land acquisition,

research, development and management projects and hunter safety

programs.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 133

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.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of March 10, 1934 (16 U.S.C. 661-

66c), as amended: This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to

assist Federal, State and other agencies in development, protection,

rearing and stocking fish and wildlife on Federal lands, and to study effects

of pollution on fish and wildlife. The Act also requires consultation with the

Fish and Wildlife Service and the wildlife agency of any State wherein the

waters of any stream or other water body are proposed to be impounded,

diverted, channelized or otherwise controlled or modified by any Federal

agency, or any private agency under Federal permit or license, with a view

to preventing loss of, or damage to, wildlife resources in connection with

such water resource projects. The Act further authorizes Federal water

resource agencies to acquire lands or interests in connection with water

use projects specifically for mitigation and enhancement of fish and

wildlife.

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a comprehensive national fish

and wildlife policy and broadened the authority for acquisition and

development of refuges.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958): Allows the Fish and Wildlife

Service to enter into agreements with private landowners for wildlife

management purposes.

Food Security Act of 1985 (Title XII, Public Law 99-198, 99 Stat. 1354;

December 23, 1985), as amended: This Act authorizes acquisition of

easements in real property for a term of not less than 50 years for

conservation, recreation, and wildlife purposes.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965): Uses the receipts from

the sale of surplus Federal land, outer continental shelf oil and gas sales,

and other sources for land acquisition under several authorities.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes procedures for

acquisition by purchase, rental, or gift of areas approved by the Migratory

Bird Conservation Commission.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934):

Authorized the requirement of an annual stamp for the hunting of

waterfowl whose proceeds go towards the purchase of habitat for

waterfowl and other wildlife. Duck stamps are also purchased for entry

into some refuges, by conservationist and for stamp collections. Authorized

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. This Act 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 the disclosure of

the environmental impacts of any major Federal action significantly

affecting the quality of the human environment.

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.
134 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 as

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of

1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee. (Refuge Administration Act): Defines the

National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the Secretary to permit

any use of a refuge provided such use is compatible with the major

purposes for which the refuge was established. The Refuge Improvement

Act clearly defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; establishes

the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting,

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education

and interpretation); establishes a formal process for determining

compatibility; established the responsibilities of the Secretary of Interior

for managing and protecting the System; and requires a Comprehensive

Conservation Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended

portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge

System Administration Act of 1966.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997: Sets the

mission and administrative policy for all refuges in the National Wildlife

Refuge System. Clearly defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System;

establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public

uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or

environmental education and interpretation); establishes a formal process

for determining compatibility; establishes the responsibilities of the

Secretary of the Interior for managing and protecting the System; and

requires a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each refuge by the year

2012. This Act amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.

Native 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.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of December 13, 1989 (16

U.S.C. 4401-4412). Public Law 101-233 provides funding and administrative

direction for implementation of the North American Waterfowl

Management Plan and the Tripartite Agreement on wetlands between

Canada, U.S. and Mexico.

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 funds are 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 anybody can participate in any

program.

Water Resources Planning Act (1965): This Act establishes a

cabinet_level Water Resources Council to study, coordinate and review

water and related land resources requirements, policies and plans, and

authorizes funding for states to plan and implement related programs.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 135

Appendix F.

Environmental Assessment

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex

including

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge

and

Tewaukon Wetland Management District

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Prepared April 2000

 Completed by Tewaukon NWR Complex Staff
136 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Table of Contents

I. Purpose and Need for Action

Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation and Alteration .......................... 131

Grasslands and Tallgrass Prairie - Threatened and Declining .. 132

Wetland Habitat and Value Declines ............................................. 133

Native Grassland Bird Population Declines ................................. 133

Increased Public Use and Recreation Demands ......................... 134

II. Alternatives - Including the Proposed Action

Development of Alternatives .......................................................... 135

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From the EA .............. 135

Alternative A - Custodial ................................................................ 136

Alternative B - No Action (Continue Current Management) .... 137

Alternative C - Implementing the CCP (Proposed Action) ....... 138

III. Affected Environment

Location ............................................................................................. 139

Historical Landscape ....................................................................... 139

The Biological Environment

Grasslands and Tallgrass Prairie ................................................... 140

Wetlands ............................................................................................ 141

Native Grassland Migratory Birds ................................................ 141

Other Migratory Birds .................................................................... 142

Resident Birds .................................................................................. 142

Mammals ........................................................................................... 142

Fish .................................................................................................... 143

Reptiles and Amphibians ................................................................ 143

Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................... 143

Riparian and Native Woodlands..................................................... 143

The Physical Environment

Climate and Air Quality .................................................................. 144

Soils .................................................................................................... 144

Hydrology ......................................................................................... 145

Unique Natural Resources ............................................................. 145

Cultural Resources .......................................................................... 145

The Socio-economic Environment

Recreational Resources - Public Use ............................................ 146

Economics ......................................................................................... 146

Environmental Justice .................................................................... 147

IV. Environmental Consequences

Alternative A .................................................................................... 148

Alternative B .................................................................................... 154

Alternative C .................................................................................... 160

Summary of Environmental Consequences ................................. 166

V. Consultation and Coordination ......................................................... 167
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 137

I. Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to determine the

possible environmental consequences that the implementation of the Tewaukon

National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan

(CCP) could have on the quality of the biological, physical, and human

environment, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969. This assessment analyzes three levels of management intensity on

the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex). The preferred

alternative, the CCP, is an intensive habitat and wildlife management

program alternative designed to incorporate state of the art science based

management practices and monitoring. The no action, or current management,

alternative is science-based but narrower in scope than the CCP. This alternative

reflects flat funding and no increases in staffing. The third alternative,

custodial, that was considered is a management option that reflects the

uncertain nature of Federal budgets. Frequently, downsizing, rightsizing,

and cutting Complex programs are considered during budgeting processes.

This alternative describes a reduced management and public use approach.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) agreed to prepare refuge

CCPs for each administrative unit of the Refuge System during the

development of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of

1997. Refuge managers are required to complete a CCP that describes how

Refuge System management units will be acquired and managed to benefit

wildlife. The Plan should also describe how available research will be

incorporated into management. The management of the Complex should

also be monitored and evaluated to determine if the desired habitat and

wildlife responses occur. The Plan must address what Complex wildlifedependent recreation and visitor opportunities are compatible and

appropriate. The planning process also provides opportunities for the

public and State and Federal agencies to provide input.

The CCP facilitates management continuity and describes management actions

that will be made to achieve upland and wetland restoration, management,

and enhancement for the next 15 years. The CCP is intended to provide

long-range guidance for the management of the Tewaukon National

Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex) based on careful consideration of the

physical and biological characteristics of the land base. It is designed to

further achieve the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Wildlife

Refuge System missions and the Tewaukon Complex goals and objectives

which emphasize the protection and enhancement of wildlife and their

habitats.

The planning team (see CCP List of Preparers) identified a need to better

define what the future of Complex management should be in order to meet

the intent of Complex establishing legislation, other refuge management

legislation, and inform the public, State and Federal agencies, and interested

groups and organizations. Some of the critical issues and challenges

identified by the planning team and the public for consideration during the

analysis of alternatives and development of the CCP (preferred alternative)

are described next. These issues represent significant habitat, wildlife

population, and public use aspects of Complex management that were used

to evaluate the alternatives. The habitat and wildlife issues reflect local,

regional, and National concerns. Locally, participants in the public input

process indicated they would like to see additional emphasis on managing

Complex habitats to benefit sport fish, white-tailed deer, and pheasants.

Participants also indicated that Complex weed control efforts were

important and that these efforts should continue and be improved. Public

use issues are generally local and Complex specific, but have a national

aspect since they are similar to public use issues throughout the National

Wildlife Refuge System. Locally, participants in the public input process

were interested in maintaining and increasing Complex hunting and fishing

opportunities.

All references in this Environmental Assessment are included in Appendix

K. Literature Cited.
138 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation and Alteration

What was once a vast expanse of grass interspersed with wetlands,

streams, and rivers in southeast North Dakota has been transformed into

cropland bisected by roads, planted trees, railroad tracks, and other

developments. Complex lands are some of the few sites that provide prairie

ecosystem habitat in what has become a severely fragmented landscape.

The combined effects of human settlement and development have resulted

in significant alterations to the native flora and fauna throughout the

Northern Great Plains. These landscape scale alterations have affected

Complex lands as well. Elk, bison, grizzly bears, and wolves are just a few

of the wildlife species that have disappeared from the prairies of North

Dakota. Prairies comprised of tall grasses including big bluestem, Indian

grass, and porcupine grass with splashes of colorful wildflowers like golden

Alexander, purple prairie clover, white lady’s slipper, and blazing stars have

been converted to cropland or are dominated by nonnative plants including

Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, leafy spurge and Canada thistle. Many

of the prairie butterflies and insects that once fluttered from coneflower to

blazing star are gone or inhabit tiny remnant pockets of prairie.

As the wildlife species that once inhabited Complex lands changed in

response to habitat alterations, the diversity of prairie wildlife populations

declined and places for people to enjoy the diversity of these species were

reduced. Wildlife habitat loss and declining species diversity continues.

Grasslands and Tallgrass Prairie - Threatened and Declining

Currently, less than 5 percent of native tallgrass prairie is left in North

Dakota. The rest of the prairie was plowed up for crop production or

developed. As a result, relatively few large contiguous blocks of native

prairie remain. The largest area of tallgrass prairie left in eastern North

Dakota exists on the Sheyenne National Grassland (50,000 acres), which is

administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Most of the remaining native

prairie lies around larger wetland edges, wet areas, rocky, and sandy areas

that are difficult to convert to cropland. Many of the remaining native

prairie sites are threatened due to an increase in irrigated agricultural

practices and the development of large land leveling equipment. In 1998,

more than 21,700 acres existed of irrigated crops, mainly potatoes and corn

in the District (Ransom, Sargent, and Richland Counties). In 1990,

irrigated crops were isolated and limited to only a few producers (ND Ag

Statistics 1998). The once undesirable sandy soils of the Sheyenne Delta in

Ransom and Richland Counties and southwestern Sargent County have

become prime areas for irrigated crop production.

Approximately 3,716 acres of native prairie exist on the Complex. Most of

these prairie areas are presently dominated by cool season nonnative

grasses, such as smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass. These nonnative

grasses reduce plant diversity and vegetative structure and make habitats

less attractive for the range of wildlife species that historically occupied

prairie grassland habitats. Other nonnative, invasive plants include leafy

spurge, Canadian thistle, Russian olive trees, and sweet clover. On many of

these prairie acres, native warm and cool season grasses and forbs comprise

less than 20 percent of the total vegetation. Trees have been planted in and

around the perimeter of many of the prairies further shrinking the useable

grassland area for many species of prairie birds and butterflies.

From a socio-economic standpoint, the impact of invasive plants and noxious

weeds on cropland and pastures is routinely estimated to be in the millions of

dollars in North Dakota. Weed control on Complex lands was identified by

the public as an important program that would help limit the spread and

the associated economic impacts of these species on adjacent lands.

As prairie habitats are lost and the plant communities that comprise them

become more fragmented, prairie dependent wildlife species will also

become increasingly rare.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 139

Wetland Habitat and Value Declines

Early settlers in the midwest found numerous shallow wetlands or potholes

scattered across the plains. These areas provided places for water, food,

and hay for livestock. As development and agriculture expanded, many

wetlands were drained or filled. An estimated 60 percent of the original

wetland area has been drained in North Dakota (Tiner 1984). The rate of

wetland loss in North Dakota continues at approximately 15,000 to 20,000

acres annually. Draining and filling wetlands to convert them for agricultural

development or other types of development are the primary ways wetlands

are being lost. Additional threats to wetlands include the gradual siltation

of basins caused by soil erosion from adjacent cropland and the cultivation

of entire wetland basins (Kantrud et al. 1989). Herbicide and insecticide

use also has the potential to highly impact wildlife by eliminating food and

cover (Hudson et al. 1984, Hill and Camardese 1986).

Prairie wetland ecosystems have many values to people and wildlife and

provide important functions in the natural landscape. Wetlands can help to

slow the flow of water runoff which can trap sediments and chemicals

before the water flows into nearby streams and rivers. Upland and wetland

plants can even absorb some of these nutrients and chemicals and turn

them into organic matter. These filtering and trapping functions help to

improve water quality of drinking water for human consumption, water for

livestock, fish, and habitat for other aquatic wildlife. Wetlands also hold

water and release it slowly over the surface and into the groundwater. This

provides natural flood control during the springtime and helps to recharge

aquifers. Many hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation enthusiasts enjoy

the variety of recreation that wetlands provide. The diversity of habitats in

a prairie wetland ecosystem provides associated wildlife with all their life

needs. Wetlands are some of the most productive areas in the world. They

provide food, water, and shelter to hundreds of wildlife species. Waterfowl,

shorebirds, wading birds, songbirds, and some hawks all depend on

wetlands as essential breeding, nesting, feeding, and resting areas. Many

other species like ring-necked pheasants, grouse, white-tailed deer, and

other animals rely on wetlands for winter cover from the harsh winds and

temperatures. Wetlands also provide cover, food, and spawning areas for

northern pike, minnows, freshwater mussels, and other aquatic species. As

wetland habitat is lost, wetland values and opportunities decline for

humans and wildlife.

Native Grassland Migratory Bird Population Declines

Herkert (1995) looked at the data from the North American Breeding Bird

Survey between 1993 and 1996 and found that grassland migratory bird

species are declining faster than any other group of breeding species in the

Midwestern United States. Bobolinks and western meadowlarks showed

the greatest decline (Herkert 1995). Habitat fragmentation is one of the

causes of population decline in grassland birds (Samson 1980, Herkert

1994, Vickery et al. 1994). Habitat size is important for some grassland

birds (Samson 1980, Herkert 1994, Vickery et al. 1994) and the amount of

edge (the area where two different habitats overlap or are adjacent such as

grassland and woodlands) of that patch of habitat is also important (Helzer

and Jelinski 1999). Less than 1 percent of native prairie remains in North

Dakota. As the native prairie and other grasslands are lost to agriculture

and development, the amount of habitat for grassland birds also declines.

In the southeastern part of North Dakota where land is intensively farmed,

Complex grassland habitat is limited for this group of migratory birds.
140 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Increased Public Use and Recreation Demands

Developing tourism has been a strategy in North Dakota economic

development plans. Wide open spaces and associated fish and wildlife

resources are a recurring theme in tourism marketing. Travelers are

finding out about North Dakota. The number of visitors to the Complex

has increased by 40 percent since 1990. More bird-watchers, vacationers,

and out-of-state visitors stop in than ever before. The number of pheasant

hunters and waterfowl hunters has also increased in the southeastern part

of the State due to the population boom in Fargo and Wahpeton. Many of

our visitors travel from Minnesota where the Complex is a convenient daytrip. As the number of visitors continues to grow, the demand for

recreation and outreach will continue to expand.

During public input meetings, participants indicated they wanted more

lakes open to fishing, longer boating seasons and hours, more hunting

opportunities, and more access on the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge

(Refuge). To meet the demands of a growing public without compromising

the Complex’s purpose, a comprehensive Public Use Plan should be

developed to look at opportunities and the impacts to wildlife populations

and habitat.

A variety of strategies have been used on the Complex to provide habitat

for migratory birds and other wildlife. Early Complex acquisition and

management efforts focused on planting upland cover on former cropland,

developing water, and providing some crops as a food source. As the

science of wildlife management evolves and the life needs of wildlife species

are better understood, Refuge Managers need to incorporate new findings

and techniques to refine or change management. Managers must also

continue to evaluate what types of recreation, interpretation, and education

should be offered on the Complex.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 141

II. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

The Proposed Action identified in this EA is an enhanced management

alternative. Based upon input received during the public input comment

period, the Service has made adjustments to its proposed alternative. This

EA serves as a companion document for the draft Complex CCP. Both of

these documents will be available for public review and comment prior to

the issuance of a final CCP and EA. The public input process is described

in detail in the CCP.

Development of Alternatives

Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from the EA

Several alternatives were considered when developing the EA. Some of the

alternatives that were discussed but were eliminated from the detailed

analysis are listed below.

Maximized Public Use Alternative

This alternative would have developed the Complex as a recreational

area. All areas would have been opened to the public and many new

facilities would have been built. Development might include wildlife

hiking trails, parking lots, expansion of the Visitor Center and exhibits,

expanding hunting seasons, and opening additional wetlands to fishing.

This alternative was not analyzed in detail because it conflicts with the

Complex purpose of serving as a refuge and breeding ground for

migratory birds and other wildlife and the intent of the National

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, putting wildlife first.

Maximize Habitat Management and Eliminate Public Use Alternative

This alternative would have focused entirely on managing all Complex

lands for wildlife with no public use except on Waterfowl Production

Areas, where hunting, fishing, and trapping are permitted by

regulation. The Refuge would be closed to all hunting, fishing, wildlife

observation, and interpretation. All funds and effort would be directed

to restoring, enhancing, and managing the Complex for the benefit of

native flora and fauna. This alternative was not included because

Congress and the Service have historically recognized the importance

of providing compatible wildlife-dependent public uses on refuges.

The following three alternatives were developed in further detail and

considered possible proposed actions. The alternatives represent a range of

management intensity and focus that considers wildlife and their habitats

first, specifically native prairie wetland ecosystem species. After

discussion, research, and evaluation, Alternative C, Implementing the

Enhanced Management Alternative described in the CCP, was selected as

the preferred alternative.
142 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Alternative A - Custodial

This alternative describes a custodial level of management for the Complex.

The custodial alternative emphasizes almost total exclusion of human

intervention from wildlife habitat and population management. This

alternative is sometimes discussed by Regional and Washington, D.C.

offices as a way to reduce costs or transfer resources to other priority

programs in the Fish and Wildlife Service or to other parts of the country.

Under this alternative, only basic obligations such as protection of

government property, or actions required by law, like noxious weed control,

would be carried out. Management and operations of the Complex would

be restricted to what is minimally required by local, State, or Federal law.

No upland manipulation (haying, grazing, burning, interseeding) or water

manipulation would take place except for noxious weed control. All

agricultural areas would be taken out of production and seeded to

grassland cover. Refuge habitats would evolve through the succession of

native annual and perennial species as well as nonnative species.

Managed Refuge pools, including Lake Tewaukon, would be allowed to

return to their natural drying and flooding cycles. No attempt to hold

water back would occur; all water control structure boards on the four

main dams on the Wild Rice River would be set at as close to natural

elevation as possible, and remain there. All smaller water control

structures would be removed, returning wetland edges and shorelines to

their natural elevations. No information on water quality, water rights, or

water use would be developed or gathered. Wildfires would not be

suppressed except when they threatened Refuge buildings and adjacent

private property.

No additional easement or fee title acquisition would be pursued. The

Service would continue to enforce easements and regulations on the

District.

Cultural resource sites on the Complex would continue to receive

protection.

All Refuge roads would be closed (including the road around Lake

Tewaukon). No public use, environmental education or outreach would

occur on the Refuge including hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation.

Hunting, trapping, and fishing would continue on WPAs according State

regulations. Facilities (i.e., boat docks, signs, comfort stations, and auto

tour) would be removed or donated to other agencies or groups.

Environmental education programs would be discontinued, displays, and

exhibits would not be maintained and would be removed as they

deteriorated. The Refuge would be patrolled as a closed area.

Funding for the Complex would decrease to provide only necessary funding

to support one manager and one maintenance worker, both with law

enforcement duties.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 143

Alternative B - No Action (Continue Current Management)

The No Action alternative would continue management of existing

habitats, wildlife, programs, and facilities at current levels, and would not

include extensive management and restoration of grassland habitats or

wetland management improvements. Interpretive, educational and

administrative programs and facilities would not change.

Refuge management would continue at current levels. Approximately 10

percent of uplands would be treated per year. There would be no attempt

to increase wildlife and habitat management activities. The “No Action”

alternative would not involve extensive restoration of upland habitats or

the interseeding of planted grasslands to a mixture of native plants.

Existing grasslands would support the nesting migratory birds they have

in the past. No new effort would be made to manage and improve

grasslands for nesting migratory birds and other wildlife. Active

management practices such as prescribed fire, grazing, haying, mowing,

and interseeding would not be expanded beyond current levels. Habitat

data collection would continue at current levels. Integrated pest

management would be emphasized. Noxious weed control would continue

at the same level but would not be expanded. Natural processes, like fire,

would be managed on a case-by-case basis depending on scheduled habitat

management and risks to government and private property.

Wetland management emphasis would focus on waterfowl production and

migration habitat. Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes would be primarily

managed as open water rest areas. Total wetland acres would remain the

same unless increased by natural flooding. No new actions would be

planned to improve water use and water quality data collection or acquire

additional water rights. Management actions that protect wildlife habitat,

such as easement law enforcement, would continue at current levels.

Additional biological information on Complex resources would not be

expanded beyond incidental surveys. Land acquisition would continue at

same rate.

Cultural resources would continue to receive protection through law

enforcement.

Access roads would be managed as they are currently including minor

upgrades and regular maintenance. Recreational opportunities would

include current programs available under existing approved hunting,

fishing, and public use plans. Only Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake

would be open to fishing, and the Refuge would be open to limited deer and

pheasant hunting. These opportunities would be limited so the Refuge

would function as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and

other wildlife as described in establishing legislation. Hunting, trapping,

and fishing would continue on WPAs according State regulations. Public

use facilities would remain essentially the same and would be maintained.

New interpretive signs, exhibits, and viewing opportunities would not be

developed. Refuge law enforcement would continue at current levels.

Environmental education and outreach would continue at the current level.

No additional partners or funding would be pursued.

Complex funding would remain at the level needed to support current

staffing and programs.
144 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Alternative C - Implement the CCP (Proposed Action)

This alternative implements the Complex CCP goals and objectives and is the

proposed action.

This alternative emphasizes native prairie and wetland ecosystem protection,

management, and reestablishment. Management that favors native fauna and

flora of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem will be emphasized. Some planted

grasslands will be restored to a more diverse mix of native grasses and forbs.

Increased management to improve habitat for migratory grassland nesting birds,

rare prairie butterflies, and plant communities will be planned, conducted, and

monitored. Grassland management for nesting waterfowl on the Complex will be

continued and improved. Noxious weed control will continue and will be expanded

to develop new ways to reduce or eliminate weeds. Integrated pest management

would be emphasized.

Management of water levels in Refuge pools will continue for waterfowl

production and resting areas but will be refined to correspond with water depths

and stages between dry and flooded that occur in natural non-managed wetlands

in order to benefit a greater range of species including shorebirds and wading

birds. Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes will be primarily managed as open water rest

areas. Water rights on the Complex will be clarified. The Refuge water use

database will improve by the installation of data loggers and efforts will be initiated

to collect better water quality data and improve water quality. Additional biological

information on Complex resources will be expanded beyond incidental surveys to

include baseline data collection, population trend data, and floristic surveys. Land

acquisition will continue to focus on areas within the approved Refuge boundary,

WPA round-outs, and increased efforts to purchase wetland and grassland

easements and develop cooperative agreements with landowners on private land.

Cultural resources would continue to be protected and interpretative opportunities

would be expanded. Additional cultural surveys would be conducted on the

Complex.

Access roads would be managed at current levels including minor upgrades and

regular maintenance. Recreational public use on the Refuge will be enhanced by

improving existing facilities and programs. Only Lake Tewaukon and Sprague

Lake would be open to fishing, and the Refuge would continue to be open to

limited deer and pheasant hunting. Hunting opportunities would still be limited so

the Refuge would function as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds

and other wildlife as described in establishing legislation. Hunting and fishing

programs will be reviewed to determine if opportunities exist to improve the

quality of these public uses.

The Complex law enforcement program will become more effective. Improved

resource and public safety protection will be achieved by adding law enforcement

staff, funding, and increasing patrol time. Additional staff may provide the

resources needed to expand fishing hours or provide additional hunting

opportunities on the Refuge.

The Complex staff will expand educational and outreach programs to meet the

increasing visitation and public interest in Complex environmental education

programs. This will include developing new brochures, creating three new

interpretive exhibits in the Visitor Center, expanding the Visitor Center,

developing two walking trails, a Tewaukon web site, and increasing educational

outreach to schools and community groups. Funding will be requested to staff the

Visitor Center for extended hours, especially peak weekend visitor periods.

Additional Complex funding and staff would be needed to accomplish the goals and

objectives in the CCP. Additional staff needed would include an outdoor recreation

planner, assistant refuge manager, law enforcement officer, biological technicians,

maintenance staff, an administrative support assistant, fire management officer,

and a private lands person. Additional seasonal staff would be required from

spring through fall to implement the management strategies on the Complex.

An increase in office space, facilities, and equipment will be needed to support the

additional staff.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 145

III. Affected Environment

Location

The Tewaukon Complex is composed of the Tewaukon National Wildlife

Refuge (Refuge) and the Tewaukon Wetland Management District

(District). The Complex is located in the drift prairie of southeastern North

Dakota. The Refuge was established in 1945 and is approximately 8,343

acres in size. The District was established in 1958 and is comprised of over

14,000 acres of Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA), 35,000 acres of wetland

easements, 10,386 acres of grassland easements, and 112 wetland and 45

grassland acres in FmHA easements in Ransom, Sargent, and Richland

Counties.

Historical Landscape

Four major glacial periods impacted the northern plains during the

Pleistocene Age (Pielou 1992). The most recent was the Wisconsin glacial

stage which reached its maximum extent about thirteen thousand years

ago (Mayewski et al. 1981). All the dominant landscape features of the

Prairie Pothole Region are products of that geological event including

prairie wetlands or “potholes” and the rich soil that gave rise to the

tallgrass prairie.

Historically, the Complex landscape was a mix of tallgrass prairie and a

variety of shallow and deep wetlands. No nonnative weed species were

present at that time. Numerous native plant and wildlife species existed on

the prairie and wetlands. Historical processes which maintained the

vegetative and dependent wildlife communities included fire (Higgins et al.

1989), periodic defoliation by large herds of grazing animals (bison and

elk), and weather (Eldridge 1992; Barbour et al. 1987).

As settlement of the Northern Great Plains increased, agriculture became

the focus in the early- to mid- 1900’s. The rich landbase became devoted to

agricultural production and drastically changed the grassland landscape

(Duebbert et al. 1981). European settlement also drastically reduced the

frequency and size of two of the processes which shaped the prairie

grassland communities. The roaming herds of bison and elk were reduced

in size and the scope of their impacts on habitat changed. Suppression of

fire efforts of European settlers also increased. Settlers after the 1930’s

began adding shelterbelts and wooded areas to the landscape to control soil

erosion by the wind. The prairie that was once a treeless plain began to be

invaded by woody species.
146 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

The Biological Environment

Grasslands and Tallgrass Prairie

Tewaukon NWR Complex is part of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem located

in the southeastern portion of North Dakota. Tallgrass prairie is arguably

one of the most fragmented landscapes in the country since much of it has

been converted for agricultural production. Prior to acquisition, the

majority of the Refuge and Waterfowl Production Areas were farmed. The

remaining tallgrass prairie areas on the Complex (approximately 3,716

acres) are located in very wet areas, steep banks along wetlands and rivers,

or in poor soils. They survive because these areas were undesirable as

farmland, or were maintained as pasture for livestock.

The prairies evolved with two forms of periodic disturbance, grazing by

large herbivores and fire. These processes were slowly removed from the

landscape as settlers moved into the area and agriculture expanded. As a

result, many of the native prairies today are heavily invaded by nonnative

plants such as leafy spurge, smooth brome, Canada thistle, and Kentucky

bluegrass. Many of the native grasses and forbs have been lost or are now

a minor component of the prairie. Prescribed burning and grazing have

been reincorporated into the management of the native prairie on the

Complex in an attempt to invigorate the native plants and restore the

prairie community.

Managing, protecting, and restoring tallgrass plant communities was

identified by the planning team and other resource management

professionals as an important issue during the CCP planning process.

Approximately 3,100 acres of dense nesting cover (DNC) has been planted

on many fields in the Complex by Service personnel to provide habitat for

ground nesting birds, primarily waterfowl. DNC fields lose their sweet

clover component soon after the first year of planting and many DNC

fields on the Complex have lost their alfalfa and wheat grass components

as well. These fields are now dominated by nonnative grass species such as

smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass. These fields must be dug up and

replanted every 10 years or so to maintain their attractiveness to nesting

birds.

Planted native grass acres equal 2,581 on the Complex. Areas planted to

native grasses are composed of 3 to 4 warm season native grasses usually

big bluestem, Indian grass, switchgrass, and little bluestem. These fields

are managed by spring prescribed burns and are in fair-to-good condition.

Warm season native grass fields offer little in the way of species or

structural diversity. Several of the fields are used as seed sources. More

species of grasses and forbs are needed to mimic natural prairie

communities which should support more diverse wildlife populations.

Approximately 2,866 acres of Complex tame grass fields are primarily

composed of smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass. These fields vary in

their origin. Some were once planted to brome for rangeland or hayland

when it was in private ownership, while others were once DNC or alfalfa

fields which have become completely dominated by these cool season

grasses. The vegetative structure and species composition of these fields

dictates their attractiveness to migratory birds.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 147

Wetlands

The Prairie Pothole Region (Figure 4) is named for the density of wetlands

scattered across the landscape. Wetlands found in the southern Drift

Prairie make up 13 percent of all wetlands in North Dakota and a great

majority of these are less than 15 acres in area (Stewart 1975). A diversity

of ephemeral, temporary, seasonal, semipermanent, and permanent

wetlands in varying conditions can be found on the Complex.

Fens and alkali ponds are very rare; none have been documented on

Complex lands. Approximately 38 managed semipermanent and

permanent wetlands are on the Refuge. Historically, management of these

wetlands has centered around holding water for waterfowl breeding,

resting, and migration areas.

Managing, protecting, and restoring prairie wetland complexes was

identified by the planning team and other resource management

professionals as an important issue during the CCP planning process. How

the Service enforced provisions of wetland easements, real property

interests that were purchased to protect wetlands, was identified by the

public as an important issue during the CCP planning process.

Native Grassland Migratory Birds

The Prairie Pothole Region is the principal waterfowl production area in

the lower 48 states. North Dakota is a key State in this region. Twenty-one

species of waterfowl breed in North Dakota (Stewart 1975). Twenty-one

species of waterfowl use the Complex as a resting area during migration.

Twelve species of ducks (mallard, gadwall, blue-winged teal, green-winged

teal, widgeon, shoveler, pintail, lesser scaup, canvasback, redhead, wood

duck, ruddy duck) and Canada geese nest on the Complex. Annual

numbers of waterfowl fluctuate with wetland conditions. Waterfowl are

commonly found on Complex lands and are popular game species that

attract large numbers of visitors.

Other breeding grassland migratory birds on the Complex include the:

bobolink, savannah sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, clay-colored sparrow,

upland sandpiper, Le Conte’s sparrow, vesper sparrow, short-eared owl,

northern harrier, and Swainson’s hawk. These birds use a variety of

grassland habitats on the Complex as nesting, feeding, and resting areas.

Managing, protecting, and restoring grassland plant communities that

support diverse and self-sustaining native breeding grassland bird

populations was identified by the planning team and other resource

management professionals as an important issue during the CCP planning

process.
148 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Other Migratory Birds

Thirty-seven species of shorebirds and 28 species of sandpipers commonly

cross the interior Plains during spring and fall migrations (Skagen 1997).

Habitat use by migratory shorebirds is concentrated in small shallow

wetlands or wet muddy areas. Shorebirds inhabit North Dakota from midMarch through mid-October depending on weather and water conditions.

Eighteen species of shorebirds breed in North Dakota (Stewart 1975).

Twelve shorebird species have been documented by Refuge staff as

breeding on the Complex.

Like other wetland dependent birds, the number of wading birds (herons,

egrets, rails, bitterns) using the Complex fluctuates with the availability of

water. A heron colony has existed on the Refuge since 1993 when water

returned to southeastern North Dakota. Great blue herons, great egrets,

double-crested cormorants, and black-crowned night herons nest in the

colony located in dead trees in Pool 7A. No records of a heron colony on the

Refuge were recorded prior to 1993.

Raptors, including eagles, hawks, falcons, and owls, are found on the

Complex. The three most common hawks nesting on the Tewaukon NWR

are the red-tailed hawk, northern harrier, and the Swainson’s hawk. Great

horned owls are the most common owl nesting on the Refuge. Several species

of raptors migrate through the Refuge in the spring and fall including

peregrine falcons, kestrels, ospreys, short-eared owls, golden eagles, sharpshinned hawks, and cooper’s hawks. The most notable migrants are bald

eagles which follow the waterfowl migration and can be regularly seen around

Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake in the spring and fall. During the winter,

some raptors from Alaska, Canada, or northern Minnesota, including

snowy owls, goshawks, and saw-whet owls, can be found on Complex lands.

Some woodland migratory bird species have increased in number in North

Dakota from 1967 to 1993 such as the western kingbird, brown thrasher,

and song sparrows. Other species like American robins, house sparrows,

cliff swallows, and barn swallows are associated with people, trees, and

structures (Johnson et al. 1997) and are found on the Complex.

Resident Birds

Only one species of native upland bird, the sharp-tailed grouse, is found on

the Complex. Sharp-tailed grouse are few in number and spotted

occasionally on the Complex. Ring-necked pheasants are commonly found

on Complex lands and are a popular game species that attract large

numbers of visitors. Black-capped chickadees, white-breasted nuthatches,

brown creepers, woodpeckers, and blue jays are the other resident native

birds that are found on the Complex. Managing Complex habitat to

specifically benefit pheasants was identified as an important issue by the

public during the CCP planning process.

Mammals

White-tailed deer are the only large mammals on the Complex.

Occasionally, moose have been spotted near the Refuge or associated with

WPAs. Deer are commonly found on Complex lands and are a popular

game species that attract large numbers of visitors. Managing Complex

habitat to specifically benefit deer was identified by the public as an

important issue during the CCP planning process.

A small herd (1-15 animals) of pronghorn antelope resides in the Forman

and Rutland area but do not spend much time on Complex lands.

Medium-sized mammals on the Complex include mink, muskrat, red fox,

coyote, badger, beaver, jackrabbits, woodchuck, raccoon, striped skunk,

and cottontails. No thorough inventory of the small mammals have been

conducted on the Refuge or District. The following small mammals have

been observed thirteen-lined ground squirrel, Franklin’s ground squirrel,

jumping mouse, and plains pocket gopher.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 149

Fish

Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake have historically been managed at

depths that support recreational fisheries. Northern pike, walleye, perch,

and channel catfish are some of the sport fish in the two lakes. Native fish

that exist in other wetlands and in the rivers are fathead minnows,

bullheads, and sticklebacks. The common carp and the tiger muskie are

two nonnative fish that were introduced into the lakes.

Managing and improving Refuge recreational fish populations, increasing

the number of Complex wetlands that support recreational fish

populations, and providing fishing opportunity was identified by the

planning team, other resource management professionals, and the public as

important issues during the CCP planning process.

Reptiles and Amphibians

Reports of reptile and amphibian species in the District include work by

Hoberg and Gause (1992). Four species of toads (great plains, American,

Canadian, and woodhouse’s) and three species of frogs (northern leopard,

wood frog, and western chorus) have been documented in the District

(Hoberg and Gause 1992). Hoberg and Gause (1992) reported the

occurrence of tiger salamanders, mudpuppys (Ransom County), northern

prairie skink, western painted turtles, common snapping turtles, plains

garter snakes, and western hognose snakes. Red-bellied snakes have been

observed by Tewaukon staff on the Hartleben WPA and the Tewaukon

Refuge. No thorough inventory of reptiles and amphibians has been

conducted on the Refuge or District.

Threatened and Endangered Species

The bald eagle is the only federally endangered or threatened wildlife

species documented on the Complex. This species is currently proposed for

delisting as populations have recovered. Bald eagles can regularly be

observed on Complex lands during migration periods. One threatened

plant species, the western prairie fringed orchid is found on tracts that

have been protected by grassland easements. By purchasing easements,

the Service has bought the right to eliminate tillage or conversion native

prairie sites where orchids are found.

Several species that are considered rare and unique by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service or the State of North Dakota exist on Complex lands

including: black tern, ferruginous hawk, loggerhead shrike, regal fritillary

and Dakota skipper butterflies.

Riparian and Native Woodlands

Complex native riparian vegetation, both woodlands and grasslands, are

primarily located within the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, and Red River of the

North floodplains. Grassland riparian vegetation is comprised of prairie

cordgrass, northern reedgrass, a variety of sedges, and rushes. The native

riparian woodlands are normally deciduous trees such as cottonwoods and

willows and are found where moisture conditions allow for their growth.
150 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

The Physical Environment

Climate and Air Quality

Southeastern North Dakota climate is characterized by the extreme cold of

winter, hot summers and rapid fluctuations of temperature. Periodic droughts

and wet cycles occur over several years or sometimes within a year.

Temperatures range from -35 degrees to 110 degrees Fahrenheit. Intense

thunderstorms occur frequently during the summer; snow and high winds

can produce blizzard conditions in the winter. Prevailing winds are from

the northwest with the highest wind speeds normally occurring in the

springtime. The wind exceeds 25 mph during 185 days of the year. Total

annual precipitation is about 20.77 inches and is normally heaviest in late

spring and early summer. The growing season is approximately 90 days

long.

No special air quality standards exists for the Complex, but air quality in

this area meets the six Federal Environmental Protection Agency

standards set for particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, ozone,

carbon monoxide, and lead. Permits from the ND Health Department are

applied for prior to prescribed burning done on the Complex with ND Air

Pollution Control Rules.

Soils

The soils within the three Counties comprising the Complex have been

inventoried by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. The dominant soils of

Sargent County are Forman-Aastad loams. Ransom County soils are

dominated by the Barnes Soil Association. Fargo silty clay and EmbdenTiffany are the two most common soil types in Richland County.

The majority of the upland sites in the Complex have high organic matter,

nutrients, and adequate topsoil to establish and support grassland stands.

Rolling topography generally limits water erosion to isolated drainage

areas, but exposed soils can be subject to severe wind erosion if snow cover

is limited. Upland areas with grass cover generally form a resilient sod

which is not easily penetrated. Bare soil areas between bunch grasses or

sites of animal burrows can be rapidly colonized by annual plants or

invader plants.

Generally, these soils are extremely valuable for production agriculture.

Despite the challenges presented by precipitation extremes and short

growing seasons, the soils support small grain, row crop, and livestock

production that generates the most common source of income in the State.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 151

Hydrology

The most prominent wetland features throughout the Complex are glaciated

“prairie potholes.” These prairie wetlands are more numerous in Sargent

and Ransom Counties (outside of the Red River Valley) but are found

within the entire District. It is the richness and diversity of these wetlands

that have historically been of primary interest to the Service in North

Dakota. These prairie wetlands are extremely productive and very

attractive to both migratory and resident wildlife. They serve as breeding,

nesting, and rest areas for many migratory birds and as wintering habitat

for many species of resident wildlife.

The Wild Rice River and its tributaries are the water source for the

Tewaukon NWR. The Wild Rice River and its tributaries collect spring runoff

from the Sisseton hills located to the south of the Refuge. Water enters the

Refuge from the west and south and flows east through a series of

impoundments. The Wild Rice River eventually enters the Red River of the

North as is the case with the other major river systems in the District.

Wetland drainage and channelization of Wild Rice River tributaries has

increased the amount of water, nutrients, and sediments coming into the

Refuge.

The Sheyenne River in Ransom County is also a major tributary in the

District that flows into the Red River of the North.

Unique Natural Resources

The Complex does not have any unique resources that would qualify as

resource natural areas, wilderness, or wild and scenic rivers.

Cultural Resources

Two limited archaeological investigations have been done on the Refuge

and only limited work has been done on a few of the Waterfowl Production

Areas.

The majority of the cultural resource information for the Tewaukon NWR

has been compiled in Jackson and Toom’s 1999 report, “Cultural Resources

Overview Studies of the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge, Sargent

County, North Dakota and the Waubay National Wildlife Refuge, Day

County, South Dakota.” An additional report “Archaeological Test

Excavations at Lake Tewaukon (325A211) documents a proto-historic

occupation site in southeastern North Dakota (Haberman, 1978).

Historic (A.D. 1780 to present) sites on the Refuge include the Langie

family cemetery on the western shore of Lake Tewaukon and the campsite

of General Sibley’s military troops at Camp Parker in July 1863 on the

eastern shore of Parker’s Bay. Several historic trails are near or cross

Waterfowl Production Areas. These trails include the Fort Ransom-Fort

Wadsworth Trail, the 1863 General Sibley Expedition, Colonel McPhail’s

return route in 1862, and parts of the Fort Abercrombie-Fort Wadsworth

Trail. An expedition to determine the suitability for a railroad occurred in

1853 - 1855 crossing Richland and Ransom Counties was documented by

Issac Stephens.

Less than 5 percent of the Tewaukon NWR has been surveyed for cultural

resources. The majority of the cultural sites that have been documented

are in gently sloping to moderately-well to well-drained soils.
152 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Socio-economic Environment

Recreational Resources - Public Use

Tewaukon Refuge is the largest tract of publicly owned land in Sargent

County and is a popular destination for approximately 15,000 people per

year. The Refuge provides visitors with an auto tour route, opportunities

for environmental education and interpretation, hunting, fishing, and

wildlife observation. The Waterfowl Production Areas are open to the

public for hunting, fishing, and trapping according to State regulations. An

estimated 30,000 people use the District lands.

The Complex is approximately 90 miles southwest of Fargo, the largest city

in North Dakota, 60 miles southwest of Wahpeton, and over 200 miles west

of Minneapolis, MN. Several smaller towns of less than 1,000 people are

located throughout the District.

An eight mile auto tour route is located along the north shore of Lake

Tewaukon. It is open from May 1 through September 30 and closed in the

spring and fall to minimize disturbance to migrating birds.

Hunting and fishing are the most popular activities on the Refuge. Many

hunters are from the local area but an increasing number of hunters come

from Minnesota and Fargo, ND. Hunting for two species is allowed on the

Refuge, white-tailed deer and ring-necked pheasants. Hunters have two

options to hunt white-tailed deer, an archery season and Refuge permit

rifle season. The Refuge is also open to a Youth Deer firearms season in

September. The Refuge pheasant season opens after the deer rifle season

in November. Fishing is allowed on Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake

year-round. Boat access for fishing is restricted to May 1 through

September 30 to limit disturbance to migrating waterfowl. Five boat ramps

(one accessible), an accessible fishing dock, picnic facilities, and outdoor

rest rooms are located at the two lakes.

Hunting on the District is also very popular. Waterfowl Production Areas

are open to all hunters, anglers, and trappers according to State regulations.

No managed fisheries exist in WPA waters. White-tailed deer, waterfowl, and

pheasant are the most popular species hunted on the District. With the

majority of land owned by private individuals and posted closed to public

hunting, WPAs offer important opportunities for public hunting.

No hiking trails exist on the Refuge. The east side of the Refuge is open to

walking access for wildlife observation. One walking prairie trail has been

developed on the Hartleben WPA.

Economics

Until recently North Dakota was predominately rural, but more than 50

percent of the State’s residents now live in urban areas. Settlement began

in southeastern North Dakota in the mid- to late-1800’s. The Fargo

population has grown from 32,580 people in 1940 to 180,000 people in 1998

(includes the Fargo and Cass County metro area). Fargo continues to grow

at a rate of 1.5 percent each year. Wahpeton, a city of approximately 10,000

is located in Richland County and is approximately 60 miles east of the

Complex. Wahpeton’s population has a growth rate similar to Fargo’s. The

County seats are Forman for Sargent County, Lisbon for Ransom County,

and Wahpeton for Richland County. The economic base of the State was

predominately agriculture, but as North Dakota becomes more urban,

agriculture related employment accounts for less than 50 percent of the

work force. The growing employment sectors are retail, professional

services, and durable manufacturing.

Approximate land acreage totals for the three Counties are as follows:

Sargent County - 532,000 acres; Ransom - 592,000 acres; and Richland

County - 927,424 acres. Land use is predominately agriculture. The

majority of crop acres in the Complex are utilized for wheat (spring),

soybeans, corn, and sugar beets in the Red River Valley. Average yields
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 153

vary by County. Cash rental rates in 1998 on agricultural lands ranged

from $45.00 - $82.50/acre in Richland County, $35.00 - $57.00/acre in Sargent

County, and $32.50 - $55.00/acre in Ransom County. Grazing occurs on a smaller

scale in the three Counties. Approximately 92,000 head of cattle were

reported in 1998 in all of the three Counties (ND Ag Statistics 1998) with

an average pasture rental rate of $7.73/AUM (animal unit month).

Wildlife observation is the number one recreational activity in the United

States today. This recreational activity is part of a new type of tourism,

labeled “Eco-tourism.” It is growing as the human population increases

and becomes more urban and is looking for places to get away to natural

areas for recreation. A 1995 Fish and Wildlife Service study was conducted

on the economic impacts national wildlife refuges have on local economics.

One of the 15 refuges chosen was the Upper Souris NWR in northwest

North Dakota. The study found that over 46,000 visitors spent

approximately $1.03 million during trips to this Refuge in 1995. Demands

for lodging, food, gas, fishing, and hunting equipment and other goods

created 32 jobs in two counties. Fish and Wildlife Service lands can boost

local economies enormously.

Rural southeast North Dakota residents face increasing socio-economic

challenges. The agricultural profit margin for the family farm is shrinking

and operations are becoming bigger, diversifying, or failing to survive.

Small towns are losing population, services, and tax revenue. In many

ways, the Refuge fits into the picture as a small business would, by

employing eight full-time people who spend money in the surrounding

community. In addition, locally purchased supplies, machinery, and

equipment used to accomplish Complex operations supports community

businesses. Complex recreational visitors also generate local business

income. Management activities like Complex grazing, farming, and haying

provide business opportunities for area agricultural producers.

An issue that hinders acquisition efforts and strains Service/community

relationships is Refuge Revenue Sharing. The Service Revenue Sharing

payment has seldom been paid in full, and when it is, it still does not equal

the tax revenue paid by other County residents. Service efforts in the

Complex will always be less effective until the Revenue Sharing payment is

comparable to local taxes.

The majority of Refuge and District users and neighbors understand that

the Service manages Refuge lands for migratory birds and WPAs for

waterfowl production, and most have a general appreciation for the value

of wildlife and their habitats. Refuge visitors also appreciate the variety of

recreational opportunities that Complex lands offer. However, these

visitors expect the land to be managed and not ignored. Their opinions of

the Service, wildlife agencies, environmental groups, and wildlife in general

are greatly influenced by the way these lands are managed. If a WPA is

ignored, allowing the habitat condition to decrease in quality and noxious

weeds to increase in abundance, opinions quickly become negative.

However, if the land is managed well and wildlife populations and habitat

conditions are productive, opinions become positive and wildlife benefits

both on- and off-Service managed lands. As with all public land

management, communication, cooperation, and education between the local

community and managers drives public perception of the agency and its

management.

Environmental Justice

In accordance with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations, Federal agencies must identify and address disproportionately

high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs

policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.

The evaluations considered potential impacts, including social and

economic, cultural, and physical and biological resources.
154 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

IV. Environmental Consequences

Alternative A: Custodial

Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation and Alteration

This alternative would not address habitat fragmentation since opportunities

to acquire, manage, or protect important wildlife habitat would be suspended.

The Service would not capitalize on any opportunities to acquire key

habitat that would help to prevent fragmentation. In addition, a reduced

habitat management strategy would result in the slow, but inevitable

colonization of key habitats like native prairie by trees and nonnative plants.

Upland habitats would become less attractive to grassland nesting birds as

the vegetative structure and species diversity of Complex grasslands decline.

An overall decline of plant and animal species richness would occur.

Grassland and Tallgrass Prairie

In the short-term, nesting cover for migratory birds would increase as

croplands would be seeded to grassland cover.

With the exception of an occasional wildfire, this management alternative

would eliminate all major defoliation and disturbance events required to

maintain diverse and healthy grasslands. Residual vegetation would build

up suppressing new growth. Height, density, and diversity of vegetation

would decline. This would be especially apparent on the native prairie areas where

the native plant diversity would decline as tracts evolve into monotypic stand of

nonnative grasses. Nonnative plant species would increase due to the decreased

health of the native plants and their subsequent inability to compete. Prairie

butterfly populations would decrease as the native prairie areas are treated too

infrequently. The essential nectar and larval food sources for prairie

butterflies of prairie grasses and forbs would disappear as the grasslands

lose diversity because of the decrease in disturbance events. Attempts to

convert grasslands to diverse native prairie plant communities would not

be sustained and prairie dependent species would not increase.

The diversity and structure in Dense Nesting Cover (DNC) fields would also

decrease without periodic disturbance. These fields would also evolve into

monotypic stands of nonnative grass species. Woody species such as buckbrush

and Russian olive trees would invade the grasslands. No degraded grassland tracts

would be reseeded to diverse native plant communities. Under this alternative,

weed control would continue to be conducted at levels required to meet legislative

standards, but no new techniques would be explored. Weed control should ensure

that the impact to adjacent landowners from Complex weeds does not increase.

Law enforcement would continue on all Complex uplands and grassland

easements to help prevent this resource from being hayed early, converted

to cropland, or developed.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 155

Wetlands

Wetlands would not be managed and conditions would be the result of

natural processes as wetlands go through the range of drying and flooding.

Wetlands would not be managed to hold water for longer periods of time;

instead, they would fluctuate seasonally and yearly. A greater range of

habitat conditions would provide conditions for a greater range of wildlife

species. The levels of Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake would mimic original

shallow levels which may encourage vegetative growth. These lakes may not

provide open water migratory bird resting habitat if vegetation responds. Shallow

lake levels would decrease the amount of bank erosion around these lakes and

reduce carp, which should reduce sedimentation and turbidity. Overall water

quality on the Refuge is not likely to improve if efforts to address watershed

impacts along the Wild Rice River are not taken. Non-managed wetlands would

continue to function naturally except for the exclusion of fire and grazing

processes, which should not measurably affect their productivity. Law

enforcement would continue on all Complex lands and the Service’s

wetland easement interests would be enforced. No efforts to protect

additional wetland habitat interests through acquisition would occur.

Native Grassland Migratory Birds

Initially, more nesting cover would be available for birds after cropland was

seeded. Waterfowl nesting attempts would still be driven by area wetland

conditions. Over time, under the custodial alternative, waterfowl

production would decrease as the health, density, and vigor of Complex

grasslands declines. Most of the grasslands would become unattractive for

nesting ducks. Predator control would be discontinued, and waterfowl nest

success would decline below population sustaining levels. Complex

wetlands would still provide good resting and feeding areas for migrating

waterfowl. No cropland food source for waterfowl would exist on the

Refuge which may make the Refuge less attractive to migrating waterfowl

and might cause additional problems for adjacent landowners.

Use of grasslands on the Complex by migratory grassland nesting birds

such as the bobolink, grasshopper sparrow, upland sandpiper, etc., and

prairie butterflies would decrease. As the grasslands change to less diverse

stands of nonnative grasses and grassland structure deteriorates, use by

nesting grassland birds would decline. The invasion of more woody plants

would also make complex lands less attractive to grassland nesting birds as

they avoid selecting nest sites adjacent to trees.

Other Migratory Birds

Wetland dependent migratory birds such as yellow-headed blackbirds,

herons, egrets, cormorants, shorebirds, marsh wrens, and others would be

positively affected by this alternative. Managed wetlands would reach a

greater range of conditions (dry to full) than they do currently. A broader

range of conditions will make them more biologically productive over time.

The plant biomass, that develops as wetlands dry out, will support a large

waterbird response when they refill. As wetlands dry out, additional

habitat will be available for shorebirds. Wetland migratory bird use would

still be dependent on local and regional wetland conditions.

Species that are dependent on trees, such as yellow warblers, thrushes,

and Northern orioles, may be negatively affected by this alternative if

native woodlands decline over time.
156 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Resident Birds

Initially, more nesting cover would be available for birds after cropland was

seeded. Over time, under the custodial alternative grassland nesting

populations would decrease as the health, density, and vigor of the Complex

grasslands declines.

The only native game bird that occasionally uses the Refuge is the sharptailed grouse. Grouse may initially colonize the Refuge as croplands are

seeded down, but are unlikely to be attracted to the upland cover as species

structure and diversity decline. Despite more extensive grasslands, grouse

are likely to remain incidental on all Complex lands. Additionally, grassland

easements which protect grassland habitats from conversion would not be

acquired under this alternative. Grassland habitat is the main limiting

factors for sharp-tailed and prairie chickens on the Complex. These species

would initially benefit from this alternative but would continue to decline

as grassland habitats on the District are converted to cropland or

development.

Ring-necked pheasant populations may decline under this alternative.

Managing habitat for pheasants generally consists of providing alternating

blocks of grassland nesting cover, tree and shrub plantings for winter

cover, and croplands for food sources. Seeding down all Refuge croplands

would not provide the same amount or type of habitat that is currently

available. Predator control would also be discontinued under this

alternative. Increased predator numbers may reduce the nest success and

recruitment of all grassland nesting birds, including pheasants.

Managing Complex habitat to specifically benefit pheasants was identified

by the public as an important issue during the CCP planning process. The

public perception that the seeding of Refuge cropland to grass would be

detrimental to pheasant populations can be anticipated in this alternative.

Pheasant hunting would also be terminated under this alternative which

would be very unpopular. The perception that pheasant populations would

decline and the elimination of pheasant hunting would generate political

pressure to maintain food plots for pheasants and permit hunting seasons.

These impacts are not anticipated on District lands where hunting would

still occur.

Mammals

Deer are commonly found on Complex lands and are a popular game

species that attract large numbers of visitors. Deer hunting would be

terminated under this alternative. Managing Complex habitat to

specifically benefit deer was identified by the public as an important issue

during the CCP planning process.

Refuge deer numbers are likely to increase under this alternative, and

while they may obtain some food from sources on the adjacent ND State

Wildlife Management Area, expanding populations may damage Refuge

vegetation and are likely to damage crop and hay supplies on adjacent

private lands. Larger deer populations and damage to surrounding crops

and hay supplies would generate political pressure to maintain food plots

for deer and permit hunting seasons. These impacts are not anticipated on

District lands where hunting would still occur.

Small predators such as raccoon, skunk, and fox would not be controlled

under this alternative, and their numbers would be self-regulating. Their

populations would be higher under this alternative.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 157

Fish

Managing Complex wetlands to support recreational fishing was identified

by the public as an important issue during the CCP planning process.

Managing Refuge lakes at historic shallow levels is likely to eliminate the

recreational fisheries in Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes. The Lake

Tewaukon aerator would no longer be used. Water would not be deep

enough in these lakes for fish to survive the winter. While the reduction of

other species, such as carp, may result in small improvement in water

quality, agricultural runoff throughout the watershed has a much greater

impact on water quality. It is likely that any water quality improvement

caused by the reduction in carp numbers will not be measurable.

The likelihood that the recreational fish population in these lakes would be

lost would generate political pressure to maintain the two lakes at

elevations that support this activity and would decrease public support of

the Refuge.

No fisheries are established on District lands.

Reptiles and Amphibians

Little impacts to these populations are anticipated with this alternative

though these species may do slightly better on the croplands that are

seeded back to grass.

Endangered and Threatened Species

The only endangered wildlife species component on Complex lands is

migration habitat for bald eagles. No significant impact would occur under

this alternative.

Western prairie fringed orchid populations on grassland easement tracts

would still be monitored. No effort would be made to continue to protect

prairie habitats that contain these species from being converted to

cropland or other development through additional easement and fee

acquisition. Chances for this species to maintain self-sustaining stable

populations would decrease.

Rare species and species of concern (wildlife and plant species) on District

lands would be adversely affected. The white lady’s slipper, Dakota skipper,

and the powesheik skipper populations on the Hartleben WPA would

decline as habitat management is phased out, native prairie deteriorates,

and essential native nectar sources and grasses decrease. No future

reintroduction of extirpated species would be considered.

Riparian and Native Woodlands

Riparian vegetation may develop along the Wild Rice River corridor and

become more diverse between managed Refuge pools once fixed elevations

are established. Native woodlands would not be managed; they may

deteriorate over time or be self-supporting. Dependent migratory birds

such as yellow warblers and Northern orioles would follow suit.
158 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Physical Environment

Climate and Air Quality

A reduced impact would occur on air quality under this alternative as fewer

fossil fuel burning engines would be needed under minimum management.

This reduced impact is not likely to be measurable. Prescribed burning

would be discontinued under this alternative, and air quality impacts would

be reduced. However, eliminating prescribed fire would not eliminate fire

from Complex lands. Wildfires would still burn Complex vegetation

although the frequency of fires would be reduced. Fuel loading may yield

larger and more intense fires and total air quality impacts may be the same

as the other alternatives.

Soil and Water Quality

Some small improvement in soil loss due to wind and water erosion could

be anticipated as well as increases in organic matter as cropland is seeded

to grass under this alternative. The nutrient cycle that is triggered by fire

and grazing disturbance would be infrequent.

Complex water quality would be expected to decline as watershed

agricultural impacts continued.

Hydrology

Restoring wetlands to natural levels would result in a slight increase in

flow in the Wild Rice River. No other impacts would be anticipated.

Cultural Resources

Cultural resources on the Complex would still be protected by law

enforcement. No additional interpretative facilities or programs would be

continued or developed. Existing interpretive displays and panels would

not be maintained. No additional areas would be surveyed.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 159

Socio-economic Environment

Recreational Resources - Public Use

All public use would be eliminated on the Refuge including hunting,

fishing, and wildlife observation under this alternative. All facilities would

be removed. Refuge roads would not be maintained. The Visitor Center

would not be staffed. Waterfowl Production Areas would still be open to

hunting, fishing, and trapping only. No new facilities or opportunities would

be developed on the WPAs. Environmental education and outreach would

cease on the Complex. Under this alternative, the Refuge would be closed

to all visitors. As a result, demand for outdoor recreation would increase on

other lands in the Complex.

The lost recreation opportunity would generate political pressure to

restore these opportunities or transfer the management of the Refuge to

another agency.

Economics

Under this alternative, the number of wildlife-dependent visits to the area

would decrease dramatically. A corresponding decrease in the amount of

money spent in the local communities on lodging, food, and supplies would

be expected. Eliminating haying, farming, and grazing on the Complex

would greatly reduce the economic benefit local producers gain from

conducting Complex land management. The decrease in staff working at

the Complex would reduce the amount of revenue in local communities

generated by staff living in the area. Supplies and services purchased

through local businesses would be reduced. Weed control conducted at

levels required to meet legislative standards should ensure that the impact

to adjacent landowners from Complex weeds does not increase.

Environmental Justice

Considering social and economic impacts, actions under this alternative are

not known to cause disproportionately high and adverse human health

impacts in any population and no such impacts would be expected to occur

as a result of the Custodial alternative. No adverse or disproportionately

high socioeconomic impacts to low-income or minority populations are

expected to occur under this alternative.
160 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Alternative B: No Action - Continue Current Management

Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation and Alteration

This alternative would help limit habitat fragmentation since opportunities

to acquire, manage, or protect important wildlife habitat will be pursued.

This effort would be opportunistic depending on Service project emphasis

and available sources of funding. As a result, the Service may be able to

capitalize on opportunities to acquire key habitat that would help to

prevent fragmentation. A limited habitat management strategy would

result in the slow, but inevitable, colonization of key habitats like native

prairie by trees and nonnative plants. Upland habitats would become less

attractive to grassland nesting birds as the vegetative structure and

species diversity of Complex grasslands decline. An overall long-term

decline of plant and animal species richness throughout the Complex would

occur.

Grasslands and Tallgrass Prairie Habitats

At the current rate of habitat management, about 10 percent of the uplands

on the Complex are actively managed annually. This management effort is

not spread evenly throughout the Complex. Some grassland areas have

never or very rarely been managed due to lack of time, money, or staff.

Under this No Action alternative, these areas would continue to be left

unmanaged and the deterioration of grassland quality and corresponding

wildlife response described under the custodial alternative would occur.

Grasslands that are currently being managed would continue to be

managed at the same rate with the same tools and methods. Under these

management activities, some grassland habitat conditions would continue

to decline while some would maintain their present condition; others, such

as native prairie, would be adequately managed. If the current level of

grassland habitat management on the Complex continues, the long-term

overall grassland condition would decline. At the current staffing and

funding levels, it is not possible to manage an adequate amount of habitat

in a timely fashion. As a result, many of the Complex grasslands receive

too much rest from disturbance. Attempts to diversify grassland stands

would continue, but these efforts would be sporadic and inconsistent.

Grassland nesting cover for migratory birds would not be maximized on

the Refuge as some lands would be managed for crop production.

Under this alternative, weed control would continue to be conducted at

levels required to meet legislative standards and new techniques would be

explored. Weed control should ensure that the impact to adjacent

landowners from Complex weeds does not increase.

Law enforcement would continue on all Complex lands and grassland

easements to help prevent this resource from being hayed early, converted

to cropland, or developed.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 161

Wetlands

Wetlands managed under this alternative would not reach their full

potential in productivity and wildlife use. Managing for stable water levels

limits the extremes that wetlands go through during the natural drying

and flooding cycles. These cycles produce the greatest vegetative diversity

and biomass. Invertebrate productivity and wildlife use closely follows

drying and flooding cycles. Large permanent wetlands created by

artificially holding water for longer periods of time are less productive than

wetlands under going drying and flooding cycles. Under natural conditions

many of these wetlands would be semipermanent or seasonal in nature.

Some water use information would be collected, but additional information

that would complete the water use data needs would not be collected.

Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes would be managed as open water rest areas

for migratory birds. These lake levels would support carp populations

(despite management) which will contribute to turbidity in these waters.

These lake levels also cause more bank erosion than would be caused if

they were managed at historic shallow levels. In the No Action alternative,

non-managed wetlands would undergo natural cycles so they would not be

affected.

Law enforcement efforts would continue on all Complex lands and wetland

easements would be enforced.

It is likely that water quality on the Refuge would continue to decline

because no efforts will be initiated to look at watershed impacts in the Wild

Rice River drainage.

Native Grassland Migratory Birds

Over time, under the No Action alternative, waterfowl populations would

decrease as the long-term health, density, and vigor of the Complex

grasslands declined. Waterfowl nesting attempts would still be driven by

area wetland conditions, but most of the Complex grasslands would become

unattractive for nesting ducks as species composition and structure

declined. Depending on funding and personnel, predator control would still

be utilized on the Refuge to try and maintain waterfowl nesting success at

or above population sustaining levels. If predator control efforts are

sustained, waterfowl nest success should be adequate to maintain

populations. The Complex wetlands would still provide good resting areas

for migrating waterfowl, and croplands would provide a limited food

source.

Use of grasslands on the Complex by migratory grassland nesting birds,

such as the bobolink, grasshopper sparrow, upland sandpiper, etc., and

prairie butterflies would decrease. Over the long-term, as the grasslands

change to less diverse stands of nonnative grasses and grassland structure

deteriorates, use by nesting grassland birds would decline. The invasion of

more woody plants would also make Complex lands less attractive to

grassland nesting birds as they avoid selecting nest sites adjacent to trees.
162 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Other Migratory Birds

Wetland dependent migratory birds, such as yellow-headed blackbirds,

herons, egrets, cormorants, shorebirds, marsh wrens and others, would not

be measurably affected by this alternative. Managed wetlands would not

reach the range of conditions (dry to full) that they would under the

custodial or enhanced management alternatives. As a result, they would be

less biologically productive over time. The plant biomass that develops as

wetlands dry out which supports a large waterbird response when they

refill, would not be as dramatic when wetlands are managed for more

stable conditions. Less habitat would be available for shorebirds than when

management regimes do not include long, draw down periods. Wetland

migratory bird use would still be dependent on local and regional wetland

conditions.

Species that are dependent on trees, such as yellow warblers, thrushes and

Northern orioles, may be negatively affected by this alternative if native

woodlands decline over time.

Resident Birds

Over time, under the No Action alternative, grassland nesting bird

populations would decrease as the health, density, and vigor of the Complex

grasslands declines.

The only native game bird that occasionally uses the Refuge is the sharptailed grouse. Grouse are not likely to be affected by this alternative and

are likely to remain incidental on all Complex lands

Ring-necked pheasants would be expected to remain stable under this

alternative. Managing habitat for pheasants generally consists of providing

alternating blocks of grassland nesting cover, tree and shrub plantings for

winter cover, and croplands for food sources. These habitat components

would be retained under this alternative providing the same amount and

types of habitat that are currently available. If upland conditions decline

markedly over the long-term, nesting habitat would be less suitable and

pheasant populations could slowly decline. Predator control would also

benefit this species. Winter weather will still be the primary limiting factor

that affects pheasant populations.

Managing Complex habitat to specifically benefit pheasants was identified

by the public as an important issue during the CCP planning process. The

public perception would be that Complex management will continue to

support pheasant populations. Pheasant hunting would also be continued

under this alternative which would be popular. Since pheasant populations

would be supported by Refuge habitats and pheasant hunting would

continue, political pressure to maintain more food plots and plant

additional tree and shrub habitat for pheasants would be limited.

These impacts are not anticipated on District lands where hunting would

still occur and cropping is only used for a few years to re-establish

grassland cover.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 163

Mammals

Deer are commonly found on Complex lands and are a popular game

species that attract large numbers of visitors. Deer hunting will be

continued under this alternative. Managing Refuge habitat to specifically

benefit deer was identified by the public as an important issue during the

CCP planning process.

Refuge deer numbers are likely to remain stable under this alternative.

Croplands that provide winter food for deer would be maintained. Deer

populations would be maintained at levels that habitat can support. Deer

populations would be managed at levels that limit damage to surrounding

crops and hay supplies which would limit political pressure to maintain

additional food plots for deer.

These impacts are not anticipated on District lands where hunting would

still occur and cropping is only used for a few years to reestablish

grassland cover.

Some short-term seasonal reductions in the Refuge populations of small

furbearers, such as skunk, raccoon, red fox, and mink, would be anticipated

in the years when predator management would be instituted. These species

quickly return to previous levels as young of the year animals from the

surrounding area disburse.

It is likely that most other Complex mammal populations would not be

affected by this alternative and remain stable.

Fish

Managing Complex wetlands to support recreational fishing was identified

by the public as an important issue during the CCP planning process.

Managing Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes as open water migration rest

areas would provide habitat capable of supporting recreational fisheries.

The Lake Tewaukon aerator would be utilized to help prevent winter-kill.

Size limits on predator fish and other management techniques would be

utilized to attempt to reduce carp populations. While the reduction of other

species, such as carp, may result in small improvement in water quality,

agricultural runoff throughout the watershed has a much greater impact

on water quality. It is likely that any water quality improvement caused by

the reduction in carp numbers will not be measurable.

Managing Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes at current elevations would

provide habitat that is likely to retain the recreational fish population in

these lakes and support a popular recreational fishery. Sprague Lake

would still be expected to winter-kill occasionally.

Sport fish populations would be managed at levels that support

recreational fishing in two large lakes, which would limit political pressure

to manage additional wetland fisheries.

No fisheries are established on District lands.

Reptiles and Amphibians

Little impacts to these populations are anticipated with this alternative.
164 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Endangered and Threatened Species

Since the only endangered wildlife species component on Complex lands is

migration habitat for bald eagles, no significant impact would occur under

this alternative.

Western prairie fringed orchid populations on grassland easement tracts

would still be monitored. Efforts will continue to protect prairie habitats

that contain these species from being converted to cropland or other

development through easement and fee acquisition. These efforts may not

be enough to ensure self-sustaining stable populations.

Rare species and species of concern (wildlife and plant species) on District lands

would be adversely affected over the long-term. The white lady’s slipper, Dakota

skipper, and the powesheik skipper populations on the Hartleben WPA would

decline if habitat management is not adequate and native prairie deteriorates.

Essential native plant nectar sources and grasses would be expected to decrease.

Prairie butterfly populations would decrease as the native prairie areas are treated

too infrequently. Attempts to convert grasslands to diverse native prairie plant

communities would only be opportunistic and based on additional funds. Prairie

dependent wildlife species would not increase.

No future reintroduction of extirpated species would be considered.

Riparian and Native Woodlands

Riparian vegetation would remain stable on the Complex and would not be

affected by this alternative. Native woodlands would not be managed, they

may deteriorate over time, or be self supporting. Dependent migratory

birds, such as yellow warblers and Northern orioles, would follow suit.

Physical Environment

Climate and Air Quality

Similar types and amounts of management would occur in this alternative

as currently occur, which should not change the impact on air quality by

running fossil fuel burning engines. Prescribed burning would continue at

rates similar to those that are currently being used. Some impacts to air

quality could be anticipated from this management activity. Some of these

impacts are mitigated by burn prescriptions that ensure smoke is carried

aloft. Permits from the ND Health Department are applied for prior to

prescribed burning done on the Complex to comply with ND Air Pollution

Control Rules.

Soil and Water Quality

Some small amount of soil loss due to wind and water erosion would be

anticipated on Refuge croplands. Managing Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes

at higher levels would cause more bank erosion than would be caused if

they were managed at historically shallow levels. Complex water quality

would be expected to decline due to cumulative agricultural impacts

throughout watersheds.

The nutrient cycle that is triggered by fire and grazing disturbance as a

result of upland management efforts would be more frequent.

Hydrology

No impacts would be anticipated. Managed wetland water use data would

be incomplete.

Cultural Resources

Cultural resources on the Complex would be protected. No additional

interpretative facilities or programs would be continued or developed. No

additional areas would be surveyed and no new data would be collected

other than what would be incidentally gathered as a result of preconstruction surveys.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 165

Socio-economic Environment

Recreational Resources - Public Use

Under this alternative, public use would continue on the Refuge at current

levels including hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation. All facilities

would be maintained and may be upgraded when special funding

opportunities arise. Areas of the Refuge that are closed to public entry

during certain times of the year to limit disturbance to migratory birds and

resident wildlife would remain closed. Refuge roads and trails would be

maintained. The Visitor Center would be staffed during the work week.

Waterfowl Production Areas would still be open to hunting, fishing, and

trapping. New facilities or opportunities would only be considered and

developed on WPAs when special funding opportunities arise. No new

opportunities or public use facilities associated with these activities would

be developed. Environmental education and outreach would continue at

current levels, but may fluctuate depending on staffing. Over the longterm, current staff may not be able to provide adequate visitor center

hours, materials, or law enforcement. Wildlife observation visits would

increase in the short-term but would decrease over time. As the diversity

of wildlife and habitat decreased so would the public’s interest in visiting

the Complex. Law enforcement would continue at the same minimal level.

Maintaining recreational opportunities would limit political pressure to

provide these opportunities or transfer the management of the Refuge to

another agency.

Economics

Under this alternative, the number of visitors to the area would be

expected to continue to increase over the long-term. A corresponding

increase in the amount of money spent in the local communities on lodging,

food, and supplies would be expected. Utilizing area producers to

accomplish Complex upland management such as haying, farming, and

grazing would continue to provide economic benefits for local producers.

Weed control efforts would ensure that the impact to adjacent landowners

from Complex weeds does not increase. These impacts should decrease

over time as new more effective techniques are utilized.

A constant number of staff working at the Complex would maintain the

amount of local revenue generated by staff living in the area and supplies

and services purchased through the local community.

Environmental Justice

Considering social and economic impacts, actions under this alternative are

not known to cause disproportionately high and adverse human health

impacts in any population, and no such impacts would be expected to occur

as a result of the No Action alternative. No adverse or disproportionately

high socio-economic impacts to low-income or minority populations are

expected to occur under this alternative.
166 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Alternative C: The Proposed Action -Implement the CCP

Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation and Alteration

This alternative would help limit habitat fragmentation since opportunities

to acquire, manage, or protect important wildlife habitats would be pursued.

Habitat acquisition and protection efforts would focus on diverse native prairie

sites that have high wetland densities or unique prairie characteristics. By

emphasizing partnerships and utilizing matching sources of funding, the

opportunity to protect and enhance habitat may be approached

strategically. Large blocks of cover would be protected which would

provide grassland nesting birds and other prairie species important habitat

components needed to maintain self-sustaining populations. As a result, the

Service may be able to capitalize on opportunities to acquire key habitat

that would help to prevent fragmentation.

An enhanced habitat management strategy would be employed to limit

colonization of key habitats like native prairie by trees and nonnative

plants. Upland habitats would be managed to improve plant structure and

diversity in order to improve this habitat for grassland nesting birds and

other prairie dependent species like butterflies. Management would be

utilized to improve the vegetative structure and species diversity of planted

cover to benefit a greater diversity of wildlife species. An overall long-term

improvement of plant and animal species richness throughout the Complex

would be the result.

Grasslands and Tallgrass Prairie Habitats

Implementing the CCP under this alternative will improve protection,

enhancement, and restoration of native plant communities on the Complex.

Preventing the conversion of the remaining 65,000 acres of native prairie

on private land in the District is a high priority if much of the native flora

and dependent fauna of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem is to be preserved

for scientific study, genetic sources, and public enjoyment. Under this

alternative, the Service, in cooperation with partners, would protect

remaining native prairie tracts by purchasing fee title or easement

interests or utilize any other forms of cooperative agreements with

landowners that prevent prairie conversion. Currently, the Service has

protected 10,400 acres of native prairie with grassland easements from

willing sellers. An estimated 57,000 acres are targeted for protection in this

alternative. Additional funding for the grassland easement program

through grants and other sources, such as appropriated Land and Water

Conservation funds, Ducks Unlimited, and Nature Conservancy funds,

would need to be sought and secured. Enforcement of existing grassland

easement interests would continue to be conducted to ensure that

easement terms are met.

Enhancing Complex grasslands would include manipulations such as weed

or nonnative species control, increasing the diversity of native plants

(interseeding or fire management), or increasing the vegetative heights of

the stands. Under the CCP, strategies control of nonnative species (i.e.,

leafy spurge, Canada thistle, Russian olives) would continue to be an

important priority. A variety and combination of techniques (chemical,

mechanical, and biological) would be used to reduce the density of these

species in Complex grasslands. Reducing the density of nonnative species

also reduces the competition for resources by native species. The amount

of useable habitat available for native grassland birds, prairie butterflies,

and ground nesting waterfowl would increase.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 167

Implementation of the CCP will target restoring Complex planted

grassland fields (DNC, nonnative, and warm season native plantings) to a

more diverse native floral community. The objective of this management

focus is to improve this habitat for a greater diversity of grassland nesting

birds and other species. A total of 1,700 acres would be targeted over the

next 15 years on the Complex. Diverse managed grasslands would provide

a range of vegetative heights attractive to ground nesting birds like

mallards, bobolinks, upland sandpipers, and northern harriers. Overall,

wildlife species diversity supported by Complex grassland habitats should

increase.

Planted cover that is not targeted for management designed to improve

native vegetative diversity would be maintained with various techniques

including prescribed burning, grazing, and mowing when appropriate.

Wetlands

Under this alternative, managed wetlands would reach their potential in

productivity and wildlife use. Improved management would yield a range

and variety of wet and dry stages and wetland vegetation response that

mimics the productivity of natural cycles. These stages produce the

greatest vegetative diversity and biomass. Invertebrate productivity and

wildlife use closely follows drying and flooding cycles. Large permanent

wetlands created by artificially holding water for longer periods of time do

not have the productivity that wetlands undergoing drying and flooding

cycles do. Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes would be managed as open water

rest areas for migratory birds. These lake levels will support carp

populations (despite management), which would contribute to turbidity in

these waters. These lake levels also cause more bank erosion than would be

caused if they were managed at historic shallow levels. In this alternative,

non-managed wetlands would undergo natural cycles and fire frequency

would increase which may improve nutrient cycles.

Law enforcement would continue on all Complex lands and wetland

easements would be enforced to ensure that the real property interest

purchased is maintained and that wetlands are not burned, drained,

leveled, or filled. If partnerships within the Wild Rice River Watershed can

be pursued successfully, water quality in the Wild Rice River should

improve.

With the implementation of this alternative the protection of over 1800

acres of wetland habitat in the District would be accomplished using

easements, fee title, and cooperative agreements.

Native Grassland Migratory Birds

Over time, under the enhanced management alternative the potential for

waterfowl populations should increase as the long-term health, density, and

vigor of the Complex grasslands improves. Waterfowl nesting attempts

would still be driven by area wetland conditions. Over time, most of the

Complex grasslands would become more attractive for nesting ducks.

Predator control would be utilized on the Refuge to try and maintain

waterfowl nesting success at or above population sustaining levels. If

predator control efforts are sustained, waterfowl nest success should be

adequate to maintain populations. The Complex wetlands would still

provide good resting areas for migrating waterfowl and should provide

food sources under improved water management. Croplands would provide

a food source for migrating waterfowl.

Use of grasslands on the Complex by migratory grassland nesting birds,

such as the bobolink, grasshopper sparrow, upland sandpiper, etc., and

prairie butterflies should improve. Over the long-term, as grassland

diversity and structure improves, use by nesting grassland birds would

improve. The reduction of woody plants would also make Complex lands

more attractive to grassland nesting birds as they avoid selecting nest sites

adjacent to trees.
168 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Other Migratory Birds

Wetland dependent migratory birds, such as yellow-headed blackbirds,

herons, egrets, cormorants, shorebirds, marsh wrens, and others, would be

positively affected by this alternative. Managed wetlands would undergo a

wide range of conditions (dry to full). As a result, they would be more

biologically productive over time. The plant biomass that develops as

wetlands dry out would support a large waterbird response when they refill.

More habitat would be available for shorebirds when management regimes

include long draw down periods. Wetland migratory bird use would still be

dependent on local and regional wetland conditions.

Resident Birds

Over time, under the enhanced management alternative, grassland nesting bird

populations would increase as the health, density, and vigor of the Complex

grasslands increases.

The only native game bird that occasionally uses the Refuge is the sharptailed grouse. Grouse are not likely to be affected by this alternative and

are likely to remain incidental on all Refuge lands. Grassland easements

should protect grassland habitats from conversion is the limiting factor for

sharp-tailed grouse and prairie chickens on the Complex. These species

should benefit from this alternative.

Ring-necked pheasants would be expected to remain stable under this alternative.

Managing habitat for pheasants generally consists of providing alternating blocks

of grassland nesting cover, tree and shrub plantings for winter cover, and

croplands for food sources. Some of these habitat components would be retained

under this alternative providing similar types of habitat to those that are currently

available. If upland conditions improve markedly over the long-term, nesting

habitat would be more suitable and pheasant populations may improve. Predator

control would also benefit this species. Winter weather will still be the primary

limiting factor that effects pheasant populations.

Managing Complex habitat to specifically benefit pheasants was identified by

the public as an important issue during the CCP planning process. Complex

habitats would continue to support pheasant populations. Pheasant hunting

would also be continued under this alternative which would be popular.

These impacts are not anticipated on District lands where hunting would still

occur and cropping is only used for a few years to reestablish grassland cover.

Mammals

Deer are commonly found on Complex lands and are a popular game species that

attract large numbers of visitors. Deer hunting will be continued under this

alternative. Managing Refuge habitat to specifically benefit deer was identified by

the public as an important issue during the CCP planning process.

Refuge deer numbers are likely to remain stable under this alternative. Croplands

that provide winter food for deer would be maintained. Deer populations would be

maintained at levels that habitat can support. Deer populations would be managed

at levels that limit damage to surrounding crops and hay supplies which would

limit political pressure to maintain additional food plots for deer.

These impacts are not anticipated on District lands where hunting would still

occur and cropping is only used for a few years to reestablish grassland cover.

Some short-term seasonal reductions in the Refuge and selected WPA

populations of small furbearers, such as skunk, raccoon, red fox, and mink,

would be anticipated in the years when predator management would be

instituted. These species would quickly return to previous population levels

as young of the year animals from the surrounding area disburse.

It is likely that most other Complex mammal populations would not be

affected by this alternative and would remain stable.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 169

Fish

Managing Complex wetlands to support recreational fishing was identified

by the public as an important issue during the CCP planning process.

Managing Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes as open water migration rest

areas would provide habitat capable of supporting recreational fisheries.

The Lake Tewaukon aerator would be utilized to help prevent winter-kill.

Size limits on predator fish and other management techniques would be

utilized to attempt to reduce carp populations. While the reduction of other

species, such as carp, may result in small improvement in water quality,

agricultural runoff throughout the watershed has a much greater impact

on water quality. It is likely that any water quality improvement caused by

the reduction in carp numbers would not be measurable.

Managing Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes at current elevations would

provide habitat that is likely to retain the recreational fish population in

these lakes and support a popular recreational fishery. Sprague Lake

would still be expected to winter-kill occasionally.

Sport fish populations would be managed at levels that support

recreational fishing in two large lakes which would limit political pressure

to manage additional wetland fisheries.

No fisheries are established on District lands.

Reptiles and Amphibians

Few impacts to these populations would be anticipated with this

alternative. Surveying these populations would provide important baseline

data on Complex populations.

Endangered and Threatened Species

Since the only endangered wildlife species component on Complex lands is

migration habitat for bald eagles, no significant impact would occur under

this alternative.

Western prairie fringed orchid populations on grassland easement tracts

would still be monitored. Increased efforts would be made to continue to

protect prairie habitats that contain these species from being converted to

cropland or other development through easement and fee acquisition.

These acquisitions should improve chances for this species to maintain selfsustaining stable populations.

Populations of rare species and species of concern (wildlife and plant

species) on District lands would be positively affected over the long-term.

The white lady’s slipper, Dakota skipper, and the powesheik skipper

populations on the Hartleben WPA would remain stable and may improve

as habitat management techniques become more refined.

Native prairie health and vigor would improve, and essential native nectar

sources and grasses would be perpetuated. Prairie butterfly populations

would remain stable or increase. As the native prairie areas are treated,

species composition should improve and competing nonnative vegetation

should decrease. Attempts to convert planted grasslands to diverse native

prairie plant communities would be strategically and systematically applied

to the landscape. Prairie dependent species are expected to increase.

Reintroduction of extirpated species would be considered if habitat

parameters are achieved.
170 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Riparian and Native Woodlands

Riparian vegetation would remain stable on the Complex. Additional

efforts would be made to identify, protect, and reestablish riparian habitats

throughout the Complex which would support dependent migratory bird

populations. Native woodlands would be evaluated and be managed to

ensure they are self supporting. These woodlands should support

dependent migratory birds such as yellow warblers, thrushes, and

Northern orioles.

Physical Environment

Climate and Air Quality

Since increased levels of management would occur under this alternative,

the impact on air quality by running fossil fuel burning engines would

increase. Prescribed burning frequency would increase. Some negative

impact to air quality could be anticipated from this management activity.

Some of these impacts would be mitigated by burn prescriptions that

ensure smoke is carried aloft. Permits from the ND Health Department

are applied for prior to prescribed burning done on the Complex to comply

with ND Air Pollution Control Rules.

Soil and Water Quality

Some small amount of soil loss due to wind and water erosion could be

anticipated on Refuge croplands. Managing Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes

at higher levels would cause more bank erosion than would be caused if

they were managed at historic shallow levels. Complex water quality would

be expected to improve if projects designed to evaluate and improve site

specific sources of nutrients and sediments are implemented.

The nutrient cycle that is triggered by fire and grazing disturbance as a

result of upland management efforts would be more frequent.

Hydrology

No significant impacts would be anticipated. Managed wetland water use

data would be improved and Complex water sources may be more

efficiently used as a result.

Cultural Resources

Cultural resources on the Complex would be protected. Additional

interpretative and storage facilities would be developed. Additional areas

would be surveyed and new data would be collected which would provide

additional background information about Complex cultural resources.

Socio-economic Environment

Recreational Resources - Public Use

Under this alternative, public use, including hunting, fishing, and wildlife

observation, would continue on the Refuge at current levels. Opportunities

to expand fishing hours or hunting opportunities could be considered if

staffing and funding are increased.

All existing facilities would be maintained and new educational and

interpretive exhibits, trails and platforms, and brochures would be

developed. The visitor center would be expanded and open for additional

hours on weekends coinciding with peak visitation. Maps, bird lists,

brochures, and a Complex web site would be improved and developed to

provide visitors with additional information.

Waterfowl Production Areas would still be open to hunting, fishing, and

trapping. Maps would be developed to provide Complex visitors with better

information about WPAs.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 171

The enhanced habitat management and protection objectives should

increase the diverse and unique native fauna and flora which in turn should

increase the number of visitors that are interested in wildlife observation

and photography to areas with rare and unique species.

Increased visitor use, even if determined compatible, would have some

negative impacts on habitat, plants, and wildlife species. These negative

impacts would be avoided by utilizing stipulations that limit public use

activities to certain areas, times, and locations during the year. Limits on

boat and vehicle traffic on the Refuge during the fall and spring waterfowl

migration periods would continue. Areas of the Refuge that are closed to

public entry during certain times of the year to limit disturbance to

migratory birds, nesting birds, and resident wildlife would remain closed.

Maintaining recreation opportunities would limit political pressure to

provide these opportunities or transfer the management of the Refuge to

another agency. Over the long-term, as outdoor recreation visits increase

on the Complex, current staff may not be able to provide adequate visitor

center hours or law enforcement.

Environmental education and outreach would continue at current levels,

and would increase as staffing does. Outreach efforts would continue and

increase with area schools, fairs, community events, wildlife clubs, State,

and Federal congressional offices

Economics

Under this alternative, the number of visitors to the area would be

expected to continue to increase over the long-term. A corresponding

increase in the amount of money spent in the local communities on lodging,

food, and supplies would be expected. Utilizing area producers to

accomplish Complex upland management such as haying, farming, and

grazing would continue to provide economic benefits for local producers.

Weed control and grassland management conducted more intensively

would ensure that the impact to adjacent landowners from Complex weeds

does not increase. The impact from these species would decrease over time.

An increased number of staff working at the Complex would increase the

amount of local revenue generated by staff living in the area. An increase

in management activities would increase the amount of supplies and

services required.

Environmental Justice

Considering social and economic impacts, actions under this alternative are

not known to cause disproportionately high and adverse human health

impacts in any population and no such impacts would be expected to occur

as a result of the Enhanced Management alternative. No adverse or

disproportionately high socio-economic impacts to low-income or minority

populations are expected to occur under this alternative.

A summary of some of the environmental consequences under each

alternative are listed in Table 1. Evaluation on environmental

consequences were divided in to short-term (15 years) and long-term

(greater than(>) 50 years).
172 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Table 1. Summary of Environmental Consequences

Alternative A

Custodial

Alternative B

Current Level of

Management

Alternative C

Implement the CCP

1 s 5 years > s 50 year 1 s 5 year > s 50 year 1 s 5 year >50 year

HABITAT:

Grasslands

Protection through acquisition

Management

Restoration

Nonnative plant control

-

-

-

o

--

--

--

-

-

-

o

-

--

--

-

-

+

+

+

+

++

++

++

++

Wetlands

Protection through acquisition

Managed wetlands

Natural wetlands

-

+

o

--

+

o

-

o

o

--

-

o

+

+

+

++

++

++

N o-o o + o ative Woodlands

C -- ropland for wildlife food -oo o -

WILDLIFE:

W -- aterfowl -o - + ++

M --- - igratory Grassland Birds -+ ++

Native Wildlife

Deer

Prairie butterflies

Reptiles & Amphibians

+

-

o

-

-

o

o

o

o

o

-

o

o

+

+

o

++

++

N ++ onnative Wildlife +o+ -- -

E o-o o + + ndangered Species

P - redator Control - --oo ++ ++

RECREATION-PUBLIC USE:

R - efuge Sport Fisheries - --oo + +

R - efuge Hunting - --oo + +

D ++ istrict Hunting +o o + +

I - nterpretation - --o - + ++

Wildlife Observation &

Photography

- - - -o - + ++

E - nvironmental Education - --o - + +

P - ublic Outreach - --o - + +

E - cosystem Partners - --o - ++ ++

AIR QUALITY: - --oo o o

WATER QUALITY: - --- --+ ++

CULTURAL RESOURCES:

P ooo o + + rotection

I - nterpretation - --oo + +

SOCIO-ECONOMIC:

T - ourist Revenue - --oo ++ ++

A - griculture Revenue - --oo + o

B - usiness Revenue - --oo ++ ++

LEGEND:

++ Large Increase

+ Moderate Increase

o No Change

- Moderate Decrease

-- Large Decrease
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 173

Consultation and Coordination

The planning team consisted of Tewaukon Complex staff, a representative

from the ND Game and Fish Department, and the Regional Office

Planning Branch. A review team was made up of a variety of people

including biologists and scientists from the Fish and Wildlife Service

Regional Office and U.S. Geological Services, nongovernmental

organizations, and interested individuals.

Public input for the development of this environmental assessment and

CCP was gathered on issues in the Complex at a series of five open houses

and through written comments on an Issues Worksheet. The open houses

provided participants an opportunity to learn about the Refuge and

District purposes, mission and goals, and current management issues.

People attending were provided the chance to speak with Service

representatives and to share their comments and concerns about current

management. Attendees were also asked to suggest ways they would like

to see Complex management change.

Prior to the public meetings, the Complex staff discussed the planning

process with local County commissioners, sportsmen’s groups, and other

interested groups and advertised in the local media. Information on the

planning process was also displayed at local cafes and businesses

frequented by community members.

The Tewaukon Complex staff received a number of comments from our

meetings, Issues Worksheets, and verbal discussions. Most of the local

comments dealt with very specific issues. Many of the issues documented

by the core planning team and the public can be grouped by category and

include:

Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation and Alteration

P Declining native prairie plant and grassland bird populations

P Waterfowl nesting habitat

P Habitat fragmentation

P Predator control

P Private land initiatives

Grassland and Tallgrass Prairie Habitats

P Tallgrass prairie protection and emphasis

P Management of Complex lands including weed control, haying,

burning, water management

Wetland habitat

P Wetland protection and management

P Water quality and rights

Increased Public Use

P Expanded recreational opportunities including hunting, fishing,

wildlife observation, and camping

P Farming on the Refuge, increasing and decreasing the acreage

P More management for resident wildlife (deer and pheasant)

P Need for more law enforcement
174 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Public feedback was generally supportive of the majority of current

Complex land and wildlife management practices and programs. Socioeconomic concerns raised during the planning process include increased

wetland drainage and flooding, commercial uses of Federal lands, use of

eminent domain to acquire Service lands, Refuge Revenue sharing

shortfalls as compared to assessed taxes, wildlife crop depredation, and

vandalism and trespassing on the Complex.

During the course of the planning process, the review team made up of

Service staff, scientists, and nongovernment partners have had access to

information on objectives and alternatives being considered. Written and

verbal comments have been exchanged. This Environmental Assessment

(EA) is the first opportunity that these groups and the general public have

had to review the entire planning effort. This EA is expected to be

available to the public by July 2000. A 30-day comment period will be

provided. A final CCP is expected to be released by October 1, 2000.

A mailing list of all persons that commented or requested notification is

available in Appendix N.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 175

Appendix G. Compatibility

Determinations

Station Name: Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Date Established:

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge: June 26, 1945

Tewaukon Wetland Management District: August 1, 1958

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: The Tewaukon National

Wildlife Refuge, located in Sargent County in southeastern North Dakota,

was originally established as an easement refuge by Executive Order No.

6910 on November 26, 1934. Tewaukon was then established as a Refuge

under the authority of Public Land Order 286 on June 26, 1945; additional

lands were added with the approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation

commission, under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

Tewaukon Wetland Management District was authorized by Congress with

the passage of Public Law 85-585 on August 1, 1958. The first tract of land

acquired in the District was in 1961. Additional lands were added to the

District under the authority of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation

Stamp Tax. The Tewaukon WMD is comprised of approximately of 105

Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA’s) (over 14,000 acres), 35,000 acres of

wetland easements, 10,400 acres of grassland easements, and 112 wetland

and 45 acres of grassland in FmHA easements located in Richland,

Ransom, and Sargent Counties, North Dakota. Enabling legislation

includes: the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16

USC 718-718h, 48 Stat. 452), and the Wetlands Loan Act (16 USC 715k-3 -

715k-5; Stat. 813). Funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act, are

merged with duck stamp receipts in the fund and appropriated to the

Secretary for the acquisition of migratory bird refuges under provisions of

the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715 et seq.; 45 Stat. 1222),

as amended, and since August 1, 1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for

acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas.”

Purpose(s) for which Established: For lands acquired under the

Executive Order, dated April 24, 1943, the purpose of the acquisition is to

reserve and set apart certain public lands for the use of the Department of

the Interior as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other

wildlife. P For lands acquired under Public Land Order 286, dated June 26, 1945,

the purpose of the acquisition is “... as a refuge and breeding ground

for migratory birds and other wildlife...”

P For lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16

U.S.C. S 715d, as amended, the purpose of acquisition is “... for uses as

an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for

migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. S 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

P For District lands acquired under the Public Law 85-585, dated August

1, 1958, the purpose of the acquisition is to assure the continued

availability of habitat capable of supporting migratory bird populations

at desired levels.

P For lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation

Stamp Tax, 16 U.S.C. S 718, as amended, for the purpose: “ ... as Waterfowl

Production Areas” subject to go ... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory

Bird Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions ... 11 16

U.S.C. S 718© (Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Tax).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The Mission of the National

Wildlife Refuge System is “to administer a national network of lands and

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration

of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United Sates

for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”
176 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Description of Proposed Use: Wildlife Observation, Wildlife

Photography, Interpretation and Environmental Education

Provide opportunities that support wildlife-dependent recreation,

education, and outreach to the public. From general observations

conducted in the Refuge visitor center and along Lake Tewaukon and

Sprague Lake, it is estimated that over 20,000 visitors utilize Tewaukon

National Wildlife Refuge annually for wildlife/wildland observation,

photography, interpretation/education, picnicking, and hiking. The

majority of the use is focused on the east side of County Road 12 which

includes the visitor center, Lake Tewaukon, the Prairie Lake Auto Tour,

several picnic areas, and a scenic overlook. The District has substantially

less visitation for the above uses (300 visits). A recent addition of a prairie

walking trail at the Hartleben WPA is expected to increase this use.

Interpretation and environmental education services are provided when

staff are available and include talks or guided tours for groups such as

school groups, scouts, 4-H clubs, and special groups. The public is invited

to participate in Refuge open houses and other events throughout the year.

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan proposes to continue with the

above uses and add the following to improve interpretation and access for

visitors:

P Develop a wildlife observation platform and interpretive hiking trail.

P Improve visitor center availability to visitors with staff and expansion

of hours of operation during times of high use.

P Improve and expand the visitor center displays and group presentation

area.

P Develop new Refuge brochures and update old brochures to new

Service standards.

P Develop a tallgrass prairie interpretive trail near the visitor center.

P Develop and maintain a web site for the Complex.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 177

Availability of resources:

Currently, sufficient resources are available to continue the existing

wildlife-dependent recreation. The additional items to be added from the

Comprehensive Conservation Plan are tied to funding requests in the form

of the attached RONS projects (Appendix J).

Anticipated impacts of the use:

Some disturbance to wildlife will occur in areas of the Refuge frequented

by visitors. However, with limiting of areas open to public use and Refuge

road closures at specific times of the year, these impacts can be lessened

(See CCP Wildlife Disturbance Section). Monitoring of activities and their

impacts and limiting the location and time of year for wildlife-dependent

visits will maintain use at an acceptable level.

Justification:

Based upon biological impacts described in the CCP and in the

Environmental Assessment, it is determined that wildlife observation,

wildlife photography, interpretation, and environmental education within

the Tewaukon Complex will not materially interfere with or detract from

the purposes for which this Complex was established.

One of the secondary goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to

provide opportunities for the public to develop an understanding and

appreciation for wildlife when found compatible. The four uses are

identified as priority public uses in the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997 and will help meet that goal at the Tewaukon

NWR Complex with only minimal conflicts with the wildlife conservation

mission of the Refuge System.

Determination: Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography, Interpretation,

and Environmental Education are compatible.

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

P During peak concentrations of migratory waterbirds, areas will be

closed and access limited to minimize any wildlife disturbance.

P Monitor use, regulate access and maintain necessary facilities to

prevent habitat degradation in high public use areas.

P Monitor levels of use and effects on wildlife.

P Implement additional educational and interpretive programs that

discuss wildlife disturbance.
178 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Description of proposed use: Recreational Fishing

Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake are utilized as open water rest areas for

migratory birds. A secondary use is public sport fishing according to State

and Federal Regulations. Year-round bank fishing is allowed with

seasonally limited access and boat fishing from May 1 through September

30 to avoid conflicts with migratory bird use of the Lakes. Visitors

participating in this use at the Refuge are estimated at 9,000 per year.

Facilities available include five boat ramps (two are accessible), picnic

areas, fishing docks, informational kiosks, parking areas, and rest room

facilities. A kids fishing day is held in conjunction with the Tewaukon Field

Day sponsored by the ND Extension Service. A fishing tournament is held

each year by local sportsmen’s groups with proceeds going towards Lake

developments. The CCP does not propose any additional improvements

beyond maintaining the existing use. The District Waterfowl Production

Areas are legally open to fishing as per their establishing legislation and

the Federal Code of Regulations.

Availability of resources:

Currently, sufficient resources are available to continue the existing

recreational fishing.

Anticipated impacts of the use:

Fishing and other human activities cause disturbance to wildlife (see CCP

Section on Wildlife Disturbance). Impacts could occur during waterbird

nesting season. However, the physical characteristics of these lakes and

their shorelines make them poor areas for breeding waterbird populations.

Justification:

When Refuge and flowage easements were secured in the 1930’s, it was

with the understanding that recreational fishing use of the lake would be

continued and improved. Recreational fishing, on Lake Tewaukon and

Sprague Lake, causes minimal disturbances for waterbirds and benefits

other wildlife species.

Based upon biological impacts described in the CCP and in the

Environmental Assessment, it is determined that recreational fishing

within the Tewaukon Complex will not materially interfere with or detract

from the purposes for which this Complex was established.

One of the secondary goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to

provide opportunities for public fishing when compatible, and it is

identified as a priority public use in the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997. Recreational fishing at the Tewaukon NWR

Complex will support this goal with only minimal conflicts with the wildlife

conservation mission of the Refuge System.

Determination: Recreational fishing is compatible.

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: P Both lakes will be closed to boat fishing and open to limited bank

fishing during the spring and fall migrations periods for waterbirds.

P Parking lot, road, trail, and related access facilities will be maintained

as necessary to prevent erosion or habitat damage.

P No additional lakes or marshes on the Refuge will be open to fishing. P Boat use will be limited to recreational fishing (no jet skis, power

boating, etc.,).

P Limit access for ice fishing to established areas (boat ramps and

normal County and township roads).

P Waterfowl production areas will maintain only natural fish populations

(no stocking).

P Monitor existing use to ensure that facilities are adequate and

disturbance to wildlife continues to be minimal.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 179

Description of proposed use: Recreational Hunting

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge is open to pheasant hunting and whitetailed deer hunting in the fall. Visitation for these activities is estimated at

4,000. Parking areas are made available for this use. The District

Waterfowl Production Areas are legally open to hunting as per their

establishing legislation and the Federal Code of Regulations. The CCP

does not propose any additional improvements beyond maintaining the

existing use.

Availability of resources:

Currently, sufficient resources are available to continue the existing

recreational hunting.

Anticipated impacts of the use:

Recreational hunting will remove individual animals from the wildlife

populations ensuring that carrying capacity is not exceeded (possibly

impacting other species habitat). Some wildlife disturbance will occur

during the hunting season.

Justification:

Hunting is a legitimate wildlife management tool that is used to manage

deer populations. This is necessary to ensure that populations above the

carrying capacity are controlled to reduce impacts to habitat and other

wildlife that also depend upon that habitat. Some wildlife disturbance will

occur during the hunting seasons. Proper zoning, regulations, and Refuge

seasons will be designated to minimize any negative impact to wildlife

populations using the Refuge. Based upon biological impacts presented in

the CCP and in the Environmental Assessment, it is determined that

recreational hunting within the Tewaukon Complex will not materially

interfere with or detract from the purposes for which this Complex was

established.

One of the secondary goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to

provide opportunities for public hunting when it is found to be compatible,

and it is identified as a priority public use in the National Wildlife Refuge

System Improvement Act of 1997. Recreational pheasant hunting on the

Tewaukon NWR Complex will support this goal, with only minimal

conflicts with the wildlife conservation mission of the Refuge System and

purposes of the Refuge.

Determination: Recreational hunting is compatible.

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: P Use of nontoxic shot is required on the Refuge for pheasant hunting

and the District for waterfowl hunting and upland game hunting to

minimize exposure to lead by waterfowl.

P Hunting must be in accordance with Federal and State regulations

(seasons predominately open after migrating waterbirds have left the

Complex).

P Hunting on Tewaukon NWR will take place in a manner that will

minimize disturbance to migrating waterbirds.

P Hunting will be evaluated to provide a safe hunt (reduce the conflict of

the variety of hunting seasons).

P The Refuge deer hunt will be coordinated with the ND Game and Fish

Department to determine number of permits to manage the

populations.

P Monitor these uses to assure they do not interfere with and are

compatible with other wildlife-dependent recreational activities.
180 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Description of proposed use: Trapping

Provide for trapping on the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge and on

District lands. Trapping includes recreational fall trapping and spring

predator trapping. Provide for recreational trapping in the fall and winter

on the Refuge. Provide for spring predator trapping to improve upland

nesting bird success on the Complex. The District Waterfowl Production

Areas are legally open to trapping according to State regulations as per

their establishing legislation and the Federal Code of Regulations.

Availability of resources:

Currently, insufficient funding and staffing exists to manage the

recreational trapping and spring predator trapping on the Complex.

Trapping funding requests are described in the Comprehensive

Conservation Plan as Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) projects

(Appendix J). The Refuge recreational trapping would require additional

management staff to administer the program (manager listed in RONS

Project 1) and the spring predator trapping requires staff, funding of

contracted trapper, monitoring of predator populations, and upland bird

production (RONS Projects 12 and 2).

Anticipated impacts of the use:

Trapping removes individual animals from wildlife populations, and

predator populations are temporarily reduced up to and during the nesting

season. Spring predator trapping allows for the increased nesting success

of upland nesting birds. Direct mortality would occur of target animals,

some vegetation trampling by personnel, and some minor increase in

general wildlife disturbance in trapping areas due to human and vehicular

traffic. The possibility of injury exists to nontarget wildlife that are caught

in traps such as badgers, weasels, an occasional rabbit, domestic dogs, and

feral cats.

Justification:

Recreational trapping removes excessive wildlife populations and provides

public recreational opportunity. Spring predator trapping will benefit

upland nesting birds, including many species of waterfowl, when predator

populations are reduced during the nesting season. Long-term negative

effects to these predator populations will not take place as conducted

trapping activities cannot feasiblely remove enough animals to permanently

impact these populations. An environmental assessment of trapping is available at

the Refuge office for review (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994).

Determination: Trapping is compatible with additional funding.

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: P Trapping will be conducted in a manner that will remove only targeted

upland nest predators.

P Recreational trapping will occur within regular State seasons and will

not conflict with other public uses.

P Trapping for predators outside of the regular season will be

coordinated with the ND Game and Fish Department.

P Detailed trapping records will be maintained for Refuge trappers, staff

trappers, and contracted trappers.

P No trapping will take place in areas of high public use especially

surrounding Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake.

P No exposed bait would be placed near traps that might attract eagles

or other raptors.

P Traps used will be legal traps as per the State of North Dakota and

snares for specialize spring trapping.

P Traps must be checked at least once every 24 hours. P Monitoring of nest success in areas targeted for predator removal to

determine effectiveness and need for next years trapping (only when

nest success falls below 30 percent Mayfield will trapping be conducted

- see section on Waterfowl in CCP).
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 181

Description of proposed use: Management Tools with

Economic Uses: Farming, Grazing, Haying

Continue upland management activities that are conducted under permit

by private individuals such as haying, grazing, and farming. Currently,

these economic uses are used as management tools to manage habitat for

wildlife. Up to 500 acres are farmed each year in the Complex including

Refuge fields and food plots on WPA’s. Cattle grazing is currently used as a

management tool on the Gainor WPA (about 800 acres) and sheep grazing

is used on the Refuge and District to control leafy spurge (about 200 acres).

Haying is used on the Refuge and District to improve grassland conditions

with approximately 450 acres hayed per year by cooperators. The CCP

proposes to maintain the number of crop acres and may include increasing

grazing and haying if these tools are required for improving habitat.

Projects in the CCP will improve the administrative and monitoring

aspects of these programs.

Availability of resources:

Current resources are stretched thin to maintain existing programs. If

additional staff support was available, these programs could be expanded

to utilize these tools more effectively and monitoring could be

accomplished. RONS Project Number 1, listed in Appendix J, would

accomplish the goals of the CCP and improve the existing program.

Anticipated impacts of the use:

Current management affects approximately 10 percent of the upland

habitat annually. This would increase to approximately 15 percent under

the CCP. This management is not evenly distributed over the entire

Complex, and the percentage of upland receiving optimum management is

considered to be much less that 10 percent. General habitat conditions on

the Complex would gradually deteriorate due to long periods of nonprescribed rest. While some wildlife disturbance does occur with these

activities, the benefits to wildlife far outweigh these disturbances. No

cultural resources would be impacted. No impact to endangered species

should occur; however, habitat suitability for the Dakota skipper, regal

fritillary, and white lady’s slipper would continue to deteriorate without

some form of defoliation treatment.

Justification:

Upland habitat conditions would deteriorate without the use of a full range

of upland management tools. Exotic and noxious weed species would

increase, and habitat diversity would decrease causing a decline in wildlife

diversity. Migratory bird production and diversity would decrease as

habitat suitability for these species declined. Consumptive and nonconsumptive wildlife oriented recreational opportunities would decline as

wildlife diversity and populations decreased. Although the prescribed

management techniques listed in the proposed use are not adequate in

scope to prevent such declines from taking place in all upland habitat sites,

the limited upland management which does take place will diversify and

improve treated grasslands. An environmental assessment that evaluates

upland habitat management (including these uses) is available at the

Refuge office for review (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994).
182 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Determination: Farming, Grazing, Haying are compatible when used as

management tools.

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

P General and special conditions are required for each permit to ensure

consistency with management objectives.

P Farming permittees are restricted to a list of approved chemicals

which are less detrimental to wildlife, use only necessary amount to

control problem spots, and report their use yearly.

P Farming permittees must leave a portion of the crop for wildlife use.

P Farming permittees must not cut or plow under clover until after July

15 and alfalfa after July 1.

P Farming permittees must obtain permission from the Refuge Manager

to work in the fields after opening of waterfowl season.

P Grazing permittees will be restricted to after June 1 to avoid some

disturbance to nesting birds.

P Cattle grazing permittees are required to follow a short-term

rotational grazing system to provide appropriate stimulation of

grasses.

P Grazing permittees must comply with State Livestock Health Laws.

P Haying will be restricted to after July 15 to avoid disturbance to

nesting birds.

P Haying permittees are required to report and mow noxious weeds in

their areas.

Signatures:

Project Leader:

__________________________________________ ______________

Sandra M. Siekaniec Date

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Concurrence:

__________________________________________ ______________

Refuge Supervisor Date

__________________________________________ ______________

Assistant Regional Director, Refuges and Wildlife Date
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 183

Appendix H. ND/SD Draft

Ecosystem Goals and Objectives

Grassland Habitat Goals and Objectives

Mission: Protect, restore, and maintain North and South Dakota’s native

prairie and other grasslands to ensure its diversity and

abundance of native flora and fauna.

Goal A: Prevent degradation and conversion of native prairie

grassland to other uses.

Objectives: P Locate, categorize, evaluate, and map existing native grassland

within the Dakotas for baseline information within the next five

years.

P Protect grasslands by easement on 50,000 acres of grassland per

year for the next 10 years.

P By the year 2003, develop and implement public education

programs to promote awareness and advocacy for native prairie.

P Maintain and develop partnerships to protect 10,000 acres native

prairie over the next 10 years.

Goal B:Establish and maintain a network of large prairie grassland

including native and planted grasslands on public and private

lands.

Objectives: P Promote and implement prescribed burning and rotational grazing

on a minimum of 20 percent of private lands to enhance and

maintain healthy native prairie.

P By the year 2003, develop a public education program on types of

defoliation and importance of proper defoliation of native prairie.

P Over the next 10 years, develop partnerships to enhance and

manage native prairie, including invasion by alien species.

P Develop criteria within six months and identify within the next five

years the most biologically significant landscape to meet the needs

of trust species and species of special concern.

P Develop criteria and treat a minimum of 20 percent of agencyowned grasslands annually.

Goal C: Reduce fragmentation effects to flora and fauna in native

prairie communities. Maintain and develop corridors between

large prairie conservation reserves to facilitate dispersion of

native species and enhance gene flow.

Objectives: P Develop an education program by the year 2003 to help the public

understand why corridors are important.

P By 2003, develop management plans for these corridors to ensure they

are properly managed to maintain the health and vigor of the plants.

P By 2003, develop statewide plans to determine where corridors are

needed to connect blocks of native prairie.

P Develop and maintain corridors between large grassland

landscape within five years of identification to reduce

fragmentation. In addition, create public support for seeding

native grasses and forbs along road rights-of-way.

P Use road rights-of-way, where applicable, to develop corridors by

planting native grasses and forbs.

P Seek other avenues to develop, retain, and enhance corridors

where road rights-of-way will not be sufficient.

P Over the next 10 years, maintain and develop statewide partnership

programs to get people involved in identifying methods and locations

for corridors, and their management.
184 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Goal D:Protect, restore, and enhance trust species and species of

special concern.

Objectives:

P Identify what species are in trouble and why by the year 2003.

P Develop at least three management approaches within the next 10

years for each species not covered at the landscape level.

P Develop education programs of why these species are important to

conserve, what approaches will be taken for their recovery, and

what the public can do to help.

P Develop statewide partnership programs to get people involved in

species recovery.

Goal E:Maintain and increase planted grasslands.

Objectives:

P Within the next two years, identify the key areas to maintain and

to increase planted grasslands.

P By 2003, develop a plan to connect the different corridors.

Goal F: Protect native prairie from industrial/chemical

contamination.

Objectives:

P Identify what contaminants are entering native prairie and what

adverse impact each contaminant may have on native prairie.

P Develop a plan on how to prevent and/or reduce further

contaminants from entering native prairie.

P Develop a public education program explaining what contaminants

are out there, what impact they are having, how to reduce or

eliminate these, and how the public can help.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 185

Wetlands and Watershed Goals and Objectives

Mission: Protect, restore, manage, and create wetlands and their

watersheds in North Dakota and South Dakota to ensure the

abundances of fish and wildlife species for the benefit of the

American public.

Goal A: Increase recognition of wetland values by the various publics

(community, conservation, communication, Congressional,

and corporate entities) and develop a wetland advocacy.

Objective:

P Over the next three years, implement informational and

educational opportunities that develop advocates for wetland

conservation.

Goal B: Prevent or reduce the conversion or degradation of wetland

habitats, and restore, replace, and enhance wetland habitats,

qualities, and functions for trust species and species of

concern.

Objectives:

P Annually protect 10,000 acres of wetlands, and 20,000 acres of

uplands through fee, easement, and PFFW agreements for the

next 10 years in North Dakota.

P Assist partners and other agencies in protecting, creating,

restoring, managing, and enhancing 5,000 acres of wetlands and

associated uplands annually in North Dakota.

P Develop partnerships with neighbors and local conservation

organizations to annually manage 20 percent of Service uplands

for trust species and species of concern.

P On a statewide (ND) basis, assure that easement violations are

brought to conclusion within a one year period.

P Over the next 10 years, prepare easement maps for all North

Dakota wetland easements.

Goal C: Maintain and restore the quality and health of existing prairie

wetlands in order to preserve their natural productivity,

longevity, and function.

(Objectives 1 and 2, Goal B, support this)

Goal D: Protect the water supply and property interests of wetlands

on Service lands or easements.

Objective:

P File for water rights on eligible Service properties or easements

over the next 10 years.
186 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Riparian Goals and Objectives

Mission: Maintain, restore, and enhance riparian, floodplain, and watershed

functions to river systems for the benefit of trust resources, Fish and

Wildlife Service properties, and the American public.

Goal 1: Reduce the conversion of riparian habitats.

Objectives: P Inventory and determine the quality of riparian habitats within

North and South Dakota which influence National Wildlife

Refuges by 2003 to provide baseline information.

P Implement a public education program in North and South Dakota

by 2003 to promote a public appreciation and understanding for

the benefits of and the threats to riparian habitats.

Goal 2: Maintain, restore, or enhance riparian habitats, quality,

functions, and biotic communities.

Objectives: P Use existing programs and opportunities in North and South

Dakota by 2008 to provide river buffer zones on 10 percent of the 2 to

5 year floodplain 50 miles upstream of National Wildlife Refuges.

P Facilitate the location and control of all purple loosestrife

populations upstream of national wildlife refuges in North and

South Dakota by 2003 to maintain quality habitat.

P Use existing programs and opportunities in North and South

Dakota by 2003 to restore or enhance the functions of oxbow

wetlands within 50 miles of national wildlife refuges.

P National wildlife refuges with river impoundments in North and

South Dakota shall collect water quality and biotic community

data from inflows, outflows, and impoundment pools to determine

baseline parameters by the year 2003.

P Support State efforts to monitor water quality and biotic

communities in impaired waters in North and South Dakota to

promote compliance with State water quality standards.

P Conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic systems and fish

populations in North and South Dakota to provide increased

recreational opportunities by increasing fishing access, education

and outreach, and partnership opportunities by 2003.

Goal 3: Conserve and recover endangered, threatened, and species of

special concern.

Objectives: P Inventory endangered, threatened, and species of special concern

along riparian corridors in North and South Dakota by 2001 to

provide baseline information.

P Develop strategies for conserving and recovering endangered,

threatened, and species of special concern along riparian habitat in

North and South Dakota by 2003 to prevent any species from

becoming listed.

Goal 4: Conserve, restore, enhance and create habitat resources in

watersheds that influence the quality and quantity of water

flowing into rivers and streams.

Objectives: P Use existing oversight, coordination, and technical assistance to

promote sound watershed management on an additional 10,000

acres in North and South Dakota by 2003.

P Use existing programs and opportunities in North and South

Dakota by 2003 to conserve, enhance, or restore grasslands and

wetlands in the immediate vicinity of national wildlife refuges to

provide quality water runoff.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 187

Missouri River Goals and Objectives

Goal 1: Reestablish the natural form and function and prevent

degradation for prioritized riverine sections.

Objectives:

P Achieve a more ecologically beneficial hydrograph below Ft. Peck,

Garrison, Ft. Randall, and Gavins Point Dams by working with

COE, States, and other stakeholders by 2000.

P Work with the COE, States, and stakeholders to achieve

compatible ecologically beneficial water quality parameters

including temperature, sediment transport, and turbidity by 2003.

P Work with local zoning authorities and regulators to develop and

implement policies that influence floodplain development and bank

stabilization to maintain/restore river functions by 2003.

P Increase functional habitat base in prioritized riverine sections

through restorations, creations, and modification/enhancement

where opportunities allow. Attempt one major project per year

beginning in 1999.

P Continue an environmental contaminants presence on the Missouri

River that monitors conditions, identifies issues and problem

areas, and develops strategies for rehabilitation.

P Promote restoration of river functions and values through

proactive outreach.

Goal 2: Conserve and recover endangered, threatened, and species of

special concern in riverine and impounded reaches.

Objectives:

P Augment current pallid sturgeon populations in: 1) Missouri and

Yellowstone Rivers above Lake Sakakawea, and 2) below Ft.

Randall through hatchery production to develop a genetically

sound natural population structure by 2004.

P Achieve a 5-year average fledged success rate of 0.79 for 325 pairs

of least terns, and 1.44 for 350 pairs of piping plovers below

Garrison and Gavins Point Dams by 2004.

P Develop recovery actions or conservation plans for the sicklefin

chub and the sturgeon chub by 1999, and seek funding and

implementation of plans by 2000.

P Establish priority and complete status reviews for species of

special concern, such as the blue sucker, flathead chub, western

silvery and plains minnows, initiating one species per year

beginning in 1999.

Goal 3: Fulfill commitments for mitigation of fishery resources

brought about by construction of the mainstem dams.

Objectives:

P Through hatcheries, management, and conservation, support State

fisheries objectives for the Missouri River and its impoundments

annually.
188 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Appendix I.

Existing Partnerships

Tewaukon Complex works with a variety of organizations and individuals

on natural resource projects such as the following:

Drift Prairie Wetland Enhancement North American Wetland

Conservation Act Grant cooperators: T North American Wetlands Conservation Council T ND Game and Fish Department T Ducks Unlimited T The Nature Conservancy T North Dakota Wetlands Trust T Delta Waterfowl Foundation T Barnes County Wildlife Federation T Cass County Wildlife Club T private landowners

North Dakota Jr. Duck Stamp Contest contributors: T Cogswell Gun Club T Tewaukon Rod and Gun Club T Red River Sportsmen’s Club T Hannaford Conservation and Wildlife T Rutland Sportsmens Club T Barnes County Wildlife Federation T American Foundation for Wildlife T ND Chapter of The Wildlife Society T Richland County Wildlife T Cass County Wildlife Club T United Sportsmen of Jamestown T Falkirk Mining Company T Lake Region Improvement Club T Bottineau County Wildlife Federation T Dakota Territory Gun Collectors

Fishery Habitat Improvement: T ND Game and Fish Department T Tewaukon Rod and Gun Club T Cogswell Gun Club T Rutland Sportsmens Club

U.S. Department of Agriculture: T Natural Resources Conservation Service -

easements, EQUIP, and CRP programs

T Farm Service Agency - easement program T APHIS-depredation program T biological weed control

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation: T Kraft Slough Acquisition and Management

ND Game and Fish Department: T wildlife surveys, habitat management, wildlife law enforcement

Partners For Wildlife program: T private landowners

Sargent County Extension Service: T youth programs, community projects
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 189

Water Quality Monitoring:

T Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe

T North Dakota Department of Health

T Wild Rice Conservation District

Adopt-A-WPA:

T Sargent County Pheasants Forever

T Red River Sportsmen’s Club

Annual Tewaukon Fishing Derby and projects:

T Cogswell Gun Club

T Tewaukon Rod and Gun Club

Other cooperators and projects include: local law enforcement agencies;

The Wahpeton Zoo, conservation districts (no-till drill, native seed

harvest); Ducks Unlimited (water control structures, predator fences); The

North Dakota Wetlands Trust (grassland easements, water control

structure repair); The Delta Waterfowl Foundation (predator research);

Rural Fire Districts (wildfire suppression on- and off-Refuge); various

universities (research); and the General Federation of Women’s Cultura

Club of Hankinson (native prairie restoration, walks, and nature trail).
190 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Appendix J. RONS and

MMS Project Worksheets
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 191
192 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 193
194 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 195
196 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 197
198 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 199
200 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 201
202 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 203
204 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 205
206 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 207
208 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 209

Appendix K. Literature Cited

Ahlund, M., and F. Gotmark.1989. Gull predation on eider ducklings

Somateria mollissima: effects of human disturbance. Biological

Conservation 48:115-127.

Axelrod, D. I. 1985. Rise of the grassland biome, central North America.

Bot. Rev. 51: 163-201.

Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. 2nd ed.

Rev. and expanded. Misc. Publ. No. 1391. Washington, DC: USDA

Forest Service. 108p.

Bailey, V. 1926. A Biological Survey of North Dakota. I. Physiography and

Life zones. II. The Mammals. U. S. Department of Agriculture,

Bureau of Biological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burk, and W.D. Pitts. 1987. Interrestial plant ecology,

second edition, Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., Menco

Park, CA. 634 pp.

Berkey, G., R. Crawford, S. Galipeau, D.H. Johnson, D. Lambeth, and R.

Kreil. 1993. A review of wildlife management practices in North

Dakota. Unpublished report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Region 6, Denver, Colo. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research

Center home page, Jamestown, N.D. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/

resource/othrdata/wildmgmt/wildmgmt.htm (Version 16JUL97).

Blaustein, A.R. 1994. “Chicken Little or Nero’s Fiddle? A Perspective on

Declining Amphibian Populations.” Herpetologica 50:85-97

Bowles, M.L. 1983. The tallgrass prairie orchids Platanthera leucophaes

(Nutt.) Lindl. And Cypreipedium candidum Muhl. Ex Wild: some

aspeces of their status, biology and ecology, and implications toward

management. Natural Areas Journal 3(4):14-37.

Bragg, T.B. 1982. Seasonal variation in fuel and fuel consumption by fires

in a bluestem prairie. Ecology 63: 7-11.

Bragg, T.B., and L.C. Hulbert. 1976. Woody plant invasion of unburned

Kansas bluestem prairie. J. Range Manage. 29: 19-23.

Burger, L.D., L.W. Burger Jr., and J. Faaborg. 1994. Effects of prairie

fragmentation on predation on artificial nests. Journal of Wildlife

Management 58:249-254.

Case, J.W. 1987. Orchids of the Western Great Lakes Region. Cranbrook

Institute of Science Bulletin 48. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, 147 p.

Clark, R.G. and T.D. Nudds. 1991. Habitat patch size and duck nesting

success: the crucial experiments have not been performed. Wildl. Soc.

Bull. 19:534-543.

Collins, S.L. and S.C. Barber. 1985. Effects of Disturbance on Diversity in

Mixed-grass Prairie. Vegetatio 64:87-94.

Corn P.S., 1994. “What We Know and Don’t Know about Amphibian

Declines in the West.” In Sustainable Ecological Systems:

Implementing an Ecological Approach to Land Management, edited

by W. W. Covington and L. F. DeBano, 59-67. Fort Collins: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
210 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Corn P.S. and C.R. Peterson, 1996. “Prairie Legacies - Amphibians and

Reptiles” In Prairie Conservation, Preserving North America’s Most

Endangered Ecosystem, edited by F. B. Samson and F. L. Knopf, 125-

134. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Costello, D.F. 1969. The Prairie World. Crowell Company, New York. pp

86-87.

Coues, E. 1878. Field-notes on birds observed in Dakota and Montana

along the forty-ninth parallel during the seasons of 1873 and 1874.

Bull. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Survey of the Territories 4:545-661.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification

of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. 40 pp.

_____, D.S. Gilmer, and C.W. Shaiffer. 1985. Mallard recruitment in the

agricultural environment of North Dakota.. Wildl. Monogr. 92. 37 pp.

Crum, H. 1988. A Focus on Peatlands and Peat Mosses. The University of

Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Cvancara, A.M. 1983. Aquatic mollusks of North Dakota. N.D. Geol. Surv.

Rep of Invest. No. 78. 141 pp.

Dahlgren, R.B. and C.E. Korschgen. 1992. Human Disturbances of

Waterfowl: An Annotated Bibliography. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Res. Publication 188. Washington D. C.

Delisle, J. 1995. Avian use of fields enrolled in the conservation reserve

program in southeast Nebraska. These. University of Nebraska,

Lincoln, Nebraska.

Dillaha, T.A., R.B. Reneau, S. Mostaghimi, and D. Lee. 1989. Vegetative

filter strips for agricultural nonpoint source pollution control.

Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers

32:513-19.

Duebbert, H.F., E.T. Jacobson, K.F. Higgins, and E.B. Podoll, 1981.

Establishment of seeded grasslands for wildlife habitat in the Prairie

Pothole Region. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep. - Wildl. 234.21

pp.

Edington, J.M., and M.A. Edington. 1986. Ecology, Recreation, and

Tourism. Cambridge University Press, New York. 198 pp.

Eldridge, J. 1992. Management of habitat for breeding and migrating

shorebirds in the Midwest. Fish and Wildlife leaflet 13.2.14. USDI,

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Erhardt, A. and J.A. Thomas. 1991. Lepidoptera as indicators of change in

the semi-natural grasslands of lowland and upland Europe. Pages 213-

237. In the Conservation of Insects and Their Habitats: 15th Symposium

of the Royal Entomological Society of London 14-15 September 1989. N.

M. Collins and J. A. Thomas, eds. Academic Press, London.

Gibbs, E.L., et. al. 1971. The Live Frog is Almost Dead. BioScience 21: 1027-34.

Gilmore, M.R. 1977. “Uses of Plants by the Indians of the Missouri River

Region”. In Cultural Resources Overview Studies of the Tewaukon

National Wildlife Refuge, Sargent County, North Dakota, and the

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge, Day County, South Dakota by

Michael A. Jackson, and Dennis L. Toom, 1999. Department of

Anthropology, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 211

Gleason, R.A. and N.H. Euliss, Jr. 1998. Sedimentation of prairie wetlands.

Great Plains Research 8 (1). Northern Prairie Wildlife Research

Center Home Page. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/

pprwtlnd/pprwtlnd.htm (Version 03NOV98).

Greenwood, R.J. 1986. Influence of striped skunk removal on upland duck

nest success in North Dakota. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 14:6-11.

Haberman, T.W. 1978. Archaeological Test Excavations at Lake Tewaukon

(32SA211): A Protohistoric Occupation Site in Southeastern North

Dakota. Department of Anthropology, University of North Dakota,

Grand Forks.

Heidel, B.L. 1986. Bluestem Prairie Inventory in the Red River Valley,

North Dakota. In Chambey, G. K. and R. H. Pemble, editors, The

Prairie: Past, Present, and Future; Proceedings of the Ninth North

American Prairie Conference. Tri-College University Center for

Environmental Studies, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North

Dakota.

Helzer, C.J. 1996. The effects of wet meadow fragmentation on grassland

birds. Thesis. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.

Helzer, C.J. and D.E. Jelinski 1999. The Relative Importance of Patch Area

and Perimeter-Area Ratio To Grassland Breeding Birds. Ecological

Applications 9(4) pp. 1448-1458.

Herkert, J.R. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on Midwestern

grassland bird communities. Ecological Applications 4:461-471.

_____. 1995. An analysis of Midwestern breeding bird population trends:

1966-1993. American Midland Naturalist 134:41-50.

Higgins, K.F., A.D. Kruse, and J.L. Phiel.1989. Prescribed Burning

Guidelines in the Northern Great Plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service and Cooperative Extension Service, South Dakota State

University, U.S. Department of Agricultural Publication EC761.

Hill, E.F., and M.B. Camardese. 1986. Lethal dietary toxicities pesticides to

coturnix. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Tech. Rep. 2. 147 pp.

Hine, R.L., et al. 1981. Leopard Frog Populations and Mortality in

Wisconsin, 1974-1976. Technical Bulletin 122. Madison: Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources.

Hoberg, T. and C. Gause. 1992. Reptiles and Amphibians of North Dakota.

North Dakota Outdoors. Number 1, Vol. LV. Pages 7 - 18.

Howe, H.F. 1994. Managing species diversity in tallgrass prairie:

Assumptions and implications. Conservation Biology 8: 691-704.

Hudson, R.H., R.K. Tucker, and M.A. Haegele. 1984. Handbook of toxicity

of pesticides to wildlife, 2nd ed. Fish Wildl. Serv. Resour. Publ. 153. 90

pp.

Jackson, M.A. and D.L. Toom, 1999. Cultural Resources Overview Studies

of the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge, Sargent County, North

Dakota, and the Waubay National Wildlife Refuge, Day County, South

Dakota. Department of Anthropology, University of North Dakota,

Grand Forks.

Johnson, D.H., L.D. Igl and C.J. Johnson. 1997. North Dakota Bird Life:

Tracking changes over a quarter century. North Dakota Outdoors 59

(10) 10-15.
212 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Johnson, J.R. and G.E. Larson. 1999. Grassland Plants of South Dakota

and the Northern Great Plains. South Dakota University College of

Agriculture and Biological Sciences. Brookings South Dakota. pp. 270-

277.

Johnson, M.D. 1964. Feathers From The Prairie. ND Game and Fish

Department, Bismarck.

Johnson, R.G. and S.A. Temple. 1986. Assessing habitat quality for birds

nesting in fragmented tallgrass prairies. Pages 245-249 in J. Verner, M.

L. Morrison, and C. J. Ralph, editors. Modeling habitat relationships

of terrestrial vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison,

Wisconsin, USA.

_____ and S.A. Temple. 1990. Nest predation and parasitism of tallgrass

prairie birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:106-111.

Judd, E.T. 1892. North Dakota Game. Forest and Stream. 39(15):314.

Kantrud, H.A., G.L. Krapu and G.A. Swanson. 1989. Prairie Basin

Wetlands of the Dakotas: A Community Profile. Fish and Wildlife

Service Biological Report 85 (7.28). Northern Prairie Wildlife

Research Center, Jamestown, ND.

Klett, A.T., T.L. Shaffer, and D.H. Johnson. 1988. Duck nest success in the

Prairie Pothole Region. J. Wildl. Manage. 52:431-440.

Knopf, F.L. 1995. Declining grasslands birds. Pages 296-298 in E. T. LaRoe,

G. S. Farris, P. D. Puckett, and M. J. Mac, editors. Our living

resources: A report to the Nation on the distribution, abundance, and

health of U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. U.S. Department of the

Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, D. C. 530 pp.

Koford, R.R., J.B. Dunning Jr., C.A. Ribic, D.M. Finch, 1994. A Glossary

for Avian Conservation Biology. Wilson Bulletin. 106(1): 121-137.

Jamestown, ND Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/avian/avian.htm

Laughland, A. and J. Caudill. 1997. Banking on Nature: The Economic

Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation.

Division of Economics; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,

D.C.

Lee, F.B., C.H. Schroeder, T.L. Kuck, L.J. Schoonover, M.A. Johnson, H.K.

Nelson, and C.A. Bequduy. 1984. Rearing and Restoring Giant Canada

Geese in the Dakotas. ND Game and Fish Department Bismarck. 78

pp.

Lincoln, F.C. 1925. Notes on the bird life of North Dakota with particular

reference to the summer waterfowl. Auk 42:50-64.

Madden, E.M. 1996. Passerine communities and bird-habitat relationships

on prescribe-burned, mixed-grass prairie in North Dakota. M.S. thesis.

Montana State University, Bozeman. 153 pp.

Madson, J. 1982. Where the Sky Began - Land of the Tallgrass Prairie.

Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. 326 pp.

Martin, Kathy. 1993. Personal communication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. Ecological Service Botanist.

Mayewski, P.A. et al. 1981. “The Last Wisconsin Ice Sheets in North

America.” In The Last Great Ice Sheets, edited by G. H. Denton and T.

J. Huges, 67-128. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 213

North Dakota Agricultural Statistics. 1998. USDA State Statistical

Reports, Fargo, North Dakota. North Dakota Agricultural Statistics

home page. Fargo, ND. http://www.nass.usda.gov/nd/homepage.htm .

Nudds, T.D., and R.G. Clark. 1992. Landscape ecology, adaptive resource

management and the North American waterfowl management plan.

Pages 180-190 In G. L. Holrody, H. L. Dickson, M. Regnier, and H. C.

Smith, eds. Proc. Third prairie conservation and endangered species

workshop. Nat. Hist. Occas. Pap. 19, Prov, Mus. Alberta, Edmonton.

Orwig, T.T. 1996. Butterfly surveys in Southeastern North Dakota: 1997.

Report to the U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service, Cayuga, ND, 20 pp.

Peterka, J.J. and T.M. Koel. 1996. Distribution and dispersal of fishes in the

Red River Basin. Report submitted to Interbasin Biota Transfer

Studies Program, Water Resources Research Institute, Fargo, ND.

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. http://

www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/others/fishred/fishred.htm (Version

29AUG97).

Pielou, E.C. 1992. After the Ice Age: The Return of Life to Glaciated North

America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pyne, S.J. 1994. Historical Fire: The Coming of Fire to America.. In

Proceedings of the Fire in Ecosystem Management Workshop.

National Advanced Resource Technology Center. Marana Arizona.

Reichholf, J. 1976. The influence of recreation activities on waterfowl.

Pages 43 - 44 In Dahlgren and Korschgren, eds. Human Disturbances

of Waterfowl: An Annotated Bibliography. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. Res. Publ. 188. Washington D. C. 1992.

Renken, R.B. and J.J. Dinsmore. 1987. Nongame bird communities on

managed grasslands in North Dakota. Canadian Field-Naturalist

101:551-557.

Royer R.A. 1997. A Final Report on the Conservation Status of the Dakota

Skipper [Hersperia doacotae (Skinner, 1911)] in the State of North

Dakota During the 1996 and 1997 Flights, Including Observations on

Its Potential for Recovery in the State. Minot State University.

Royer R.A. and G.M. Marrone. 1992. Conservation Status of the Powesheik

Skipper (Oarisma powesheik) in North and South Dakota. Minot State

University.

Royer R.A. and G.M. Marrone. 1992. Conservation Status of the Regal

Fritillary (Spyeria idalia) in North and South Dakota. Minot State

University.

Ryan, M. R. 1986. Nongame management in grassland and agricultural

ecosystems. Pages 117-136 in J.B. Hale, L.B. Best, and R.L. Clawson,

editors. Management of nongame wildlife in the Midwest: A developing

art. North Central Section of the Wildlife Society. BookCrafters,

Chelsea, Mich.

Samson, F.B. 1980. Island biogeography and the conservation of prairie

birds. Pages 293-299 in C. L. Kucera, editor. Proceedings of the 7th

North American Prairie Conference, Southwest Missouri State

University, Springfield, Missouri, USA.

Sargeant, A.B., R.J. Greenwood, M.A. Sovada and T.L. Shaffer. 1993.

Distribution and Abundance of Predators that Affect Duck Production

- Prairie Pothole Region. Fish and Wildlife Service Res. Publication

194. Washington D. C.
214 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

_____, M.A. Sovada, and T.L. Shaffer. 1995. Seasonal predator removal

relative to hatch rate of duck nests in waterfowl production areas.

Wildl. Soc. Bull. 23:507-513.

_____, S.H. Allen, and R.T. Eberhardt. 1984. Red fox predation on

breeding ducks in midcontinent North America. Wildlife Monographs

89:1-41. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center

Home Page. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/redfox/

redfox. (Version 02JUN99).

_____, and D.H. Raveling. 1992. Mortality during the breeding season.

Pages 396-422. In B.D. J. Batt, A.D. Afton, M.G. Anderson, C.D.

Ankney, D.H. Johnson, J.A. Kadlec, and G.L. Krapu, eds. Ecology and

management of breeding waterfowl. Univ. Minnesota Press,

Minneapolis. 635 pp.

Sauer, J.R., B.G. Peterjohn, S. Schwartz, and J.E. Hines. 1995. The

Grassland Bird home page. Version 95.0 Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, MD. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/grass/

grass.htm.

Schlicht, D.W. and T.T. Orwig. 1998. The Status of Iowa’s Lepidoptera.

Jour. Iowa Acad. Sci. 105(2):82-88.

Schroeder, R.L. and K.L. Askerooth. 2000. A Habitat-Based Approach to

Management of Tallgrass Prairies at the Tewaukon National Wildlife

Refuge. Department of the Interior, USGS Tech. Rep. 2000-0001. Fort

Collins, CO.

Sherwood, G.A. 1965. Canada Geese of the Seney National Wildlife Refuge.

Compl. Rep. For Wildlife Management Studies 1 and 2., Seney

National Wildlife Refuge, Seney, Michigan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Minneapolis, MN 222 pp.

Skagen, S.K. 1997. Stopover Ecology of Transitory Populations: The Case

of Migrant Shorebirds. Ecological Studies 125: 244-269.

Skinner, R.M., T.S. Baskett, and M.D. Blendon. 1984. Bird habitat on

Missouri prairies. Missouri Department of Conservation. Terrestrial

Series 14. 37 pp.

Steinauer, E.M. and S.L. Collins. 1995. “Effects of Urine Deposition on

Small-scale Patch Structure in Prairie Vegetation..” Ecology 76:1195-

205.

_____. 1996. “Prairie Ecology-The Tallgrass Prairie” In Prairie

Conservation, Preserving North America’s Most Endangered

Ecosystem edited by F. B. Samson and F. L. Knopf 39-52. Washington

D. C. Island Press.

Stewart, R.E. 1975. Breeding birds of North Dakota. Tri-College Center

for Environmental Studies, Fargo, North Dakota. Northern Prairie

Wildlife Research Center home page. Jamestown, N.D. http://

www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/birds/bb_of_nd/bb_of_nd.htm

(Version 16JUL97).

Stewart, R.E. and H.A. Kantrud. 1972. Vegetation of Prairie Potholes,

North Dakota, in Relation to Quality of Water and Other

Environmental Factors. Geo. Survey Professional Paper 585-D. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D. C.

Swengel, A.B. 1996. Effects of Fire and Hay Management on Abundance of

Prairie Butterflies. Biological Conservation 76: 73-85.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 215

Tiner, R.W. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: current status and recent

trends. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 59 pp.

Tordoff, H.B. 1988. Minnesota’s Endangered Flora and Fauna. Edited by

Barbara Coffin and Lee Pfannmuller; University of Minnesota Press,

Minneapolis. 473 pp.

Troester, H.G.L. Refuge Manager. Inventory of Historic Districts:

Historical Trails on the Tewaukon Wetland Management District.

Memo to Regional Director dated January 31, 1972.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1974. Final Environmental Statement, Initial

stage. Garrison Diversion Unit. Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program

North Dakota. U.S. Department of the Interior, INT FES 74-3.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1994. Final Environmental Assessment of

Alternatives for Managing Upland Habitats on the Tewaukon National

Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cayuga, North

Dakota.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. North Dakota’s federally listed

endangered, threatened, and candidate species 1995. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Bismarck, ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie

Wildlife Research Center Home Page. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/

resource/distr/others/nddanger/nddanger.htm (Version 16Jul97).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.1996. Platanthera praeclara (western

prairie fringed orchid) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. vi + 101 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1999. Fulfilling the Promise: The National

Wildlife Refuge System. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington,

Virginia.

U.S. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Board, 1995. U.S. Prairie Pothole Joint

Venture Implementation Plan Update.

Vickery, P.D., M.L. Hunter Jr., and S.M. Melvin. 1994. Effects of habitat

area on the distribution of grassland birds in Maine. Conservation

Biology 8:1087-1097.

Volkert, W.K. 1992. Response of grassland birds to a large scale prairie

planting project. Passenger Pigeon 54: 190-196.

Weaver, John Ernest, 1954. North American Prairie. Johnsen Publishing,

Lincoln, NE. In Cultural Resources Overview Studies of the

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge, Sargent County, North Dakota,

and the Waubay National Wildlife Refuge, Day County, South Dakota

by Michael A. J., and D. L. Toom, 1999. Department of Anthropology,

University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

Wiens, J.A. 1969. An approach to the study of ecological relationships

among grassland birds. Ornithological Monographs 8:1-93.

Wilson, S.D. and J.W. Belcher. 1989. Plant and bird communities of native

prairie and introduced Eurasian vegetation in Manitoba, Canada.

Conservation Biology 3:39-44.

Yoffe, E. 1992. “Silence of the Frogs,” New York Times Magazine, 13

December.
216 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Appendix L. Waterfowl

Production Areas Priority

Management Tables
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 217

W y PA Units C s ount A r cre Mean Pai

Density

Unique

Resources

Priority

Level

E m nglevale Complex R 5 anso 1 r ,187.7 6 h 8 pai Hig

S m mith/Tanner/Buckmiller R 2 anso 6 r 46.6 6 h 8 pai Hig

S m trander/Skonseng/Peterson R 0 anso 2 r 80.3 4 e 5-68 pai T h allgrass prairi Hig

M m cCann/McGill/Isley R 3 anso 3 r 24.9 4 e 5-68 pai T h allgrass prairi Hig

W m eaver/Coit/Schiffner R 3 anso 4 r 03.5 6 e 8 pai T h allgrass prairi Hig

B d iggs/Berndt R 5 ichlan 4 r 79.3 2 e 7-45 pai Tallgrass prairi

Rare butterflies

High

Biggs/Anderson/Anderson/

Larson/Swanson/Ostby

R 7 ichland 6 r 09.4 2 e 7-45 pai T h allgrass prairi Hig

K d rause/Ahrens/Arndt R 5 ichlan 1 r 17.8 4 e 5-68 pai T h allgrass prairi Hig

B d ladow R 7 ichlan 2 r 75.9 4 h 5-68 pai Hig

G d unness/Boldt/Hentz/Elsen R 0 ichlan 6 r 57.1 2 e 7-45 pai Tallgrass prairi

Rare butterflies

White lady's slipper

High

H d artleben/Aaser/Prochnow R 3 ichlan 1 r ,627.2 2 e 7-45 pai Tallgrass prairi

Rare butterflies

White lady's slipper

High

K d uehn R 2 ichlan 3 r 17.5 6 e 8 pai T h allgrass prairi Hig

W d illprecht/Nechas/Hegar R 6 ichlan 2 r 40.9 4 h 5 pai Hig

C d hris Schuler/East Leack R 0 ichlan 2 r 40.0 4 e 5 pai T h allgrass prairi Hig

W d ollitz/Paetzke/Stenson R 6 ichlan 5 r 06.4 4 h 5-68 pai Hig

P t alensky/Widmer S 4 argen 4 r 49.6 9 e 3-113 pai T h allgrass prairi Hig

E t vanson S 2 argen 1 r 69.5 9 h 3 pai Hig

E t vanson/Anderson S 0 argen 1 r 98.8 9 h 3 pai Hig

G t ainor S 6 argen 8 r 43.9 4 e 5 pai T h allgrass prairi Hig

K t rause S 0 argen 2 r 00.0 6 e 8 pai Tallgrass prairi

Rare butterflies

High

N t elson/Klefstad S 6 argen 3 r 90.1 6 h 8 pai Hig

P t alensky/Wyum/Kaske S 3 argen 2 r 38.8 6 h 8 pai Hig
218 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

W y PA Units C s ount A r cre Mean Pai

Density

Unique

Resources

Priority

Level

B m likre/Chose R 9 anso 1 r 29.0 2 e 7-45 pai Moderat

C m ompson R 8 anso 1 r 62.0 2 e 7-45 pai Moderat

W m arner R 0 anso 1 r 60.0 2 e 7 pai Moderat

W m iltse/Kaspari R 6 anso 2 r 39.1 2 e 7-45 pai Moderat

F d ord R 4 ichlan 1 r 28.9 6 e 8 pai Tallgrass prairi

small tract

Moderate

G d aukler R 1 ichlan 1 r 62.7 4 e 5 pai Moderat

S d mith R 1 ichlan 1 r 59.8 6 e 8 pai Moderat

V d ogeler/Haaland R 1 ichlan 1 r 62.4 2 e 7 pai Moderat

A t sche S 4 argen 1 r 59.4 6 e 8 pai Moderat

B t auer S 2 argen 3 r 22.5 4 e 5 pai Moderat

E t ven S 6 argen 8 r 4.8 6 e 8 pai Moderat

L t itchfield S 8 argen 1 r 56.6 4 e 5 pai Moderat

M t ahrer S 0 argen 1 r 19.2 6 e 8 pai Moderat

O t lson/BN S 7 argen 1 r 57.3 6 e 8 pai Moderat

O t lson, H. S 4 argen 1 r 59.2 6 e 8 pai Moderat

S t aunders S 9 argen 1 r 43.2 6 e 8 pai Moderat
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 219

W y PA Units C s ount A r cre Mean Pai

Density

Unique

Resources

Priority

Level

A m rneson R 0 anso 4 r 0.0 2 w 7 pai Lo

B m achmans R 9 anso 1 r 00.1 6 w 8 pai Lo

B m oeder R 8 anso 9 r 9.7 4 w 5 pai Lo

B m ueling, A. R 8 anso 5 r 5.0 2 w 7-45 pai Lo

B m ueling, L. R 8 anso 5 r 6.2 2 w 7-45 pai Lo

C m arlson R 2 anso 4 r 3.6 9 w 3 pai Lo

D m ick, L. R 1 anso 3 r 2.1 4 w 5 pai Lo

K m aspari, L. R 0 anso 5 r 5.0 2 w 7 pai Lo

M m etzen R 0 anso 5 r 2.5 2 w 7-45 pai Lo

R m einke/Anderson R 6 anso 8 r 4.3 4 w 5 pai Lo

S m helver R 2 anso 8 r 5.3 2 w 7 pai Lo

B d oehning R 6 ichlan 9 r 7.0 4 w 5 pai Lo

K d orth R 6 ichlan 4 r 7.4 2 e 7-45 pai Tallgrass prairi

small tract

Low

W d est Leack R 0 ichlan 8 r 0.0 4 w 5 pai Lo

N d ovetszke R 8 ichlan 6 r 0.0 4 w 5 pai Lo

L t unstad S 3 argen 5 r 2.9 6 w 8-93 pai Lo
220 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Appendix M: Section 7

Consultation

Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation has been initiated with the Bismarck

field office of Ecological Services and will be completed prior to the final

approval of this Plan.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 221

Appendix N: Mailing List

Federal Officials P Congressman Earl Pomeroy - Fargo, ND and Washington, D.C. P Senator Kent Conrad - Fargo, ND and Washington, D.C. P Senator Byron Dorgan - Fargo, ND and Washington, D.C.

Federal Agencies P Air Quality Branch- U.S. EPA P USDA - Aphis P BIA - Billings Area Office P Bureau of Reclamation P Bureau of Land Management P Corps of Engineers- Bismarck, ND and St. Paul, MN P Dakota Resource Council P EPA, Region 8 P FSA - Ransom, Richland, and Sargent Counties P NPS -Theodore Roosevelt National Park P NRCS - Ransom, Richland, and Sargent Counties P USFS - Sheyenne Grasslands P USFWS Albuquerque, NM; Anchorage, AK; Arapaho NWR;

Arlington, VA; Arrowwood NWR; Atlanta, GA; Crescent Lake/N.

Platte, NE; Denver, CO; Devils Lake WMD, ND; ES, Bismarck, ND;

Fort Snelling, MN; Hadley, MA; HAPET, Bismarck, ND; Juneau, AK;

Lake Andes NWR, SD; Air Quality Branch, Lakewood, CO; Medicine

Lake NWR, MT; Missouri River Fisheries WAO, Bismarck, ND;

Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Sherwood, OR; Sand Lake NWR, SD;

Shepherdstown, WV; Washington, D.C.; Waubay NWR, SD; WHO,

Bismarck, ND

P USGS - BRD Fort Collins, CO and Jamestown, ND

State Officials P ND Game and Fish Department

Dean Hildebrand; Brian Kietzman; Tim Phalen

P ND State Historic Preservation Officer P Representative Kathy Hawken P Representative Scott Kelsh P Representative Christopherson P Representative Wesley Belter P Representative Rick Berg P Representative Leroy Bernstein P Representative Al Carlson P Representative John Dorso P Representative Steve Gorman P Representative Howard Grumbo P Representative Roy Hausauer P Representative Robert Huether P Representative Kim Koppelman P Representative Douglas Payne P Representative Sally Sandvig P Representative Al Soukup P Representative Allan Stenehjem P Representative Laurel Thoreson P Representative Pam and Bill Gulleson P Senator Tony Grindberg P Senator Joel Heitkamp P Senator Judy Lee P Senator Tim Mathern P Senator Donna Nalewaja P Senator Carolyn Nelson P Senator Jens Tennefos P Senator Russel Thane
222 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

State Agencies P MN DNR - Fisheries P MN DNR P MN Pollution Control Ag P ND Dept of Health P ND Forest Service P ND State Water Commission P NDSU Extension Service, Fargo and Sargent, Ransom, and Richland

Counties

P North Dakota Ag Department

City/County/Local Governments P Cass County Commissioners P Mayor Carl Taubert P Mayor Morris Saxerud P Mayor Neil Anderson P Mayor James Banish P Mayor John Banish P Mayor Orville Bergh P Mayor Robert Billing P Mayor Marty Bjugstad P Mayor Ronald Boehning P Mayor Steven Domm P Mayor Bruce Furness P Mayor Robert Fust P Mayor Marilyn Gunderson P Mayor Debra Heitkamp P Mayor Brad Hejtmanek P Mayor Dennis Klosterman P Mayor Gary Meyer P Mayor Ed Morrow P Mayor Ronald Narum P Mayor Larry Palluck P Mayor Mitch Papke P Mayor Duane Pollert P Mayor Grover Riebe P Ransom County Sheriff ’s Office; Weed Board; Commissioners; Water

Resource District

P Richland County Sheriff ’s Office; Weed Board; Commissioners;

Historical Society; Water Resource District

P Sargent County Sheriff ’s Office; Water Resource District;

Commissioners; Weed Board

P Twnshp Officer Duane Baldwin P Twnshp Officer Sonja and Grant Gulleson P Twnshp Officer Luann Anderson P Twnshp Officer Perry Anderson P Twnshp Officer Marcia Asche P Twnshp Officer Ray Bartholomay P Twnshp Officer Mark Bartle P Twnshp Officer Leroy Berg, Jr P Twnshp Officer Alfred Biggs P Twnshp Officer Richard Birklid P Twnshp Officer Ralph Bladow P Twnshp Officer Jim Bosse P Twnshp Officer Leslie Brandvold P Twnshp Officer Renae Branson P Twnshp Officer David Breuer P Twnshp Officer Beverly Brezicka P Twnshp Officer Elmer Buckhaus P Twnshp Officer Glora Claeys P Twnshp Officer Mark Fahsholz P Twnshp Officer Russell Falk P Twnshp Officer Mark Gauslow P Twnshp Officer Tom Geffre
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 223 P Twnshp Officer Audrey Gilles P Twnshp Officer Doris Gregor P Twnshp Officer Harry Hakanson P Twnshp Officer Lynn Hansen P Twnshp Officer Cindy Hanson P Twnshp Officer Sandra Hanson P Twnshp Officer Barbara Hayen P Twnshp Officer Don Heitkamp P Twnshp Officer Vernon Heitkamp P Twnshp Officer Ken Heley P Twnshp Officer Wayne Heley P Twnshp Officer Gladys Humphrey P Twnshp Officer Clarence Ihme P Twnshp Officer Norma Jensen P Twnshp Officer Dale Johnson P Twnshp Officer Kenneth Johnson P Twnshp Officer Thomas Kaczynski P Twnshp Officer Myron Keller P Twnshp Officer Doran Kersting P Twnshp Officer Marian Klaman P Twnshp Officer David Larson P Twnshp Officer John Larson P Twnshp Officer Ted Lee P Twnshp Officer Hermann Lentz P Twnshp Officer Ronald Lenzen P Twnshp Officer James Lingen P Twnshp Officer Russell Martinson P Twnshp Officer Robert McDaniel P Twnshp Officer Joyce McDougall P Twnshp Officer Wayne Meslow P Twnshp Officer Mike Moellenkamp P Twnshp Officer James Moffet P Twnshp Officer Bonita Nelson P Twnshp Officer Randy Pearson P Twnshp Officer Bruce Peterson P Twnshp Officer Jeff Peterson P Twnshp Officer Wesley Robertsdahl P Twnshp Officer Karla Schimelfenig P Twnshp Officer Joan Schlecht P Twnshp Officer Shera Schneider P Twnshp Officer Karen Schultz P Twnshp Officer Michael Schutt P Twnshp Officer Thomas Smith P Twnshp Officer Joann Solberg P Twnshp Officer Terry Spelhaug P Twnshp Officer Bruce Stein P Twnshp Officer Janice Swanson P Twnshp Officer Joseph Thane P Twnshp Officer Donald Thiel P Twnshp Officer Donald Vosburg P Twnshp Officer Josephine Voss P Twnshp Officer Beverly Walstead P Twnshp Officer Allen Weber P Twnshp Officer Connie White P Twnshp Officer Anita Woodbury P Twnshp Officer Renee Zimbelman P Western Governors Association P Wild Rice SCD
224 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Organizations P 4 Corners Wildlife Club P Agassiz Env. Ed Committee P Alice Wildlife Inc. P American Birding Association P Barnes Co Wildlife Federation P Bluestem Co. P Board Grazing Committee P CARE - Washington, D.C. P Cass Co Wildlife Club P Cogswell Gun Club P Crookston Gun Club P Cure P Dakota Resource Council P Dakota Wildlife Trust P Defenders of Wildlife P Delta Waterfowl P Dickey Co Wildlife Federation P Ducks Unlimited P Environmental Defense Fund P Fargo Area Sportsmen P Ft Ransom Sportsmen Club P Grand Forks Co Wildlife Fed P International Coalition P Izaak Walton League P Kaste, Inc P Keep ND Clean, Inc P Kindred Wildlife Club P L.A.N.D. P Lac Qui Parle Prairie Preserve. P Lake Region Wildlife Club P Lewis and Clark Wildlife Club P Ludden Sportsmen Club P Mark Sahli P Minn-kota Sportsmen Club P Minnesota Deer Hunters Assoc P MN Wildlife Federation P MN Waterfowl Association P MN Bow Hunters, Inc. P MN Conservation Federation P MN State Archery Assoc P North American Prairies Co. P National Audubon Society, Washington, D.C. and Fargo, ND P National Wildlife Refuge Assoc., Colorado Springs, CO P Native American Fish and Wildlife Society P Nature Conservancy, MN and Washington, D.C. P North Dakota Farm Bureau, Forman, ND P ND Wildlife Federation P ND Water Education Foundation P ND Birding Association P ND Chapter of The Wildlife Society P ND Natural Science Society P ND Soil and Water Conservation Society P ND Stockmen’s Association P Nobles Co Envirn. Service P Pheasants Forever, Ransom and Sargent Counties, and MN Chapter P Phillips Petroleum Company P Prairie Woods Elc P Prairie Restorations P Prairie Visions P Prairie Wetlands Resource Center P Red River Area Sportsmen P Red River Valley Potato Growers Association P Richland Wildlife Club P Rutland Sportsmen Club
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 225 P Safari Club International P Sierra Club, Fargo, ND and Washington D.C. P Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe P Tewaukon Rod and Gun Club P The Conservation Fund P The International Coalition P The Nature Conservancy, Bismarck, ND and Minnesota P The Prairie Is My Garden P Trumpeter Swan Society P Trust For Public Land P TWS - Central Mountain and Plains Society P Wetlands Trust P Wilderness Society P Wildlife Forever P Wildlife Forever P Wildlife Management Institute P Wildlife of America

Newspapers, Radio, TV P Bird Dog News P Daily News P Detroit Lakes Tribune P Enderlin Independent P Fargo Forum P Fergus Falls Daily Journal P Fertile Journal P Flickertails P Gun Dog News P Hawley Herald P KBMW Radio P KCCM MN Public Radio P KDDR Radio P KDSU Radio P KFGO Radio P KFNW Radio P KOVC Radio P KQDJ Radio P KQLX Radio P KQWB Radio P KSJB Radio P KTHI-TV P KXJB-TV P Lake Park Journal P MN Ornithologist’s Newsletter P Morris Sun and Tribune P Northland Outdoors P Oakes Times P Outdoor News P Ransom County Gazette P Richland County News P Sportsman’s News P St Paul Pioneer Press P Star Tribune P The Teller P Tony Dean Outdoors P WDAY Radio P WDAY-TV
226 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Schools/ Universities P Enderlin Public School P Fairmount Public School P Hankinson Public School P Institute for Policy Research P Kindred Public School P Lidgerwood Public School P Lisbon Public School P Milnor Public School P Minot State University P North Sargent Public School P North Dakota State University P Sargent Central School P Sheldon Public School P South Dakota State University P Southwest State University P St John’s School P University of Minnesota P University of North Dakota P Wahpeton High School P West Fargo Middle School P Wyndmere Public School P Zimmerman Grade School

Individuals

Richard Anderson

Elvoy Askerooth

Mark Askerooth

Bruce Atterberg

Roland Barvels

Wayne Beyer

Richard Biewer

George Bishoff

Karen Blilie

David Breker

Delores Breker

Anna Busta

Kent Carpenter

Brendan Ciesynski

Lysle Coleman

Don Dathe

James Diekman

Roger Dienert

Greg Donaldson

Steven Dunn

Lee Dusek

Terry Dusek

Michael Dwyer

Patrick Freeberg

Phillip Freeman

Louie Gaukler

Coletta German

Tawny Gilles

Randy Gjestuang

Janet Green

Randall and Collin Greenley

Jerry Haahr

Dan Hare

Brittany Hasbargen

Charles Haus

Warren Henderson

Dale Henry

Betty Hewitt

Geddy Hicks

Andy Hoflen

Quentin Hoistad

Ray Holcomb

Alexis Holtz

Dan Jacobson

Mark Jensen

Paul Kadoun

Ron Lenzen

Paula Lewis

Mike Lindsey

William Manikowski

Jim Marquette

Wayne Mattson

Clayton McLaen

Dennis McLaen

Milton McLaen

Scott Mcleod

Darin Mille

Bill Mitchell

Norm Moody

Nick Nankivel

Ronald Narum

Richard and Janet Nelson

Roger Nelson

Danny O’Meara

David Paulson

Chris Pool

Alvah Quinn

Adam Quintanilla

Duane R. Boeder

John Remson

Thomas Robey

Wayne Robey

Al Rusch

Mark Sahli

Jack Saunders

Mark and Mary Saunders

Simon Schaefer

Lois Schuler

Steve Schumacher

Peter Siemieniewski

Matthew Solemsaas

Don Stallman

Kari Sterna

Mark Stortroen

Earl Sulerud

David Susag

Robert Washnieski

Joe Wateland

Roger and Connie White

Brian Winter

Thomas Wyum

Paul Zavada

Dave Zentner

Garth Zimbelman

Terry Zimbelman

Mike Zirnhelt
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 227

Appendix O: Glossary

Academia: pertaining to colleges or universities.

Accessible: areas and activities allowing the physical access of areas to

people of different abilities especially those with physical impairments.

Adaptive Resource Management (ARM): refers to a process in which

decisions are implemented within a framework of scientifically driven

experiments to test predictions and assumptions inherent in the

management plan. Analysis of results help managers determine

whether current management should continue as is or whether is

should be modified to achieve desired conditions.

Advocacy: the act or process of supporting a cause or proposal; to actively

support.

Amphibians: a class of cold-blooded vertebrates including frogs, toads or

salamanders.

Anadromous: fish which swim up rivers from the sea at certain seasons for

breeding (i.e., salmon).

Avian Cholera: is a contagious disease resulting from infection by the

bacterium Pasteurella multocida that affects migratory birds. High

concentration of the bacteria con be found for several weeks in waters

where birds die from the disease. The bacteria can be transmitted

through ingestion by birds and other animals scavenging off of

diseased carcasses, direct contact between birds, and by air borne

particulate. (Field Manual of Wildlife Diseases, 1999-001).

Baseline: a set of critical observations or data used for comparison or a

control.

Big Game: large animals sought for hunting or fishing for sport including

species such as white-tailed deer, antelope, mule deer, and elk.

Biological Control: reduction in numbers or elimination of unwanted

species by the introduction of natural predators, parasites or diseases.

Biomass: the total amount of living material, plants and/or animals, above

and below the ground in a particular habitat or area.

Biotic: pertaining to life or living organisms; caused or produced by or

comprising living organisms.

Botulism: (Avian botulism) is a often fatal disease of birds that results

when they ingest toxin produced by the bacterium, Clostridium

botulinum. The bacteria persists in spores in wetland soil and are

resistant to heating and drying and can remain viable for many years.

Botulism outbreaks occur during the summer and fall when air

temperatures are high and decaying vegetation is present. These

conditions enable the spores to germinate. The cycle for botulism

starts with birds dying, maggots begin feeding on carcass, maggots

with the toxic bacteria are eaten by other birds, those birds die and the

cycle continues. (Field Manual of Wildlife Diseases, 1999-001).

Breeding Bird Survey (BBS): a cooperative program of the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and the Canadian Wildlife Service for monitoring

population changes in North American breeding birds by using point

counts along roads (Koford et al. 1994).
228 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Bureau of Reclamation: a Federal government water management

agency whose mission is to assist in meeting the increasing water

demands of the west while protecting the environment and the public’s

investment in these structures. Responsible in the District for carrying

out the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986 and

implementing the wetland wildlife mitigation in the Kraft Slough area.

Calcareous: refers to soils with moderate to large amounts of calcium,

usually calcium carbonate.

Categorical Exclusion (CE, CX, CATEX, CATX): a category of actions

that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect of the

human environment and have been found to have no such effect in

procedures adopted by a Federal agency pursuant to the National

Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4)

Central Migratory Bird Flyway: migrating birds follow specific pathways

in their travel from their wintering grounds to their nesting grounds.

Several major pathways are evidenced by their travels. The Central

flyway occurs along the great plains states.

Climax: a 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.

Colony: the nests or breeding place of a group of birds (such as herons)

occupying a limited area.

Compatibility: a wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a

refuge that, in the sound professional judgement of the Refuge

Manager, will not materially interfere with or detract from the

fulfillment of the Mission of the System or the purposes of the refuge

(Draft Service Manual 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility determination

supports the selection of compatible uses and identified stipulations of

limits necessary to ensure compatibility.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP): A document that describes

the desired future conditions of the refuge; and provides long-range

(15-year) guidance and management direction for the refuge manager

to accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute to the mission of

the System, and to meet other relevant mandates (Draft Service

Manual 602 FW 1.5)

Cool Season Grasses: begin growth earlier in the season and often

become dormant in the summer. These grasses will germinate at lower

temperatures (65 to 75 

0

F). Examples of cool season grasses at Refuge

are green needle grass, porcupine grass, intermediate wheatgrass and

tall wheatgrass, smooth brome, quackgrass, and Kentucky bluegrass..

Cultural Resources: the remains of sites, structures, or objects used by

people in the past.

Cultural Resource Inventory: A professionally conducted study designed

to locate and evaluate evidence of cultural resources present within a

defined area. Inventories may involve various levels, including

background literature search (Class I), sample inventory of project site

distribution and density over a larger area (Class II), or

comprehensive field examination to identify all exposed physical

manifestation of cultural resources (Class III).

Data Loggers: equipment that when installed in water impoundments will

be able to read the water level remotely at anytime of the year and

save the data for managers to assist in carrying out the goals of the

water management plan.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 229

Defoliation: the removing of vegetative parts, to strip of leaves from

animals and fire.

Dense nesting cover (DNC): a composition of grasses and forbs that allow

for a dense stand of vegetation which protects nesting birds from the

view of predators. Usually consists of one to two species of wheatgrass,

alfalfa, and sweet clover.

Depredation: Damage inflicted upon agricultural crops or ornamental

plants by wildlife.

Drawdown: the act of manipulating water levels in an impoundment to

allow for the natural drying out cycle of a wetland.

Drift Prairie: an area of small, gently rolling hills, dotted with thousands

of small wetlands with densities of up to 100 wetlands per square mile.

It was formed by the melting and retreat of the Wisconsin glacier

about 10,000 years ago.

Drift Prairie Wetland Enhancement Project: a project within the

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture that includes 14 Counties in

southeastern North Dakota (Barnes, Cass, Eddy, Griggs, Ransom,

Richland, Sargent, Steele, Trail, and portions of Dickey, Foster,

LaMoure, Stutsman, and Wells counties). Various governmental and

non-governmental agencies are working together to protect, enhance,

and restore wetlands and uplands. Funded by the North American

Wetlands Conservation Act.

Easement Refuges: areas where easements for flowage and refuge

purposes and filing of water rights were purchased. A perpetual

agreement with the landowner and any successive landowners that

provided the exclusive and perpetual right and easement to flood with

water, and to maintain and operate an artificial lake, and/or to raise the

water level of a natural lake or stream, by means of dams, dikes, fills

ditches, spillways and other structures for water conservation, drought

relief, and for migratory bird and wildlife conservation purposes, and/

or upon said land and waters to operate and maintain a wildlife

conservation demonstration unit and a closed refuge and reservation

for migratory birds and other wildlife.

Ecological Diversity: The variety of life and its processes, including the

variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and

the communities and ecosystems in which they occur (USFWS Manual

052 FW 1.12B).

Ecosystem: a dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal

communities and their associated non-living environment; the totality

of components of all kinds that make up a particular environment

(Koford et al. 1994).

Emergent: a plant rooted in shallow water and having most of the

vegetative growth above water. Examples are cattail and hardstem

bulrush.

Endangered Species (Federal): A plant of animal species listed under the

Endangered Species Act that is in danger of extinction throughout all

or a significant portion of its range.

Endangered Species (State): A plant or animal species in danger of

becoming extinct of extirpated in North Dakota 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.
230 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Environmental Assessment (EA): a concise public document, prepared in

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly

discusses the purpose and need for an action, alternative 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).

Extinction: the complete disappearance of a species from the earth; no

longer existing. (Koford et al. 1994).

Extirpated: the elimination of a species from an island, local area or region

(Koford et al. 1994); to destroy completely; wipe out.

Fauna: all the vertebrate and invertebrate animals of an area; the animals

characteristic of a region, period or special environment.

Fen: A fen, also called an alkaline bog, is a wetland primarily composed of

organic soil material (peat or muck) that take thousands of years to

develop.

Feral: having escaped from domestication and become wild.

Flora: all the plant species of an area; plant or bacterial life characteristic

of a region, period or special environment.

Floristic: referring to studies of the species composition of plant

associations (Koford, et al. 1994); of or relating to flowers.

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 a growing season.

Fulfilling the Promises: a document that has the visions and

recommendations on leadership in serving wildlife, habitat and people

to fulfill the promise of America’s National Wildlife Refuge System

first made by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903 to preserve

wildlife and habitat for its own sake and the benefit of the American

People (Fulfilling the Promise: The National Wildlife Refuge System,

July 1999).

Geographic Information System (GIS): a computer system capable of

storing and manipulating spatial data; a set of computer hardware and

software for analyzing and displaying spatially referenced features

(i.e., points, lines and polygons) with nongeographic attributes such as

species and age (Koford et al. 1994).

Goal: descriptive, open-ended and often broad statements of desired future

conditions that convey a purpose but do not define measurable units

(Draft Service Manual 620 FW 1.5).

Global Positioning System (GPS): a system which by using satellite

telemetry can pinpoint exact locations of places on the ground.

Grassland Easements: a legal perpetual agreement between willing

landowners and the Service to permanently keep land in grass for

wildlife. Land covered by a grassland easement may not be cultivated.

Mowing, haying and grass seed harvesting must be delayed until after

July 15 of each year. Grazing is not restricted.

Habitat: the place or environment where a plant or animal naturally or

normally lives and grows.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 231

Habitat fragmentation: the alteration of a large habitat to create isolated

patches of the original habitat that are interspersed with a variety of

other habitat types (Koford, et al. 1994); the process of reducing the

size and connectivity of habitat patches, making movement of

individuals or genetic information between parcels difficult or

impossible.

Habitat and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET): a team of Service

scientists who with GIS and research data devised the Thunderstorm

Map which indicates the areas preferred by mating and nesting ducks

in the Prairie Pothole Region. This map is used to focus management

efforts, restoration efforts and protection efforts in the area.

Herbivory: an animal feeding on plants

Holistically: ecology views humans and the environment as a single

system; relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems

rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts.

Impoundment: A body of water created by collection and confinement

within a series of levees or dikes thus creating separate management

units although not always independent of one another.

Incompatible: any use (recreational or nonrecreational) of a refuge that, in

the sound professional judgement of the Director of the Service, will

materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the Mission

of the System or the purposes of the refuge. Incompatible uses are not

allowed to occur on Service areas.

Indicator species: A species of plant or animal that is assumed to be

sensitive to habitat changes and represents the needs of a larger group

of species.

Interseeding:: a technique of planting in which seed is sowed directly into

an existing turf. It protects the valuable soil resource and also

promotes less competition from weed species that would invade in a

plow seeding operation.

Introduced species: a species present in an area due to deliberate release

by humans (including re-introductions, transplants, and restocked

species) or due to accidental release through escape or indirect

assistance (Koford et al. 1994).

Inviolate Sanctuary: A place of refuge or protection where animals and

birds may not be hunted.

Lacustrine: relating to, formed in, living in, or growing in lakes.

Lek: an assembly area where animals (such as the sharptail grouse) carry

on breeding and courtship behavior.

Mayfield method: a method used to calculate the rate of nesting success

based on the number of days that a nest was under observation (i.e.,

nest days of “exposure”); developed by Mayfield in 1975(Koford et al.

1994).

Maintenance Management System (MMS): a national database which

contains the unfunded maintenance needs of each refuge. Projects

included are those required to maintain existing equipment, buildings

and to correct safety deficiencies for the implementation of approved

plans, and meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates.
232 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Mechanical Control: reduction in numbers or elimination of unwanted

species through the use of mechanical equipment such as mowers,

clippers etc.

Mesic: characterized by, relating to or requiring a moderate amount of

moisture; having a moderate rainfall.

Migration: regular, extensive, seasonal movements of birds between their

breeding regions and their “wintering” regions (Koford et al. 1994); to

pass usually periodically from one region or climate to another for

feeding or breeding.

Migratory birds: birds which follow a seasonal movement from their

breeding grounds to their “wintering” grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds,

raptors, and song birds are all migratory birds.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act: Authorized the

requirement of an annual stamp for the hunting of waterfowl whose

proceeds go towards the purchase of habitat for waterfowl and other

wildlife. Duck stamps are also purchased for entry into some refuges,

by conservationist and for stamp collections.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act: Designates the protection of migratory birds

as a Federal responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and

other regulations including the closing of areas, Federal or nonfederal,

to the hunting of migratory birds.

Mississippi Migratory Bird Flyway: migrating birds follow specific

pathways in their travel from their wintering grounds to their nesting

grounds. The Mississippi flyway where birds follow the general path of

the Mississippi River.

Mitigation: measures designed to counteract environmental impacts or to

make impacts less severe.

Mixed-grass Prairie: a transition zone between the tallgrass prairie and

the shortgrass prairie dominated by grasses of medium height that are

approximately two to four feet tall. Soils are not as rich as the tallgrass

prairie and moisture levels are less. This causes changes in the

vegetative composition and plants characteristic of this area include

little bluestem, Junegrass and needlegrasses.

Monitoring: the process of collection information to track changes of

selected parameters over time.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA): 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 NEPA with other planning requirements, and

prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better

environmental decision making (from 40 CFR 1500).

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR): a designated area of land, water, or an

interest in land or water within the National Wildlife Refuge System.

National Wildlife Refuge System (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 protections and conservation of fish and wildlife

that are threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges,

wildlife management areas, or waterfowl production areas.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 233

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997: Sets the

mission and administrative policy for all refuges in the National

Wildlife Refuge System. Clearly defines a unifying mission for the

Refuge System; establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the

six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and

photography, and environmental education and interpretation);

establishes a formal process for determining compatibility; establishes

the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior for managing and

protecting the System; and requires a Comprehensive Conservation

Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended portions of

the Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act of 1966.

Native Species: species which are part of the original plant and animals of

an area. In general, meaning from the same continent (Johnson and

Larson, 1999).

Necrotic Enteritis: Necrotic enteritis has occurred on highly alkaline

lakes and wetlands where sodium, magnesium, and sulfate levels have

been relatively high. The bacteria that causes necrotic enteritis is

normally found in nonlethal amounts in intestines of healthy animals.

It is believed that abrupt dietary changes, stress, infections from other

diseases, and bacterial imbalances could be the reason this bacteria is

suddenly produced at higher rate causing death. In southern Canada,

geese can die soon after their arrival following their diet change from

grass in northern regions to grain. These birds are also using alkaline

bodies of water which seems to upset the normal bacterial balance.

Neotropical Migrant: a bird species that breeds north of the United

States and Mexican border and winters primarily south of this border.

ND Natural Heritage Program: A State program administered by the

ND Parks and Recreation Department. The Natural Heritage

Program will protect and preserve elements of North Dakota’s natural

heritage on private and public lands, for the benefit of present and

future generations before such areas are destroyed.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP): the 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 composed of individuals; corporations;

conservation organizations; and local State, provincial, and Federal

agencies drawn together by common conservation objectives.

Tewaukon Complex falls into the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture.

North American Wetland Conservation Act (NAWCA): an act to

conserve North American wetland ecosystems and waterfowl and the

other migratory birds and fish and wildlife that depend upon such

habitats. The act established a council to review project proposals and

provided funding for the projects. This act was passed to further

implement the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and

included Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

Objective: An objective is a concise target statement of what will be

achieved, how much will be achieved, when and where it will be

achieved, and who is responsible for the work. Objectives are derived

from goals and provide the basis for determining management

strategies. (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Parasitism: an intimate association between species of two or more kinds,

one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually

injures.
234 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

Partners in Flight: a Western Hemisphere program designed to conserve

neotropical migratory birds and officially endorsed by numerous

Federal and State agencies and nongovernment organizations; also

known as the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Program

(Koford et al. 1994).

Patch: a part or area distinct from that around it; area distinguished from

their surroundings by environmental conditions.

Perennial: plants which live for three years or more (Johnson and Larson

1999).

Prairie Pothole Region: an area rich in natural depressions that capture

precious water in a relatively dry prairie landscape which provides the

most productive breeding habitat in North America for waterfowl and

many other birds. Covers portions of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana,

North Dakota, South Dakota, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.

Predation: a mode of life in which food is primarily obtained by the killing

or consuming of animals.

Preferred Alternative: this is the alternative determined to best achieve

the Refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to the Refuge

System mission, addresses the significant issues; and is consistent with

principles of sound fish and wildlife management.

Prescribed Burning: Controlled application of fire to the landscape that

allows the fire to be confined to a predetermined area while producing

the intensity of heat and rate of spread required to achieve planned

management objectives.

Priority Public Uses: six uses authorized by the Improvement Act to have

priority and are found to be compatible with the refuge purposes. This

includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,

environmental education, and interpretation

Raptor: a carnivorous bird (as a hawk, falcon, or vulture) that feeds wholly

or chiefly on meat taken by hunting or on carrion (dead carcases).

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS): a national database which

contains the unfunded operational needs of each refuge. Projects

included are those required to implement approved plans, and meet

goals, objectives, and legal mandates.

Resident species: a species inhabiting a given locality throughout the year,

nonmigratory species. Examples include white-tailed deer, sharp-tailed

grouse, muskrat, raccoon, mink, and fox.

Riffle: a shallow, extending across the bed of a river; also a rapid; to form,

flow over, or move in riffles.

Riparian: refers to areas adjacent to water; influenced by water associated

with streams or rivers.

Rough Fish: a fish that is neither a sport fish nor an important food for

sport fishes (i.e., carp).

Scoping: the process of obtaining information from the public for input

into the planning process.

Sediments: material deposited by water, wind, or glaciers.

Shelterbelts: single to multiple rows of trees and/or shrubs planted around

cropland or buildings to block or slow down the wind.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 235

Shorebird: any of a suborder (Charadrii) of birds (as a plover or snipe) that

frequent the seashore or mud flat areas.

Spatial: relating to, occupying, or having the character of space.

Special Use Permit: a permit for special authorization from the refuge

manager required for any refuge service, facility, privilege, or product

of the soil provided at refuge expense and not usually available to the

general public through authorizations in Title 50 CFR or other public

regulations (Refuge Manual 5 RM 17.6)

Species of Concern (Federal): species which are (1) documented or

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

dependence on restricted or vulnerable habitats.

Species Richness: the absolute number of species in an assemblage or

community; the number of species in a given area (Koford et al. 1994).

Stakeholder: a person who has an interest in activities of the Complex.

Strategy: a specific action, tool or technique or combination of actions,

tools and techniques used to meet unit objectives (Draft Service

Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Tallgrass Prairie: a habitat zone dominated by grasses of tall height that

are approximately four to eight feet tall. Soils are rich and

precipitation is the more than in any other prairie area. The vegetative

composition and plants characteristic of this area include big bluestem,

Indian grass, prairie cordgrass, switchgrass, and needlegrasses.

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex): a

management unit of the Service that is located in the Southeast corner

of North Dakota (see Map 1). The Complex encompasses the Refuge

including the Sprague Lake Unit, the Storm Lake Easement Refuge,

the Wild Rice Easement Refuge and the Tewaukon Wetland

Management District (WMD).

Threatened Species (Federal): Species listed under the Endangered

Species Act that are likely to become endangered within the

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their

range.

Threatened Species (State): a plant or animal species likely to become

endangered in North Dakota within the near future if factors

contributing to population decline or habitat degradation or loss

continue.

Thunderstorm Map: a map which depicts areas (wetland complexes) that

are preferred by mating and nesting ducks in the Prairie Pothole

Region. This map is used to focus management efforts, restoration

efforts, and protection efforts in the area.

Till: unstratified glacial drift consisting of clay, sand, gravel, and boulders

intermingled.

Turbidity: the cloudy condition of a water body caused by suspended silt,

mud, pollutants, or algae.
236 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, FWS): the principal Federal

agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and

wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American

people. The Service manages the 93-million-acre National Wildlife

Refuge System comprised of more than 500 national wildlife refuges

and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65

national fish hatcheries and 78 ecological service field station, the

agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird

populations restores national significant fisheries, conserves and

restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered

Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation

efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program which distributes of

millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to

State wildlife agencies.

U.S. Geological Survey: a Federal government 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.

Visual Obscurity: a measurement of the density of a plant community; the

height of vegetation that blocks the view of predators to a nest.

Wading Birds: birds that have long legs that enable them to wade in

shallow water. Includes egrets, great blue herons, black crowned night

heron, and bitterns.

Warm Season Grasses: begin growth later in the season (early June).

These grasses require warmer soil temperatures to germinate and

actively grow when temperatures range from approximately 85 to 950

F.

Examples of warm season grasses are switchgrass, big bluestem,

Indian grass, little bluestem, and tall wheatgrass.

Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA): prairie wetlands with associated

uplands managed to provide nesting areas for waterfowl and owned in

fee title by the Service. These lands are purchased from willing sellers

with funds from Duck Stamp sales. They are open to public hunting,

fishing, and trapping according to State and Federal regulations.

Waterfowl: Includes ducks, geese, and swans.

Watershed: the region or area draining into a river, river system, or body

of water.

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN): consists

of wildlife agencies, scientists, private conservation groups, and

governments who endeavor to preserve and manage wetland habitat

on a hemispheric scale to aid shorebird survival.

Wetland Easements: a perpetual agreement entered into by a landowner

and the Service. The easement covers only the wetlands specified in

the agreement. 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): an area covering several

Counties that acquires (with Federal Duck Stamp funds), restores, and

manages prairie wetland habitat critical to waterfowl and other

wetland birds. The Tewaukon Management District covers the

Counties of Ransom, Richland, and Sargent.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2000 237

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex

9754 143 1/2 Avenue SE

Cayuga, ND 58013

701/724 3598

r6rw_twk@fws.gov

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

For Refuge Information

1 800/344 WILD

June 2000

Wild Tiger Lily with Porcupine Grass, Herbert Troester, USFWS