U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Waubay

Draft Comprehensive Draft Comprehensive

Conservation Plan and Conservation Plan and

Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment

National Wildlife Refuge ildlife Refuge

Complex Complex
CCPs provide long-term guidance for management decisions and set

forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge

purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs.

These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes

substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are

primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization

purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing

increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for

future land acquisition.
WAUBAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX

including

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

and

Waubay Wetland Management District

DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN

AND

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

June 2002

 Prepared by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

44401 134A Street

Waubay, South Dakota 57273-5301

and

Division of Planning

Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region

P.O. Box 25486, DFC

Denver, Colorado 80225-04186

S-1

“Like wind and sunsets,

wild things were taken

for granted until

progress began to do

away with them. Now

we face the question

whether a still higher

‘standard of living’ is

worth its cost in things

natural, wild and free.

For us of the minority,

the opportunity to see

geese is more important

than television, and the

chance to find a pasqueflower is a right as

inalienable as free

speech.”

Aldo Leopold

Summary

Waubay N ational W ildlife Refuge (R efuge), comprised of 4 ,650 acres, is located in

Day County in northeastern South Dakota (Map 1). The Refuge’s mix of lakes,

wetlands, prairie, forests, and cropland is home to a diversity of wildlife. More than

100 bird specie s nest on this sma ll piece of h abitat, w ith 37 mamm als also calling it

home. Waubay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established by President

Roosevelt in 1935 as “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other

wildlife.”

Waubay Wetland Management District (WMD) protects over 250,000 acres of

wetlands and prairie in six counties of northeastern South Dakota. The area’s mix of

native grass, planted grasses, cropland, and wetlands support a variety of wildlife.

Wildlife communities are dependent on the abundant grasslands or wetlands, or both.

The WMD is home to 247 species of birds, 43 species of mammals, and over 20 species

of amphibians and reptiles. Breeding waterfowl and grassland-dependent passerines

are two groups that are especially prominent.

Comprehensive planning is being undertaken for the Refuge and the Wetland

Management District (Complex) to guide management for the next 15 years. When

completed, the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) will provide clear goals and

objectives, implementation strategies, and recommended staffing and funding for the

Complex. This Plan will meet the planning requirements of the National Wildlife

Refuge Improvement Act of 1997.

The main goals set forth in the CCP for the Waubay Complex are:

■ Habita t Goal: To preserve, restore and enhance the ecological diversity of

grasslands, wetlands, and native woodlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of

the Great Plain s on W aubay National W ildlife R efuge C omplex.

■ Wildlife Goal: To promote a natural diversity and abundance of native flora

and fauna of the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains on Waubay

National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

■ Cultural Resources Goal: Protect and interpret significant historic and

prehistoric cultural resources associated with Waubay National Wildlife

Refuge Complex.

■ Wildlife-depen dent R ecreation Goal: To foster an understanding and

appreciation of the ecology and management of the fauna and flora and of

the role of humans in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains by

providing Complex visitors of all abilities with compatible wildlifedependent recreational exp eriences.

These goals will help fulfill the mission and goals of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

and the National Wildlife Refuge System. In an ecosystem setting, Waubay Complex

CCP actions will also help meet the goals of the North American Waterfowl

Managem ent Plan , Partners in Fligh t, The N ature C onserv ancy’s T allgrass Prairie

Ecoregional Plan and others. Only by working together can we improve the

biological, social, and economic status of the northeastern corner of South Dakota and

the Great Plains.
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 or has

significant impacts on the affected State or Federal land. NEPA also requires

Federal decision makers to study , develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to

the reco mme nded action. Views of other F ederal and Sta te agen cies and the public

are solicited during the decision making process. An Environmental Assessment

(EA) has been prepared to accompany this CCP. It is published after the Plan and

before the Appendices. The proposed action is to prepare and implement the CCP, or

enhan ced manage ment a lternative.


i

Table of Contents

I. Introduction/Background

Comprehensive Conservation Plans ..................................1

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge History .............................1

Time Line/Significant Dates of Waubay NWR ......................2

Waubay W etland Management District History ........................7

Time Line/Significant Dates of Waubay WMD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Purpose of and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan .............8

Nation al Wildlife Refug e Syste m Mission and Goals ....................9

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Waubay Complex Vision Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Legal and Policy Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Existing Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

II. Planning Process

Planning Process, Planning Time Frame, and Future Revisions . . . . . . . . . 12

Planning Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

III. Summary Waubay Complex and Resource Descriptions

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

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

Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Waubay Complex Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Water Resources and Associated Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

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

Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Economic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Special Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

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

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

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

Native Woodlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Public Use and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Waubay W etland Management District

Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Native Woodlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Public Use and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Summary Comparison of Management Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
ii

V. Implementation and Monitoring

Funding and Personnel (Current/Proposed Staffing Plan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Step-down Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Partnership Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Plan Amendment and Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Environmental Assessment ............................................ EA-89

List of Figures

Figure 1. Prairie Pothole Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 2. Annual Precipitation, Waubay NWR, 1953-1999 Bar Graph . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 3. Waubay Lake Historic Water Levels, 1934-1999 Bar Graph . . . . . . . . . 18

List of Maps

Map 1. Waubay NWR Complex Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-3

Map 2. Waubay NWR Historic Water Levels Map, Pre-1995 ................3

Map 3. Waubay NWR Base Map - Current Water Levels, 1998 ..............5

Map 4. South Dakota Major Physiographic Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Map 5. Region 6 Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Map 6. Waubay NWR Landcover Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Map 7. Waubay W MD Fee-title Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Map 8. Waubay WM D Waterfowl Breeding Pair Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Map 9. Waubay WMD Wetland Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Map 10. Waubay WMD Landcover Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Appendices

A. Wildlife Species of Waubay Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

B. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

C. Section 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

D. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

E. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

F. Key Legislation/Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

G. Mailing List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

H. WPA M anagement Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

I. Ecosystem Planning for the Mainstem Missouri River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

J. Grassland Easement Evaluation Worksheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

K. Existing Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

L. Compatibility Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

M. Plans and Organizations affecting Waubay Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

N. RONS L ist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

O. MMS L ist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

P. List of Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 1

I. Introduction/Background

Comprehensive Conservation Plans

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Refuge Improvement Act), an

amendment to the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966, was passed by

Congress in October of 1997. This historic “organic act,” the first in the National

Wildlife Refuge System’s history, required that Comprehensive Conservation Plans

(CCPs) be prepared for all refuges within 15 years. Lands covered by this Act include

National Wildlife Refuges and Wetland Management Districts, including grassland,

wetland, and conservation easements. The Refuge Improvement Act also clarified

compatibility and public use issues on Refuge System lands.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) worked with Congress to craft the Refuge

Impro veme nt Act and supp orted the planning requ irement. This pla nning effort will

assist each station, and the entire National Wildlife Refuge System, to meet the

changing needs of wildlife and the public. Public inp ut during the CC P process will

provide opportunities to consult with neighbors, customers, and other agencies to

ensure that plans are relevant and address natural resource issues and public interests.

This Draft CCP discusses the planning process, Waubay Complex’s characteristics, and

the direction management will take in the next 15 years on Waubay Complex

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge History

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge was established on December 10, 1935, by Executive

Order 7245 “as a refuge an d breeding gro und for migratory bird s and other wildlife.”

Originally known as “Waubay Bluebill Refuge,” it consists of 4,650 acres and was

purchased from private landowners through 16 different purchase agreements. At the

time of purchase, the upland and water acres were 2,587 and 2,063, respectively. The

total cost of acquisition was $62,788.97. Approximately 2,402 acres of meandered lakes

were withdrawn from public domain and 2,249 acres were purchased; furthermore, the

acres were purchased for about $27.92/acre.

In the “Dust Bowl” days of the 1930s, the Refuge lakes were almost entirely dry,

contributing to record low waterfowl populations. Water levels and duck populations

gradually rose to an “acceptable” or normal level and remained rela tively static until

the 1990s (Map 2). Heavy precipitation betw een 1993 and 199 9 caused lake levels to

rise more than 15 feet to all-time recorded highs, flooding 100-year-old trees (Map 3).

In 1995, when Waubay Lake spilled into Hillebrand’s Lake, a sport fishery developed

for the first time on the Refuge. Currently perch, northern pike, and walleye populations

thrive in Refuge waters. With such drastic water fluctuations came changes in bird

species, numbers, and habitats. Today, wood ducks, double-crested cormorants, and

great-blue herons thrive on the flooded, wooded islands of the Refuge, while overwater nesting species have virtually disappeared along with the emergent cover.
2 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Time Line/Significant Dates of Waubay NWR

1935 - Waubay Refuge established.

1936 - First manager, Watson E. Beed, reported for duty.

1937 - Refuge land acquisition completed.

 - Waubay giant Canada goose flock started with 30 donated captive geese.

 - Refuge observation tower built.

1938 - Famous wildlife artist Frances Lee Jaques, standing on the shore of Spring

Lake with W atson B eed, called Waubay “the perfect refuge.”

1942 - Highest number of pheasants recorded on the Refuge - over 10,000.

1947 - Deer hunting allowed for the first time.

1948 - “By this time, the Refuge was the only place in the area where prairie chickens

could be found.” Prairie chickens soon disappeared from the Refuge.

1957 - Five pair of Cotournix quail released on the Refuge - failed.

1959 - Annual Refuge deer hunts began.

1960 - Nature trail established.

1963 - Twenty-five Rio Grande turkeys released on the Refuge - all disappeared by 1964.

1966 - User fees were charged for the picnic area; use dropped by 50 percent - user

fees discontinued after one year.

1973 - Activities within the State of South Dakota and administration of Waubay

NW R transferred from R egion 3 to Reg ion 6 with an Area Office established in

Pierre.

1986 - New Refuge headqua rters office built.

1993 - Waubay and Refuge lakes, Spring and Hillebrand’s, begin to rise because of

heavy precipitation.

1995 - Waubay and Hillebrand’s Lakes equalize.

1996 - Refuge east entrance road raised four feet.

1997 - Winter of 1996-1997 totals 80.2 inches of snow (average is 30 to 35 inches).

 - Waubay/Hillebrand’s Lakes equalize with Spring Lake.

 - Refuge east entrance road raised 3.3 feet.

1998 - Refuge east entrance road raised 7 feet.

 - Refuge opened to ice fishing only.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 3

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 5

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 7

Waubay Wetland Management District History

Waubay Wetland Management District (WMD) is one of 37 WMD’s throughout the

prairie pothole region. They were started as part of the Small Wetlands Acquisition

Program (SWA P) in the 1 950s to save w etlands from various th reats, pa rticularly

draining. The passage of Public Law 85-585 in August of 1958, amended the Migratory

Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp Act) of 1934, allowing for the

acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”(WPAs) and “Easements for Waterfowl

Management Rights” (easements). The nation’s first WPA was acquired within the

Waubay study area (now know n as the WM D), wh en the 1 60-acre McC arlson W PA in

Day County was purchased from Arnold McCarlson on January 19, 1959.

The Wetlands Loan Act (P.L. 87-383) was passed on October 4, 1961, and allowed for

the advancement of funds aga inst future revenues from Duck Stamp sales. As a result,

WMD s were created in 1962. In 1966, Waubay W MD consisted of 10 counties:

Brookings, Clark, Codington, Day, Deuel, Grant, Hamlin, Kingsbury, Marshall, and

Roberts. In 1970, Brookings, Deuel, Hamlin, and Kingsbury counties were transferred

to Madison WMD, leaving the remaining six which make up Waubay WMD today. The

grassland easement acquisition program was started in 1989 to help protect upland

habita t to com plime nt the wetla nd easement pr ogram. W auba y is currently the na tion’s

second largest WMD with over 250,000 acres of waterfowl habitat being protected

through easements and fee-title lands. Protected areas under fee-title total 39,885

acres, while wetland and grassland easements protect approximately 105,000 and

126,000 acres, respectively. An additional 5,260 acres are protected under conservation

easements.

Like Waubay NWR , the WMD has varying wetland and upland habitat types and

needs to be m anage d to benefit waterfow l and other wildlife, as well as human users.

Today, prescribed burning has taken the place of prairie wildfires and is one tool used

to rejuvenate grasslands. Although prescribed burning has proven effective,

constraints such as time, money, and staff limit its use in the past. With additional staff

and fun ding, pre scribed burning will be used mo re extensively a s a managem ent tool.

Another tool available is haying, but it also has limiting factors. Haying is allowed on

fee-title lands by permit only; furthermo re, it can only be accomplished after July 15 to

protect nesting birds. This deters some producers, because the quality of forage may be

reduced. Grassland manipulation within Waubay WMD is primarily accomplished

through livestock grazing. This method is most closely related to the natural way of

managing grasses with livestock replacing the bison of the past.

Recently, increased precipitation has benefitted the WMD and waterfowl populations

dependent on these lands. In 1999, statewide wetland counts exceeded one million for

the first time and increased 104 percent above the 10-year and long-term averages.

Breeding mallards in South Dakota for 1999 exceeded 3 million for only the third time

in history (USF WS 1 999).

Time Line/Significant Dates of Waubay WMD

1959 - McCarlson WPA, the nation’s first WPA, purchased in Day County.

1961 - Wetland easement program began.

1963 - Wetland Management Office established in Webster; first manager - James

Pullium.

1964 - Wetland Management Office closes and function taken over by the Refuge.

1968 - Pheasant restoration program on WPAs started under Karl Mundt funding.

1973 - Activities within the State of South Dakota and administration of Waubay NWR

transferred fro m Re gion 3 to Region 6 with an Area Office established in

Pierre.

1989 - Grassland easement program began.

1994 - Hundreds of township, county, and state roads across the WMD flood from

rising waters of wetlands and lakes.
8 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Purpose of and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Waubay Complex was established to provide “. . . a refuge and breeding ground for

migratory bird s and other wildlife.” The purpose of the CCP is to accomplish th e goals

establish ed for the Com plex, including:

■ Habita t Goal: To preserve, restore and enhance the ecological diversity of

grasslands, wetlands, and native woodlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of

the Great Plain s on W aubay National W ildlife R efuge C omplex.

■ Wildlife Goal: To promote a natural diversity and abundance of native flora

and fauna of the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains on Waubay

National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

■ Cultural Resources Goal: Protect and interpret significant historic and

prehistoric cultural resources associated with Waubay National Wildlife

Refuge Complex.

■ Wildlife-depen dent R ecreation Goal: To foster an understanding and

appreciation of the ecology and management of the fauna and flora and of the

role of humans in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains by providing

Complex visitors of all abilities with compatible wildlife-dependent

recreational ex periences.

The CCP, with its clear management direction laid out in specific objectives and

strategies, is needed for several reasons. Since the establishment of the Refuge in 1935

and the WMD in the 1960s, many changes have occurred to the landscape. Much habitat

has been lost to agriculture, roads, towns, and other development. This loss of habitat

has had a profound effect on wildlife populations that once depended on vast expanses

of undisturbed grasslands and wetlands. Management of the Complex as outlined in the

CCP will help to stem these losses and help to restore biodiversity to the landscape.

The CCP also addresses the need to provide an understanding and appreciation of

wildlife and of people’s role in the environment. Providing more environmental

programs and better interpretation will increase the public’s knowledge about the

biological values that continue to be lost each day and the need to prevent further

losses. The Plan also calls fo r increased opportunities for w ildlife-com patible

recrea tion.

It is the Service’s job to protect and provide habitat for migratory birds and other

wildlife - this is our purpose and reason for being. We must do this in a vastly changed

landscape, balancing the effects of saving wildlife with economic realities and human

needs. By preparing this CCP, documenting our goals and objectives, and involving our

partners and the public in the process, we can all gain a better understanding of the

issues - from all sid es. It doe sn’t have to be w ildlife versus people beca use all w ill

benefit, e conom ically and person ally, from a healthy enviro nmen t. This CC P will help

explain how Waubay Complex fits into the landscape and our role in protecting our

natural resources for p resent and futu re generations.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 9

“When one tugs at a

single thing in nature,

he finds it attached to

the rest of the world”

John Muir

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals

The U .S. Fish & Wildlife S ervice, w hich adm inisters the Refuge Sy stem, is th e only

agency of the U.S. government whose primary responsibility is fish, wildlife, and plant

conservation. The National Wildlife Refuge System (System) is the world’s largest and

most diverse collection of lands set aside specifically for wildlife. The Mission of the

Refuge System is, “To administer a national network of lands and waters for the

conservation, managemen t, 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 generatio ns of A mericans.” Goals of the System are aimed at

fulfilling this mission. Some major goals are to provide for specific classes of wildlife

species for which the Federal government is ultimately responsible. These “trust

resources” are defined by the purpose of the Refuge and include threatened and

endangered species, migratory birds, and anadromous fish. Most refuges provide

breeding, migration, or wintering habitat for these species. Nearly all refuges also

supply h abitat for big gam e specie s and re sident or nonm igratory wildlife as well.

Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System are:

a. To fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge purpose(s) and further the System

missio n.

b. Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and

plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.

c. Perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal

populations.

d. Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, an d plants.

e. Conserve and restore, where appropriate, representative ecosystems of the United

States, in cludin g the eco logical processes characteristic of those ecosystems.

f. To foster understanding and instill appreciation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and

their conservation, by providing the public with safe, high-quality, and com patible

wildlife-dependent public use. Such use includes hunting, fishing, wildlife

observ ation and pho tography, and environmental edu cation and interpreta tion.

Individual refuges provide specific requirements for the preservation of trust

resources. For example, wa terfowl bre eding refuges in South a nd North Dakota

provide important wetland and grassland habitats to support populations of waterfowl

as required by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the North American Waterfowl

Management Plan. Waubay Complex supports breeding populations as well as

providing migration habitat during spring and fall periods. Sabine NWR, and other

refuges in Louisiana and Texas, provide wintering habitat for these populations. The

network of lands is critical to these birds survival; any deficiency in one loca tion will

affect the species and the entire network’s ability to maintain adequate populations.

Other refuges may provide habitat fo r endangered plants o r animals that exist in

unique habitats found only in very few locations. Refuges in these situations ensure

that populations are protected and habitat is suitable for their use. Refuges, by

providing a broad network of lands throughout the United States, help prevent species

from being listed as endangered by providing secure habitat for their use and

opportunities for recovery.

Unde r the National W ildlife Refuge System Impro veme nt Act of 1997, six

wildlife-dependent recreational uses are recognized as priority public uses of refuge

lands. These are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography,

environmental education and interpretation. These and other uses are allowed on

refuges only after finding that they are compatible with the purpose of the refuge.

Uses are allowed through a special regulation process, individual special use permits,

and sometimes through State fishing and hunting regulations.
10 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

A vast landscape of native prairie splashed with sparkling blue jewels of pristine

wetlands with its variety of wildlife, where people can learn about the unique

features and enjoy the bounty of the Coteau des Prairie region.

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Purpose

Waubay NWR Purpose

“. . . as a refu ge and breeding grou nd for m igratory birds and other wildlife . . .”

Executive Order 7245, dated December 10, 1935. Later Executive Orders allowed

for expansion of the Refuge under the same purpose.

Waterfowl Production Area 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

Act)

“. . . for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d

(Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“. . . for conservation purposes . . .” 7 U.S.C. § 2002 (Consolidated Farm and Rural

Development A ct)

Waubay Complex Vision Statement

Although this vision has a dreamlike feel to it, it is founded in a real need to restore the

health of the Northern Great Plains. Restoring grasslands and wetlands and protecting

and promoting their long-term health will be good not only for wildlife, but for humans

as well. The economic health of this region may also soon depend on the soundness of

these natural systems as farming becomes economically challenging and more and more

people turn to tourism a nd the fishing/hun ting industry to m ake a living. Alre ady this is

becoming a reality with the increased fishing opportunities available with the onset of

new a nd expanded lakes an d wetla nds. More and more people are also filling their

leisure time with outdoor activities such as bird-watching, hiking, or fishing. By

restoring and enhancing native habitats, Waubay Complex can help attract visitors

providin g additional economic opportunities in th e area.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 11

Legal and Policy Guidance

The National Wildlife Refuge System started nearly 100 years ago with an Executive

Order, signed by President Theodore Roosevelt, protecting a small and unpretentious

island full of pelicans, ibises, and spoonbills from market hunters. It wasn’t until 1997

that the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act was passed which set the

mission and administrative policy for all refuges in the System. It also outlined the

importance of the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife

photography, environmental education and interpretation) and how they should be

promoted except where incompatible with the purpose of the individual Refuge or the

system as a whole. A formal process for determining compatibility was also established

with this Act. From the first act to the most recent, the overriding principle that guides

the Refuge system is wildlife come s first.

Other key legislative policies that direct management of Refuges include the Endangered

Species Act (1973), Clean Water Act (1977), Land and W ater Conservation Fund Act

(1965), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918), and Executive Order 12996 Management and

General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (1996). These and other

Acts and Executive Orders that guide Refuge System activities are listed in Appe ndix

F. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service also provides its own policy guidelines which can

be found in Refuge Manuals.

Existing Partnerships

Waubay Com plex staff work with a variety of individuals and organizations to

accomplish habitat management, outreach, and environmental education projects. Some

past and current partners include Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe; Ducks Unlimited;

County Conservation Districts; South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks; The Nature

Conservancy; Ne-So-Dak (Glacial Lakes Outdoor School); local Boy and Girl Scout

troops; and numerous private landowners. Far less would be accomplished within and

beyon d our bo rders w ithout the se partn erships. A com plete listing of partners is

included in Appendix K.
12 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

II. Planning Process

Planning Process, Planning Time Frame, and Future Revisions

Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) provide a clear and comprehensive

statem ent of de sired futu re cond itions for e ach refuge or planning unit. The CCP will

provide long-range guidance and management direction to achieve refuge purposes,

help fulfill the Refu ge System mission, and maintain or restore the ecological integrity

of each Refuge and the System. Additional goals of the CCP process include using

science and sound professional judgment to support management decisions, ensuring

the six priority public uses receive consideration during the preparation of the CCP,

providing a public forum for stakeholders and interested parties to have input in refuge

management decisions, and to provide a uniform basis for funding.

The CCP planning process consists of the following eight steps. Although the steps are

listed sequentially, CCP planning and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

documentation can be iterative. Some of the steps may be repeated or more than one

step can occur at the same time.

 Preplanning - form core team, identify needs

 Identify Issues and develop Vision - Public Input Gathered on Issues

 Develop Goals and Objectives - from issues, resource relationships, legal

responsibilities

 Develop and Analyze Alternatives, including the Proposed Action

 Prepa re Dra ft Plan an d NE PA D ocument - assess env ironmental effects, Public

Comments on Draft Plan Gathered

 Prepare and Adopt Final Plan

 Implem ent Plan, M onitor and E valuate

 Review and Revise Plan

Comprehensive conservation planning efforts for Waubay Complex began in December

1997 with a meeting of regional management and planning staff and field station

employees from Waubay Complex and Tewaukon Complex at Tewaukon’s headquarters

in North Dakota. At that meeting a core planning team was designated with the major

respon sibilities of gathering inform ation, soliciting public input, and writing the Plan .

Beginning in Ja nuary of 1998 , an extensive scoping effort was undertaken to solicit

comm ents from interested parties. Comm ents were solicited from at least 29 public

gatherings, including open houses, county commissioner meetings, sports/farm shows,

sportsma n groups, agency m eetings, live radio interviews, and other community

organizations. Sixteen hundred leaflets were mailed out and media releases also

encouraged the public to comm ent and get involved in the CCP process. Participants

were provided an opportunity to learn about the Service and Complex’s purposes,

mission, goals, and management issues. Everyone had the chance to speak with Service

repres entative s and to share th eir com ments. The m ailing list is inclu ded in A ppendix

G. The public has an additional chance to comment now during this Public Review of

the Draft Plan.

The CCP will guide management on the Refuge and WMD for the next 15 years. Plans

are signed by the Regional Director, Region 6, thus providing Regional direction to the

station project leader and staff. Copies of the Plan will be provided to all interested

parties when requested. Whenever there is a significant need or at least every 5 years,

the project leader will review the Plan and decide if a revision is necessary.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 13

Planning Issues

For the planning team, the biggest issue was the loss and degradation of grassland and

wetland habitats. Protecting and restoring these habitats would reduce the continued

loss of biodiversity and help re store wildlife po pulations. Staff fe lt the best way to

accomplish this would be through partnerships, easement acquisition, and improved

management of fee-title lands. Habitat fragments would also be reduced by removing

food plots, replanting woodlands, and removing or controlling nonnative plants, shrubs,

or trees.

Public comments also expressed a need to protect and enhance native habitats. Some

were in favor of increased acquisition (fee and easement), but others were not. Many

comments encouraged the use and management of native plants and animals and

biologica l control m ethods for we ed control.

Wildlife issues for the planning team centered on increasing baseline data for individual

WPAs and developing monitoring and inventory plans. These plans would improve our

ability to track managem ent activities and their effects on the landscape and wildlife

populations. For the public, comments range d from w anting more nesting structures to

reintrod ucing elk .

Only a few comments were received during scoping meetings regarding hunting. One

was to restrict hunting seasons to only primitive weapons, another to decrease the

number of tags offered, and a third to expand youth hunting and fishing programs.

Allowing all three deer hunting seasons to continue provides more opportunities for

hunters as well as accomplishing Refuge objectives to control deer numbers and

protect habitat. Hunting success for muzzleloader and archery seasons is usually about

25 to 30 percent while it is closer to 50 percent or higher for rifle seasons (Refuge files,

SDGFP 2001). Providing hunts for youth or people with disabilities will be considered

and developed if practicable.

Both the public and the planning team expressed an interest in increasing public use,

environmental education, and interpretation. There was also a desire to build better

relations with the community and provide more volunteer opportunities. There was a

particular interest in increasing the access and availability of fishing on the Refuge.

The pla nning team ha d to consider the require ments of trust re source s, particularly

waterfowl, and compatibility issues when addressing these requests. There are also

safety and accessibility concerns that need to be considered, as well as the need for

additional funding to address these concerns. Issues such as providing additional boat

access and stocking fish off-refuge are the prima ry responsibility of the South Dakota

Game, Fish and Parks or other agencies.

The Sisseton-Wahpeton Tribe brought up two issues, bison grazing and collecting

plants on Service owned lands within the Complex.

Many of the issues brought up by the public were considered and incorporated into the

CCP, but some were dismissed due to incompatibility or other negative impacts. For

example, although elk at one time roamed the Great Plains, this issue was not

considered due to economic and other constraints.
14 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Figure 1. Prairie Pothole Region

III. Summary Waubay Complex

and Resource Descriptions

Geographic / Ecosystem Setting

Waubay WM D is situated in the northeastern corner of South Dakota, covering

Marshall, Roberts, Day, Grant, Clark, and Codington counties. It is comprised of 40,000

acres of Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs), 105,000 acres of wetland easements,

126,000 acres of grassland easements, and 5,260 acres of Farmer’s Home Administration

(FmHA) conservation easements. Waubay NWR is located in northeastern Day

County and is comprised of 4,650 acres.

Northeastern South Dakota is within the Central Lowlands Province, a major

physiographic province (Westin and Malo 1978). Prairie potholes, the major land

feature, were formed between 12,000 and 40,000 years ago during Pleistocene

glaciations. The first ice sheet covering eastern South Dakota was the Nebraskan,

followed by the Kansan, Illinoisan, and Wisconsin ice sheets. The Wisconsin ice sheet

had four separate advances. Four distinct physiographic regions cover Waubay

Complex from east to west: Minnesota River-Red River Lowlands, Coteau Des

Prairies, Lake Dakota Plain, and the James River Low land (Map 4).

The Minnesota River-Red River Lowland was

formed from sediment deposited on the bottom

of ancient Glacial Lake Agassiz. Drainage runs

north into the Red R iver of the N orth or south

into the Minnesota River along the Continental

Divide. This Divide, unlike the one located in

the Rockies, separates the continent depending

on whether water flows north to Hudson Bay or

south to the Gulf of Mexico. The Coteau des

Prairies is a series of north-south parallel

moraines which rise 8 00 feet or more in

elevation above adjacent lowlands. Numerous

wetlan d basins are a pr omine nt feature of this

land form. About 80 percent of Waubay

Complex is situated within the Coteau des

Prairies. The Lake Dakota Plain was formed

from silt and sand deposits under old Lake

Dakota. Flowing water drains into the James

River. The James River Lowland is a large

glacially-eroded valley drained by the James

River.

Waubay Complex is located wholly within the

Prairie Pothole Region of the Upper Great

Plains (F igure 1). It is also part of the P rairie

Pothole Joint Venture area, a geographic region

of importance to the North American

Wate rfowl M anage ment P lan. The prairie

pothole wetland complexes and associated

grasslands are an integral component of the

prairie landscape, providing a wide array of

ecological, social, and economic benefits. A high

density of wetlands in this region helps produce

the majority of game ducks, yet contains only 10

percent of the breeding habitat in the continent

(Baldassarre and Bolen 1994).
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 15

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 17

There are four flyways denoting major migration pathways that funnel waterfowl from

wintering to bre eding habitat an d back. Continental w aterfow l manageme nt today is

based on this flyway concept. Waubay Complex is on the eastern edge of the Central

Flyway.

Waubay Complex falls under the jurisdiction of Region 6 of the U .S. Fish & Wildlife

Service and is part of the Mainstem Missouri River ecosystem (Map 5). Goals and

objectives for this Ecosystem can be found in Appendix I.

Waubay Complex also falls within the bounds of numerous other ecosystems and other

planning efforts such as The Nature Conservancy’s Ecoregional Plan for the Tallgrass

Prairie, North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Prairie Pothole Joint

Venture, Partners in Flight, and the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program. A brief

listing of the se and other program s or planning effo rts that affect W aubay Complex is

listed in Appendix M.

The Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe owns thousands of acres within Lake Traverse

Reservation. The Reservation, created by treaty in 1867, covers portions of five

northeastern counties in South Dakota and two southeastern counties in North Dakota.

Much of the land within the rese rvation was opened up to Euro-A merica n settlem ent in

1892. Native American landownership within the reservation then took on two forms:

tribal land and heirship trust land, the latter owned by the descendants of male tribal

members who had received allotments of land in 1892. Heirship trust land is managed

for the owners by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Historically, the landscape of northeastern South Dakota consisted of a vast expanse of

tall and mixed grass prairie with numerous shallow and deep wetlands. Woodlands

would have developed and been protected from prairie fires arou nd large r lakes and in

the cooler, moister coulees coming off of the Coteau. No nonnative plants would have

been present. A rich assortment of native plants and wildlife existed, evolved with, and

were maintained by fire, periodic defoliation by large herds of grazing animals, and

climate.

As European settlement of the Northern Great Plains progressed, many changes

occurred on the land. Two of the processes which shaped grassland communities were

suppressed or eliminated (fire and herds of bison and elk) and settlers began planting

shelterbelts and woodlands to control soil and wind erosion. Agriculture soon

dominated the landscape and lifestyles of the inhabitants in the early-to-mid-1900s.

Nonnative grasses were planted for pastures and hay, while large portions of native

prairie were plowed up for cropland. Wetlands were drained to provide more cropland

and make farming operations easier and more profitable. The vast prairie that once

existed was soon covered by roads, railroads, houses, towns, trees, noxious weeds, and

nonnative grasses.
18 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Climate

The climate is typically continental, characterized by cold winters and hot summers.

Winter and summer temperatures can vary from extremes of -430

F to 1040

F. More

common temperatures range from -260F to 950F. Average annual precipitation is 20.9

inches and is norm ally heaviest in late spring and early summer. Intense thunderstorms

are norm al occurrences in summer. Fre quent spells of dry years often alternate with

years that are wetter than average. Wetland levels can fluctuate widely with these

precipitation changes. The average seasonal snowfall is 30 to 35 inches. Combined snow

and high winds often produce blizzard conditions in the area. Prevailing winds are from

the northwest. Wind speeds average 13 miles per hour, but can often be much higher,

especially in the spring. The growing season varies from 109 to 112 days.

Waubay NWR has been an official weather station since 1953. Climatological conditions

have generally been extremely wet since 1992 (Figure 2). Every year since then has

recorded higher than average precipitation. Low evaporation conditions also prevailed

throughout this period. This has led to water levels not seen in 200 to 500 years in many

closed b asins in the WM D. For exam ple, Waubay Lake has risen more then 2 0 feet in

12 years (Figure 3).

Figure 2. Annual and long-term average precipitation at Waubay NWR, 1953-2001.

Figure 3. Waubay Lake H istoric W ater Lev els.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 19

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 21

Air Quality

Waubay Wetland Management District, encompassing the National Wildlife Refuge,

meets attainment status for pollutants as reported by South Dakota Department of

Environme nt and N atural R esourc es.

Soils

Soils have been inventoried and mapped, and county soil surveys have been published

for the Waubay Complex. The soil associations vary greatly according to the

physiographic regions. The soils are derived from parent materials which include

glaciolacustrine sediments, early W isconsin glacial drift, and late-Wisconsin glacial drift

(loess).

The C oteau d es Prairies consists of relief that is un dulating to steep. The landscape is

characterized by many potholes or depressions. The drainage pattern is poorly defined,

except near the Big Sioux River where the level to moderately sloping loamy

Brookings-Kranzburg-Vienna soils predominate. Coteau soils consist primarily of the

Forman-Aastad-Buse association which are well drained, nearly level to steep loamy

soils formed in glacial till. Stones and boulders scattered on the surface in some areas

limit the use of these soils for cultivation.

The Lake Dakota Plain extends into the western counties of Marshall and Day and is a

plain of lacustrine material. Lacustrine deposits are alternating levels of clay and sandy

sediments. The primary soil associations are the Great Bend-Beotia and HarmonyAberdeen-Nahon associations. Soils are generally silty and moderately well drained,

but there are areas w ith poor drainag e.

The Ja mes R iver Lo wland consists o f level to rolling, loam y soils that are moderately

well drained. The principal associations within this region are the Niobell-NoonanWilliam s, Barnes-Sve a, and B ryant. D rainage system s of these associations are poorly

defined , and many terminate to form small ba sins.

The Minnesota River-Red River Lowland extends into the eastern half of Roberts and

Grant counties on a pla in of lacustrine silts. Principal associations include Heim dalSvea-Sisseto n, Poinsett-Eckman -Heim dal, and Form an-Aastad. S oils are m oderately

well dra ined, nearly leve l to sloping , and silty or loamy.
22 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Waubay Complex Resources

The Service has management and administrative responsibility on essentially five

different types of land holdings. This does not include the Private Lands Program.

These land holdings are described as follows:

1. National Wildlife Refuge

Waubay is derived from a Lakota word meaning “a place where numbers of birds

make their nests.” Waubay National Wildlife Refuge was purchased to further the

purposes of the Migratory B ird Con servation Act. It is own ed by the Serv ice in

fee-title and ma naged to provide high-quality w etlands and nesting cov er prim arily

for wa terfow l and other migratory birds. M any oth er wildlife species also ben efit

from the management, including white-tailed deer and ring-necked pheasant. The

Refuge is open for deer hunting and ice fishing as well as wildlife observation,

wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation.

The Refuge consists of 4,650 acres. Habitat types are approximately 48 percent

grassland, 35 percent wetland, 14 percent woodland/brush, and 3 percent cropland

(Map 6). Woodlands are surrounded by large glacial lakes and are thought to have

developed because th ey we re prote cted from prairie wildfires that comm only

occurred on surrounding open prairie. Bur oak, basswood, green ash, American

elm, hackberry, and cottonwood are the major tree species.

The following types of land holdings are located within the boundaries of the Wetland

Management District:

2. Waterfowl Production Areas

Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) are lands purchased by the Service under the

provisions of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, as

amended in 1958. Funding for these purchases comes from the sale of Migratory

Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps (Federal Duck Stamp). These lands are

owned by the Service in fee-title and managed to provide high quality wetlands and

nesting cover primarily for w aterfowl and other m igratory birds. Other wildlife

species also benefit from these areas. WPAs are open to the public for hunting,

fishing, and trapping. New WPA s are currently purchased only if they are roundouts to existing W PAs o r have some special fe atures. On ave rage, a new W PA is

purchased every 5 years.

The Service owns and manages a total of 39,885 WPA acres within the WMD (Map

7). There are 199 WPA units which range from 3 acres to over 1,325 acres and may

consist of more than one acquisition tract. Habita t types are approximately

56 percent grassland, 40 percent wetland, 0.5 percent cropland, 1.8 percent

woodland, and 1.3 percent brush.

3. Wetland Easements

The wetland easement program was authorized by Congress on August 1, 1958,

and like WPAs, is financed by receipts from the sale of Federal Duck Stamps.

Under this program, willing landowners are paid one lump sum payment to not

drain, burn, level, or fill natural wetlands. Wetlands must be of value to waterfowl

before they are considered for easement purchase. These easements cover only the

wetland a cres on the land and are perpetual, that is, they are permanent.

Ownership remains with the landowner and the Service acquires no other

management rights with the easement. Easements do not affect normal farming

practices such as cropping, haying, grazing, plowing, or cultivating wetlands when

they are dry du e to natu ral cond itions.

The W MD currently protects approximately 105,000 acres of wetlands with

waterfowl management easements. Acres of easements change regularly as

acquisition is still active. All wetlands under easement are inspected annually by

Service pe rsonnel for possible violations of the easement con tract.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 23

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 25

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 27

4. Grassland Easements

In 1989, the Service began the grassland easement program to protect important

nesting cover and enhance water quality on privately owned lands. Like wetland

easem ents, gra ssland e asements are perpetual, with the Ser vice purchasing certain

rights to th e grassland acr es. Under this program , willing landown ers reta in

owne rship and grazing is unrestricted. H owev er, disturbance of the soil, such as in

the production of agricultural crops, is prohibited and haying is allowed only after

July 15 each year to reduce disturbance to ground-nesting birds. All grassland

easement tracts are also covered by wetland easements. Grassland easements are

inspected ye arly for possible violations of the easement contract.

Each potential easement is evaluated for its value to wildlife. Lands must rate 40

pairs/square mile or higher on the Waterfow l Breeding Pair Distributions (M ap 8).

Large native grass tracts with good wetland complexes that include brood water

are given the highest priority. Tracts must protect at least 160 acres and have

perpetually protected brood water within one mile of the tract to be considered for

an easement. Easements less than 160 acres must be adjacent to other grassland

easements, WPAs, or South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP) lands, to make

up 160 acres of protected grasslands. Occasionally, a tract is purchased with a

portion of the land still in crop production. The landowner enters into an agreement

to seed the cropland back to a recommended grass mixture to qualify for the

easement.

Grassland easements within the WMD range in size from approximately 40 to over

2,720 contiguous acres. Currently, approximately 126,000 acres are protected

under the grassland easement program. This program is expanding with new

easement contracts written every month. The Service acquires no other

management rights with the easement document.

The Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area (DTP-WMA ) is a new

Refuge addition intended to eventually preserve 190,000 acres of remaining

northern tallgrass prairie in eastern South Dakota and southeastern North Dakota.

The DTP-WMA augments the decade old grassland easement program, funded by

Migratory Bird Stamps, by purchasing grassland easements in areas in which the

Service cannot use Migratory Bird Stamp funding. The DTP-W MA boundary

includes over 80 percent of the remaining northern tallgrass prairie. The DTPWMA includes parts of 4 cou nties in North Dakota and 28 counties in South

Dako ta, including all of the counties in the W aubay WM D. Large bloc ks of pra irie

of 10,000 - 20,000 acres are the primary targets for enrollment into the program.

Preservation of the prairie will mainly be in the form of grassland protection

easements. Stipulations and ground disturbing restrictions are the same as on the

above stated grassland easements purchased with Migratory Bird Stamp monies.

Funding for the DTP-WMA comes directly from C ongressional appropriations in

the form of Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF ). The northern tallgrass

prairie is the most altered and possibly the most endangered ecosystem in North

Ame rica. Tod ay, less than 4 percent of the origin al northern tallgr ass prairie

remains. This means that almost 45 million acres of northern tallgrass prairie have

disappeared, mostly due to continuous conversion of prairie to croplands since the

late 1800s. The rich diversity of the northern tallgrass prairie consists of at least

300 species of plants, 113 species of butterflies, 35 reptile and amphibian species, 60

mammal species, and 260 species of birds that are known to breed in or use the

area.
28 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

5. Farmers Hom e Adm inistration Con servation E asements

The Federal agency previously called the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA)

of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is required by Executive Order

11990 to preserve and protect all wetlands that were in FmHA ownership. The

1985 and 1990 Food Security Acts (Farm Bill) gave direction as to how and by

whom this should be accomplish ed. Cooperating with FmH A, the S ervice w ould

recommend “conservation easements” on FmHA inventory properties. When these

properties sold to private ownership, the Service accepted the responsibility of

enforcing the terms of the conservation easements. Presently, 5,263 acres of former

FmHA inventory properties are under some type of conservation easement. These

easements, at a minimum, protect the wetlands from burning, draining, or filling.

There are 1,242 acres of wetlands protected. In some cases, the easements protect

adjacent upland habitat as well. Some upland easements protect the land from ever

being farmed, while others re strict nea rly all uses of the land. Due to a change in

the way USDA defines wetlands, it is expected that there will be no additional

conservation easements.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 29

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 31

“Greater familiarity with

marshes on the part of

more people could give

man a truer and more

wholesome view of

himself in relation to

Nature . . . . Marshes

comprise their own form

of wilderness. They have

their own life-rich

genuineness and reflect

forces that are much

older, much more

permanent and much

mightier than man.”

Paul Errington

Water Resources and Associated Wetlands

Wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining

the natu re of soil develop ment a nd the types of plant and animal comm unities living in

the soil and on its surface (Cowardin et al. 1979). It is estimated that the contiguous

United States contained 221 million acres of wetlands just 200 years ago (Dahl 1990).

By the mid-1970s, only 46 percent of the original acreage remained (Tiner 1984).

Wetlands now cover about 5 percent of the landscape of the lower 48 states. Wetlands

are extremely productive and important to both migratory and resident wildlife. They

serve as breeding and nesting areas for many migratory birds and as wintering

habitat for many species of resident wildlife. Humans also benefit from wetlands,

which can improve water quality and quantity, reduce flooding effects, and provide

sites for recreation. Economically, wetlands provide places to hunt, fish, trap, or birdwatch for millions of Am ericans. In the 1996 Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife

Associated Recreation, about 40 percent of U.S. residents 16 years or older

participa ted in wildlife relate d activities. More than $1 00 billion w as spen t in pursuit

of these activities, m ost of w hich dep end on productive wetlands (USF WS 1 996).

Wetlands can be classified by vegetation, water regimes (the length of time water

occupies a specific area), and water chemistry. More specifically, prairie potholes are

described using the follow ing nontidal water regim e mod ifiers from Cowardin et al.

(1979).

■ Temporarily flooded - surface water is present for brief periods during the

growing season. The water table usually lies below the soil surface most of the

season, so plan ts that grow in both uplands and wetla nds are characteristic.

■ Seaso nally flooded - surface w ater is present fo r extended periods especially

early in the growing season, but is absent by the end of the season in most

years. When surface water is absent, the water table is often near the surface.

■ Semipermanently flooded - surface water persists throughout the growing

season in most years . When surfac e wate r is absent, the w ater tab le is usually

at or very near the land surface.

■ Permanently flooded - water covers the land throughout the year in all years.

Vegetation is composed of obligate hydrophytes, such as cattails.

Even though drainag e and other wetland decimating facto rs have taken th eir toll,

wetlands are still a prominent feature of the Complex’s landscape (Map 9). The

National Wetland Inventory has identified 348,482 wetland acres in the WMD. These

include ponds ranging from 0.1 acre with temporary water regimes to large glacial

lakes to major rivers and smaller tributaries.

In the James and Minnesota-Red River lowlands, temporarily and seasonally flooded

basins are more predominant while semipermanently and permanently flooded

wetlan ds are m ost abundant o n the Prairie Co teau. Th e average size of wetlands in

eastern South Dakota is only .4 acre; 72.9 percent of wetlands are 1 acre a nd 92.1

percent are 5 (Johnson and H iggins 1997).

The eastern edge of the WMD is bordered by Big Stone Lake, an impoundment of the

Minnesota River, and Lake Traverse, an impoundment of the Red River of the North.

The Big Sioux River drains the south-central portion of the WMD and empties into the

Missouri River in southeastern South Dakota. The Big Sioux is a typical prairie river,

often flooding in spring and drying up in summer. When wet, however, the Big Sioux

offers tremendous benefits to many species of wetland-dependent plants and animals.
32 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Vegetation

Upland Vegetation 

The following native plant communities as developed by The Nature Conservancy

(Ande rson et a l. 1998) a nd used by Sta te Natural Heritage Programs ca n be fou nd in

the WMD.

Native Prairie

Little Bluestem -Porcupine Grass D ry-Mesic Hill Prairie

Hill prairie is found on moderate to steep slopes w ith soils that are dry . This

community is dominated by grasses such as little bluestem, porcupine grass,

sideoats gram a, and w estern whea tgrass. C omm on forbs include leadplant, rigid

goldenrod, purple and prairie coneflowers.

Northern Mesic Tallgrass Prairie 

Some of the largest remaining tracts of tallgrass prairie occur in the Prairie Coteau

where rolling, rocky topography prevented conversion to cropland. It is found on

level to gentle slopes with mesic soils. The prairie is dominated by tall grasses such

as big bluestem, along with shorter grasses like northern dropseed and porcupine

grass. C omm on forbs include leadplant, prairie lousew ort, and golden alexander.

Northern W et-Me sic Tallgrass Pra irie

This is found in low lying areas and drainage ways, but rarely occupies more than a

few acres in size. The w ater tab le is often near the surface. It is dominate d by big

bluestem and Canada bluejoint. Common fo rbs includ e Rocky Mo untain blazing sta r.

Forests, Woodlands and Savanna

Northern Bur Oak M esic Forest

This plan t comm unity is fou nd prim arily in coulees and adja cent uplands an d is

more common on the eastern edge of the Coteau. It is mostly found on south or

west-facing slopes and with mo ist soils. The canopy is dominated by bur oak, with

smaller amounts of basswood and green ash. Ironwo od is a commo n small

tree/subcanopy species. The shrub layer may have American hazelnut, dogwood,

gooseberry, prickly ash, rose, and serviceberry. The herb layer has a diversity of

species including hog peanut, Pennsylvania sedge, columbine and sweet cicely.

Plains Basswood Forest

This forest type is found p rimarily on the north or e ast-facing slopes on moist soils

in coulees and adjacent uplands. It is found only on the eastern edge of the Coteau

because the coulees on the eastern side are deeper and wider than those on the

weste rn side, as well as east or northeast- facing, providing a more suitab le

microclimate for this forest type. The canopy is dominated by American basswood,

with smaller amounts of green ash, bur oak, hackberry, and quaking aspen. Sugar

maple can be locally dominant on the northeast portion of the Prairie Coteau, the

only place on this land form where it occurs. Ironwood is a common small tree /

subcanopy species. The shrub layer may include gooseberry and serviceberry. The

herb layer may include Virginia waterleaf, sweet cicely, blue cohosh, bloodroot, and

red baneberry. Some of the herbs found here, as well as in the Northern Bur Oak

Mesic Forest, are typical eastern deciduous forest species and are on the western

edge of their range.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 33

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 35

Bur Oak Woodland

This com munity occurs on dry to mesic sites and is floristically and stru cturally

intermediate between Northern Bur Oak M esic Forest and Bur Oak Savanna. It

has a patchy canopy and an understory dominated by shrubs and tree saplings. The

primary species in the canopy is bur oak. The shrub layer can range from scattered

to a dense thicket. It may include raspberries, gooseberries, dogwoods, American

hazelnut, and prickly ash . Prairie vegetation, if present, only occurs in small

openings in the tree or shrub layer. The herbacious layer is generally sparse and

floristically poor.

Bur Oak Savanna

This dry to dry-mesic community is dominated by bur oak. The stature and spacing

of trees is somewhat variable, reflecting differences in soils, topography, and

climate, factors that strongly affect local droughtiness and fire frequency. Shrub

cover is variable and consists of oak grubs, American hazelnut, serviceberry, and

buckbrush. Th e herbaceous layer is d omina ted by species ty pically fou nd in Little

Bluestem-Porcupine Grass Dry-Mesic Hill Prairie. This is a fire maintained

community and, due to fire suppression, much of it has probably converted to bur

oak woodland or forest.

The 75-acre woodland area north of Hillebrand’s Lake is designated by the Society

of American Foresters as a Research Natural Area because of its unique bur

oak/little bluestem cover ty pe. No special m anage ment o ccurs fro m this

designa tion.

The six counties of northeastern South Dakota encompass 3.4 million acres, half of

which has been converted to cropland (Map 10). Of the 1.3 million acres of remaining

grasslands, approximately 1.0 million acres is considered native prairie. This “native”

prairie is defined as grassland that has never been plowed, but in reality all plant

communities have been altered somewhat from pristine conditions due to exotic plant

introductions, livestock grazing impacts, lack of fire, and other factors since European

settlement.

Grassland vegetation makes up approximately 54 percent of Service lands within the

Complex. On WPAs, approximately 95 percent of uplands consist of grasslands. On the

Refuge, 71 percent of uplands are grasslands, with the remainder in trees, brush or

developments. Of these grassland acres, approximately 65 percent is native grassland

and 35 percent is seeded exotic grass/forb mixes or restored native grasses.

As part of the Northern Great Plains, two major vegetation types are represented

within the Complex - tallgrass prairie and northern mixed-grass prairie (Johnson and

Larson 1999). The tallgrass, or true prairie, extends along the eastern Dakotas and

Nebraska into Minn esota and Iow a. Less than 4 percent of the original tallgrass prairie

ecosystem is left and more is lost each year (Steinauer and Collins 1996). All of the

Minne sota R iver-Red River Low land and much of the C oteau d es Prairies lie within

this vegetation type. Tallgrass prairie gradually gives way to northern mixed-grass

prairie to the west, generally covering the Lake Dakota Plain and James River basin.

Remnant stands of eastern deciduous forest grow in ravines and north-facing slopes

along the Cote au des Prairies and adjacent to bigger la kes on the Coteau.

In addition to these natural vegetation types, approximately 35 percent of Service

lands are covered by planted tame (or exotic) grasses or restored natives. Tame

grasslands generally consist of smooth brome or Kentucky bluegrass, and few forbs.

Both of these exotic grasses can be found on native prairie tracts, often compromising

the health, vigor, and diversity of native sites. Restored native sites generally consist

of a mix of four or five grass species such as big and little bluestem, sideoats grama,

switchgrass, green needle grass, and a legume such as alfalfa or Canada milkvetch.

Currently, no other forbs are used in restoration efforts, mostly due to high costs and

difficulty in a cquiring seeds suited to th is location.
36 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

There are two primary ways to evaluate grassland condition. One is range condition,

which is based on percentages of selected native plant species present at a given time

as com pared to perce ntages presen t under a climax range condition . The second is

forage or vegetative condition, which is more commonly referred to as grassland vigor.

This method does not evaluate grasslands based on species composition, but rather

health of the plants. In general, both range condition and vegetative condition of WPAs

are in fair-to-poo r conditio n.

Wetland Vegetation

Wetland vegetation refers to those plants which grow in water or in soils which are

saturated for most of the growing season. Wetland vegetation is broken down into four

major categories of plants, based on their growth form and the wetland zone they

inhabit. These categories are free-floating, submergent, emergent, and amphibious.

Free-floating are those wetland plants which float at or beneath the surface of the

water without attached roots. Common examples are duckweed, bladderwort, and

coontail. Submergent plants are those which have roots in the substrate, and do not

emerge above the surface of the water, except some may have floating leaves. Examples

are pondweed, w ater milfoil, waterweed, and widg eongrass. Emergent we tland plants

are rooted in the substrate and the foliage grows partially or entirely above the water

surface. Arrowhead, cattail, common reed, and bulrush are common examples.

Amphibious refers to wetland plants that can grow as either a submergent or an

emergent. Comm only, water levels drop , leaving th ese plants grow ing in a tem porarily

dry site. Some common plants are yellow water-crowfoot, pepperwort, and water

smartweed.

Wetlands cover approximately 40 percent of WPA s and 35 percent of the Refuge. Most

of these acres have one or more types of w etland plants. It is no t uncom mon fo r a single

wetland to have all four categories of aquatic vegetation.

Endangered Plants

The Western prairie fringed orchid is the only known federally threatened plant species

that ma y be pre sent on the Complex. Historical location s have included sites in the Big

Sioux River valley in the southeastern part of South Dakota. It occurs in moist, tallgrass

prairies and sedge meadows, both of which can be found in the WMD. It appears to have

been extirpated from South Dakota, but remote populations may have been overlooked

as it does occur in adjacent counties of Minnesota, North Dakota, Iowa, and Nebraska.

The major reason for its decline is the conversion of native prairie habitat into cropland

and tame pasture. Heavy grazing, early haying, lack of fire, and noxious weed

infestations can all have detrimental effects on this orchid. Widespread use of

herbicides can also be a problem. Conversely, using herbicides in localized areas only,

can be beneficial by removing competing, nonnative species. Preserves where the

Western prairie fringed orchid is currently located are often managed by prescribed

burning. Burning is used to reduce mulch buildup and control the increase of nonnative

and woody plant species. This species of orchid is well adapted to survive periodic fires.

It is not known whether carefully timed short-duration grazing or haying will have

similar beneficial effects. Research is continuing in these areas. Moderate uses of these

tools may have no effect as orchids have been known to persist on private lands in some

grazed prairies and hayland (USFWS 1993; MN Department of Natural Resources

1991).

Noxious Plants

Many noxious plant species exist within the WMD. Most are introduced species with no

natural controls. The primary ones on WPAs are Canada thistle, leafy spurge, and

wormwood sage. These species often compete with and have a very negative effect on

native plant species. The control of noxious plants is important to benefit native plant

communities and is required by State law.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 37

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 39

Wildlife

Wildlife communities have changed significantly since settlement. Knickerbocker

(1869) listed elk, buffalo, antelope, grey wolf, black bear, otter, and marten as occurring

in the vicinity of Fort Sisseton, in Marshall County. All have been extirpated from the

region. Small herds of antelope have been re introduced and some buffalo are ra ised in

domestic herds on ranches. The Fort commander issued an order in 1876 prohibiting

killing prairie chickens on the military reservation, due to serious reductions in the

population. Prairie chicke n numbers ha ve been low sin ce the 1940s although a small

breeding population has recently been observed in Clark County. A list of wildlife

species present in the Complex can be found in Appendix A.

The following synopsis describes various species potentially occurring on Service lands.

This information is not intended to represent or describe all species.

Invertebrate Populations

Wetlands associated with Service lands normally carry high invertebrate populations.

Nesting waterfowl, waterfowl broods, marsh and water birds, and shorebirds are

highly dependent on these protein food sources for healthy, vigorous growth.

Invertebrates associated with Complex wetlands include worms, crustaceans, snails,

and insects.

Fish Populations

Over 100 species of freshwater fish inhabit South Dakota waters and waterways.

Thirty-nine are known, and 68 of these species have the potential, to occur in lakes and

wetlands on WMD lands. The fishery associated with Service lands is classified as

warm-water with low numbers of game fish and high numbers of minnows, carp, and

suckers. Due to the shallow nature of lakes and wetlands, there is a high probability of

fish winterkill. The exception are the Refuge lakes which are now part of Waubay Lake

due to rising water levels. This lake is currently providing excellent northern pike,

walleye, and yellow perch fishing.

Reptiles and Amphibians

Thirty-three species of reptiles occur in South Dakota. Ten are known, and 20 of these

species potentially, occur within the Complex. Broad reptile groups include turtles,

skinks, and snakes. There are 16 species of amphibians that occur in South Dakota.

Eleven could potentially occur on Service lands (Fischer et al. 1999). These species

consist of salamanders, toads, and frogs.

Birds

Two-hundred forty-seven bird species are recorded as regularly occurring within the

Complex (USFWS 1988). About 109 of these species nest within the Complex. Another

12 species are accidentals or extirpated. A complete listing can be found in Appendix A.

Species in the Complex listed in the Office of Migratory Bird Managem ent’s “Migratory

Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the United States: The 2000 List” (USFWS

2000) are shown with an asterisk in the Appendix.
40 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Waterfowl and Other Water Birds

Waubay Comple x lies with in the Prairie Pothole R egion of North Ame rica. This area is

of prime importance for producing many of the nation’s ducks. In addition, as part of

the Central Flyway, other waterfowl species use the area as important stopover sites

on migrational routes. The tundra swan is the only species of swan to occur within the

Com plex. They are most often see n during fall migra tion. Three species of ge ese visit

the Complex during migration. Canada geese, white-fronted geese, and snow geese

pass through in the spring and fall. Canada geese and snow geese are the most

abundant species. Canada geese are also common nesters in the area. Duck species that

nest in the Complex are: mallard, gadwall, northern pintail, green-winged teal, bluewinged teal, American wigeon, northern shoveler, wood duck, redhead, canvasback,

lesser scaup, ring-necked duck, and ruddy duck. Common goldeneye, bufflehead,

hooded merganser, common merganser, and red-breasted mergansers migrate through

the region.

The diversity of wetlands associated with uplands on Service lands attracts a great variety

of shorebirds, wading birds, and passerines. Many shorebirds use the mudflats and

shallows along wetland edges or as water levels recede during their migrations in the

spring and fall. Wetlands provide breeding habitat for a number of species of marsh

and water birds including:eared, horned, red-necked, western, and pied-billed grebes;

great blue herons; black-crowned night herons; American bitterns; Virginia rails; soras;

American coots; killde er; upland sandp ipers; willets; Am erican avocets; W ilson’s

phalarope; Franklin’s gulls; and Forster’s, common, and black terns. Red-winged and

yellow-headed blackbirds are quite common in and around wetlands as are marsh and

sedge wrens.

Grassland Birds

Since South Dakota is in the Northern Great Plains, grassland birds are the

predominant bird life. Grassland bird species are of particular concern since they have

shown consistent population declines over the past 30 years (Sauer et al. 1997). Some

passerines that depend on grasslands include bobolink; dickcissel; savannah,

grasshopper, vesper, and clay-colored sparrows; and western meadowlark. Other

species that use grasslands for n esting, feeding, or resting areas include w aterfow l,

some shorebirds and wading birds, as well as short-eared owl, northern harrier, and

Swainson’s hawk. Sharp-tailed grouse are common upland species that nest within the

Com plex. The greater prairie chicken historically neste d in the re gion, and a small

breeding population was recently found in Clark County.

The brown-headed cowbird is a grassland species whose range has exploded across

most of North America in response to the conversion of forests to farms and pastures.

Once associated with the moving herds of bison, it is now less migratory and has

successfully parasitized 144 of 220 species in whose nests its eggs have been found

(Ehrlich et al. 1988). Cowbirds can be particularly destructive to the reproductive

success of species that have not evolved or learned to recognize the foreign eggs.

Cowbird eggs generally hatch one day earlier than host eggs and the larger, more

aggressive cowbird young will out compete the host species hatchlings for food. Species

that may be susceptible to cowbird parasitism include yellow warblers, red-eyed and

warbling vireos, and song sparrows.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 41

Other Migratory Birds

Raptors including eagles, hawks, falcons, and owls are found on the Complex. The most

common are the red-tailed hawk, northern harrier, and Swainson’s hawk. Smaller

hawks, such as Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks, and American kestrels have been

docum ented a s nesting in the Co mplex. The m ost com mon o wl is the g reat horned owl.

Other species that might be seen during migrations include osprey, northern goshawk,

broad-winged hawk, and prairie falcon.

Refuge woodlands and area coulees provide habitat for many migrating warblers

including palm, Tennessee, orange-crowned, yellow-rumped, mourning, blackpoll, and

black-and-white warblers. They also provide habitat for yellow warblers, red-eyed and

warbling vireos, rose-breasted grosbeaks, hairy and downy woodpeckers, black-capped

chickad ees, and numerous o ther woodland specie s.

No long-term studies of avian communities have been conducted in wooded draws.

Casual observations have found five species of warblers during spring migration as

well as reports of turkey vulture s and pile ated w oodpe ckers in wood ed coulees in

Roberts County. One study of woodland types in the Little Missouri National

Grasslands found tha t certain neotropical migrants (red-eye d vireo, black-a nd-white

warbler, yellow-breasted chat, American redstart, lazuli bunting, rufous-sided towhee,

lark sparrow, and American goldfinch) were significantly more abundant in ash

woodlands than in juniper, pine or even cottonwood habitats (Hopkins et al. 1986).

Mammals

An estimated 43 mammal species are found within the six county Waubay Complex.

They range in size from tiny shrews weighing an ounce or less to large ungulates, such

as the common white-tailed deer or the rarely seen wandering moose, weighing

hundreds of pounds. Abundance varies with species. Prairie insectivores and native

mice common to prairie ecosystems are very abundant, and species like the opossum

and some species of bats are very uncommon on Service lands. No State or Federal

endangered or threatened mammals are known to occur in Waubay Complex.

State and Federal Endangered and Threatened Species

Bald eagles, a federally listed threatened species, are an uncommon migrant

throughout the State, but can winte r in large num bers along the Missouri River (South

Dakota Ornithologists’ Union 1991). They were historically a rare breeder in the

extreme southeast part of the State. Bald eagles were previously only seen during

migration in Waubay WM D, but within the last 3 years, pairs have been found nesting

in Roberts and Marshall Counties.

Piping plovers, a federally threatened species in South Dakota, are a locally common

resident albeit primarily in the Missouri River valley. They are generally an uncommon

migrant elsew here in th e State and have nested in Day and Codington counties only

rarely (S outh D akota O rnithologists’ Union 1991). The la st know n nesting attempt in

Day County occurred in 1985 between North and South W aubay lakes (SD GFP 1994).

Loss of breeding and wintering habitat are its biggest threats. It needs open sand and

gravel bea ches with sp arse vege tation for nesting and is a com mon bre eding associate

with the interior least tern.
42 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

The whooping crane, a federally listed endangered species, only rarely passes through

the Complex during its migration. Most sightings occur farther west in the State. The

most rece nt sighting in the W MD w as in Clark C ounty in fall of 2000. Before that,

whooping cranes hadn’t been seen in the District since 1985. The Eskimo curlew,

endangered, is nearly extinct. They pass through the Great Plains on their migrations

and can potentially occur in wet meadows within the Complex. The interior least tern,

endangered, nests along the Missouri River in central South Dakota. It is an uncommon

migrant in this area.

The osprey is a state threatened species whose numbers were drastically reduced as a

result of DDT use in the country. It is an uncommon migrant throughout the state and

previously nested in the southeastern part of the state (South Dakota Ornithologists’

Union 1991), with a confirmed nest record in the Black Hills in 1991 (Peterson 1995).

More recently in Waubay WMD, it has been reported during the spring, late summer,

and fall in scattere d locations, mostly in Da y County.

The American burying beetle, an endangered species, was once common over most of

eastern North Am erica. It has since disappe ared from ov er 90 percent of its historic

range (Lomolino and Creighton 1996). Hypotheses explaining its widespread decline

range from deforestation (Anderson 1982) to loss of available carrion in the required

size (especially with the extirpation of passenger pigeons and greater prairie chicken)

and increased competition for these resources from other scavengers such as raccoons,

fox, and skunks (Amaral et al. 1997). Recent trapping efforts have found American

burying beetles in extreme south central South Dakota, primarily in Tripp and Gregory

counties (Backlund and Marrone 1995). A trapline set up on the Refuge in 1996 produced

no American Burying beetles. Additional surveys should be done to completely rule out

the presence o f this endangered species. Current m anage ment to ols used , especially

prescribed burns and pesticides, could negatively affect invertebrate populations. Not

knowing for sure if American burying beetles are present or how they may be affected

by current practices leaves this species a t risk. 

The Topeka shiner is the only federally listed endangered fish species that may occur

on the C omple x. Although it was believ ed to be missing from m uch of its h istoric

locations in South Dakota, recent surveys found healthy populations in many of the

tributaries of the James, Vermillion and Big Sioux Rivers. As an indicator of stream

health, finding the Topeka shiner suggests these systems are still relatively intact.

Locating the Topeka shiner is the first step to protecting vital waterways and

watersheds which sustain native fisheries as well as the human populations which also

depend on clean water.

No federally listed reptiles or amphibians have been observed. The only State

threatened species in this region is the northern redbelly snake. The usual habitat for

this snak e is moist woodlands. W aubay NWR is kno wn to h ost this snake.

The Da kota skipper butterfly is listed as im periled in Sou th Dakota because of its

rarity and vulnerability to extinction. It was also considered for Federal listing under

the En dange red Species A ct. Other rare prairie-de pende nt butterfly specie s found in

the Complex include the powesheik skipper and the regal fritillary. Generally, large,

undisturbed native prairie tracts are required habitat for these species. Management of

sites where these butterflies are found will need to be adjusted to protect these

species. Primarily, sites should be divided into smaller management units, to prevent

management activities, such as burning or haying, from affecting the whole unit at

once.

State threatened fish species that may occur on Service lands include the northern

redbelly dace and trout-perch. State endangered species include the central

mudminnow and the banded killifish.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 43

Cultural Resources

A 1981 archaeological survey by Keller and Zimmerman found 27 archaeological

resource sites on the Refuge. Their cultural inventory report concluded that four sites

were significant resources. Artifacts found included lithics, ceramics, animal remains,

and stone tools.

Additio nal sites exist in Da y and M arshall C ounties. The W aubay Complex lies w ithin

the Upper James, Prairie Coteau, Upper Big Sioux, and Northeast Lowland

Archaeological Regions of the State. Documented occupation of the area spans a

10,000-year period. Significant cultural resources are probably present on some of the

thousands of acres of native prairie. The Regional Archaeologist is consulted during the

planning phase of any proposed pro ject. The need fo r a cultural resou rce inve ntory is

determined in consultation with the South Dakota Historic Preservation Office.

Public Use

The majority of outdoor recreational uses in northeast South Dakota are centered

around fishing and hunting. Numerous glacial lakes provide many opportunities for

fishing in the area. Due to the increase in water levels, Waubay Lake has become a

premier fishery, featured in several sportsmen’s magazines. In the past, the Complex

was also well-known for its ring-necked pheasant and white-tailed deer hunting.

Pheasant populations are recov ering slowly from a low in 1997. Deer are still abundant,

but many of the trophy bucks have been harvested due to a lack of emergent

vegetation, which was used as escape cover. The area also offers some of South

Dakota’s finest waterfowl hunting and other small gam e hunting w hich attracts

hunters from all parts of the United States. Many public lands provide the quality and

quantity of hunting sites needed for residents and visitors to use.

Other outdoor activities such as photography, camping, hiking, and bird-watching are

also popular in this region. The South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department has

many State Parks and Recreation Areas that are used primarily in spring, summer, and

fall seasons for these activities.

Facilities for visitors to Service lan ds are som ewhat limited. Information kiosks w ith

leaflet dispensers are located at the Headquarters building and tower. Refuge

entrances and boundaries are marked with signs; limited directional and regulation

signs are on the Refuge. A Visitor Center is located in the Headquarters building

which provide s inform ation and exhibits for Refuge v isitors. Howev er, the building is

currently only open during regular office hours (Monday-Friday 8:00 am to 4:30 pm),

with no week end hours. Tw o walking trails are available during daylight hours. One is

1⁄2 mile lo ng and is located near the Hea dquarters building. A portion of this trail is

accessible to persons with disabilities. The other trail travels 1⁄4 mile up a small hill for a

view of Spring Lake and native prairie. Both trails include interpretive signs. A 110-

foot observation tower is also open for public use providing panoramic views of the

Refuge and surrounding area.

All WPAs have boundary signs. No kiosks or designated hiking trails are located on

WPAs. There are eight redwood recognition signs in the WMD that acknowledge from

whom the Ser vice purchased the property. These are usua lly located along w elltraveled high ways. Grassed parking lots are located at many of the larger WP As to

provide off-road parking.
44 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Without a person on staff dedicated to public use, environmental education

opportunities on the Complex are limited. Currently, these duties tend to fall on the

wildlife biologist or any of the managers on staff. Talks and tours are offered at the

Refuge when re quested, if no conflicts occur w ith other duties. Program s offered to

area schools or communities are also offered on an availability basis. Oftentimes, only a

few p rogra ms are pre sente d each year. Through an agreem ent w ith Ne -So-D ak’s

Glacial Lakes Outdoor School, educators from Ne-So-Dak use the Refuge as a base for

their environmental education efforts. Approximately 250 to 350 school-age children

visit the R efuge e ach year thanks to this partnership.

Economic Environment

The Refuge is in Day County, approximately 25 miles northeast of the city of Webster,

the county seat and biggest town in the county, with a population of 2,200. The rural

population is very sparse due to its agricultural nature. Recent low farm prices,

coupled with water inundating many acres of cropland, have put a strain on the local

economy.

Approximately 2.6 percent of the land in the six county WMD is owned by State or

Federal agencies. To help ach ieve goals and o bjectives, upland habitat m anage ment is

often accomplished by authorizing local farmers to hay or graze on Service lands. Weed

control also helps economically by protecting neighboring land from infestation by

noxious weeds. Surrounding landowners and economies may also be assisted through

development of new weed control methods such as using flea beetles or other

management tools and techniques.

The economy of the area is based primarily on ranching and tourism. Waubay Complex

contributes to the local economy primarily by attracting tourists, bird-watchers, and

hunters. The State collects hunting license fees for deer hunting on the Refuge. In 1999

the receipts for Refuge deer licenses totaled $4,270. Many out-of-state and resident

hunters are drawn to the WMD for public waterfowl hunting. Most of them will spend

money in this area for licenses, motels, food, fuel, and other hunting necessities. The

permitting of some grazing and haying on Service lands benefits the local economy. In

1999 nearly 4,000 acres in the WMD were grazed, 67 were hayed, and 18 were farmed.

Paym ents made to counties in-lieu of taxes for Service lands also provide economic

benefit. In 1998 these payme nts totale d $50,513.

Interstate 29 cuts through the center of the WMD, north and south. U.S. Highways 12

and 212 go through east to west. The nearest airport with scheduled passenger service

is in Watertown, the Codington County seat. Codington is the fifth most populated

county in the State.

Most of the land adjacent to the Refuge is in private ownership. The SissetonWahpeton Tribal boundary borders the Refuge to the east.

Special Designations

The woodland north of Hillebrand’s Lake is designated by the Society of American

Foresters as a Research Natural Area because of its unique bur oak/little bluestem

cover type. No special management occurs due to the designation.

To be considered for Wilderness designation a site must be greater than 5,000 acres.

No lands in the Complex qualify for this designation. No rivers qualify for Wild and

Scenic River status.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 45

“Those who dwell, as

scientists or laymen,

among the beauties and

mysteries of the earth

are never alone or weary

of life. Those who

contemplate the beauty

of the earth find

reserves of strength that

will endure as long as

life lasts.” 

Rachel Carson

IV. Management Direction

The Complex planning team defined goals for four main categories: habitat, wildlife,

cultural resources, and wildlife-dependent recreation. Objectives and strategies are

further refinements of each goal. The most extensive section concerns habitat, with the

assumption that good habitat management should bring a corresponding response from

wildlife populations. Managing habitat is often more controllable than w ildlife

population management, which may be subject to regional or continental influences

beyon d the control of localized m anage ment e fforts. For example, m anage ment for tall,

dense, diverse grasslands may not bring a corresponding increase in waterfowl during

a drought cycle, when these birds also are dependent on abundant wetland resources.

Goals and objectives are presented separately for Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

and Waubay Wetland Management District for ease of understanding and reference.

(NWR goals are designated with an “R” while WMD goals are designated with a “D.”)

However, the NWR and W MD are interrelated in many ways. Waubay NWR is located

nearly in the center of Waubay WMD, and its habitats and wildlife are similar. The

major building facilities (headquarters, shop, storage buildings) are physically located

on Waubay NWR , but most staff activities, equipment, and facilities are associated

with WMD programs. At present, all staff work on both NWR and W MD activities.

The biggest concerns for the Complex include protecting remaining native prairie,

increasing biodiversity by restoring tame grasslands to native species, protecting and

providing habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds, protecting and restoring

wetlands, and providing increased opportunities for public use, environmental

education, and interpretation. There is also a concern for native woodlands in the

Complex - a little studied or understood resource in this area.
46 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

Habitat

# R1 - Habitat G oal: To preserve, restore and enhance the ecological diversity of

grasslands, wetlands, and native woodlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of the

Great P lains on Waubay N ational Wildlife Refu ge.

Grasslands

According to a 1948 Refuge land use plan, much of the Refuge had been farmed or

heavily grazed prior to acquisition. The dominant Refuge upland cover types are native

prairie (1,109 acres) and native trees (494 acres). However, the high water period of the

late 1990s inundated 941 acres of native prairie (Thanapura 1998), much of it diverse

tallgrass communities adjacent to Refuge lakes. Currently, there are 1,371 acres of

grassland on the Refuge, including 262 acres of tame grasses, dense nesting cover, or

old alfalfa fields. Old alfalfa fields (69 acres), heavily invaded by brome and quack grass,

are included in the grassland totals.

Objectives

R1.1 A nnually convert up to 50 acres of tame grasses, dens e nesting cover, or old

alfalfa fields to native plant communities, including forbs, until reaching a total of 262

acres.

Ration ale for O bjective: The m ost abundant introduce d grasses, espe cially

Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome, tend to be more uniform in height and

density than native species (Wilson and Belcher 1989). This uniformity may

produce changes in nongame bird species composition (Wilson and Belcher 1989).

Conservation of grassland-dependent bird species and other wildlife depend on a

variety of successional and diverse habitat conditions within a large block of grass

(Skinner et al. 1984, Volkert 1992, Madden 1996). Several bird species, such as

dickcissel and savannah sparrow, are most abundant in fields with a strong forb

component (Sample and Mossman 1997). Forbs are also needed to provide nectar

and larv al host pla nts for butterflies. Three Refug e specie s considered at risk in

the Dakotas (Moffat and McPhillips 1993) include the regal fritillary, Dakota and

powesheik skippers. Resto red native prairie tracts can pro vide more variety in

structure, height, and species than is found in most monotypic tame stands, better

emulating native prairie.

Strategies:

# Research appropriate native seed mixes and their availability, within one year.

# Prioritize areas of tame grasses, dense nesting cover, and old alfalfa fields for

conversion.

# Develop managem ent plans to monitor restored native grasslands for weeds,

grassland condition, and wildlife response.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 47

R1.2 Eliminate 95 percent of Russian olive and juniper stands and reduce by 50 percent

other nonnativ e plants, such as leafy spurge and Canada th istle, over the next 15 yea rs.

Rationale for Objective: For grassland obligate wildlife species, woody vegetation

should cover less than 5 percent of available habitat (Sample and M ossman 1997).

Nonnative junipers, Russian olives, and other woody vegetation, especially those

over 1 meter (39 inches) in height in grasslands, can provide habitat for nest

parasites, predators, and corridors for predator movement (Berkey et al. 1993).

Removing woody vegetation can improve nesting habitat and success for waterfowl

and other grassland species. Nonnative plants, such as C anada thistle and leafy

spurge, have no natural controls in the United States and can aggressively invade

grasslands, reducing biodiversity and structure necessary for healthy grasslands

and wildlife species.

Strategies:

# Inventory and map existing distribution of nonnative plants, within 5 years.

# Use a combination of biological, chemical, and mechanical means; with an

emphasis on biological control for leafy spurge.

R1.3 Within 5 years, develop and implement a Habitat Management Plan for the

Refuge.

Ration ale for O bjective: Deve loping un it-specific habitat m anage ment p lans will

increase staff effectiveness and habitat conditions by setting priorities and

ensuring actions are directed towa rds the most critical areas o n the Refuge first.

Documentin g and m onitoring changes improves the ability of staff to relate sp ecific

management tools to on-the-ground results.

Strategies:

# Develop individual unit plans for management, biological inventories, and

monitoring activities to be carried out on each grassland unit on the Refuge.

Unit plans would determine current grassland condition and decide

management course of action.

# Establish monitoring criteria to evaluate grassland management techniques,

within 5 years. 

# Manage tame grassland sites not scheduled for conversion to natives for

maximum potential height and density base d on grass species involved and site

conditions. Strive for two decimeters (8 inches) o f total visual obstru ction in

mid-April, as suggested for optimal nesting habitat for waterfowl (Duebbert et

al. 1981).

# Develop prescribed burn plans for all grassland units which would benefit from

periodic burning.
48 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Wetlands

During “normal” water conditions, there are approximately 1,800 acres of wetlands on

the Refuge. About 12 acres were considered temporary, 90 acres seasonal, 192 acres as

semipermanent, and 1,500 acres as permanent lakes. High water conditions which

began in the mid-1990s have increased wet acreage (mostly lake acreage) by another

400 to 500 acres. Many semipermanent wetlands have been swallowed up and are

currently included as part of Waubay Lake, which also now includes Spring and

Hillebrand’s Lakes. These changes have resulted in an increase in water depths and a

corresponding decre ase in submergent an d eme rgent vegetation. This m eans there is

less feeding and nesting habitat for diving ducks and over-water nesters such as rednecked grebes, but more habitat for pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and wood

ducks. It is anticipated that current high water levels will continue for at least 15 years,

the life of this plan (Niehus et al. 1999, 1999a).

There are thre e wate r contro l structures locate d on the Refug e. One is comp letely

inundated by the extreme water levels and will not be replaced or repaired when water

levels recede. Another, which affects approximately three acres, is located along the

entrance road and is in need of repair. It will be replaced with an ordinary culvert to

reduce maintenance problems and protect the road. The third is located on Barse

Slough, a 15 acre wetland on the east side of the Refuge. Some minor repairs are

neede d to ma ke this structure fully functio nal.

Objective

R1.4 Enhance wetland conditions on 15 managed acres by allowing them to flood each

spring and slowly drawing down water levels to expose mudflats and provide shallow

water areas, 15 cm (6 inches), for waterfowl and shorebird feeding during spring

migrations.

Rationale for Objective: Water control structures can increase the productivity of a

wetland by allowing managers to change water levels to affect the types and

amount of vegetation that grows in the wetland. In fact, in many wetlands, active

management may be necessary to maintain desirable species and communities

(Baldassarre and Bolen 1994). Managed wetlands may also be able to provide

habitat that might be in short supply due to overall climatic conditions. However,

there is no water source for reflooding this wetland, it is dependent on spring

snowmelt and rains. Providing habitat for fall migration by drawing down in the

summer and reflooding in fall would be difficult if not impossible some years. Since

this structure only affects 15 acres, providing emergent cover for nesting or

brooding waterfowl or other waterbirds would not affect a large number of birds.

At this time, mudflats and shallow water areas are in short supply and providing

this habita t during spring m igration could he lp numerous w aterbird s, especially

prenesting females. D rawing down w ater levels w ill also help to conce ntrate

macroinvertebrates and other food sources for migratory birds.

Strategies:

# Monitor site frequently to make adjustments to water level depths for

optimum plant and macroinvertebrate production as determined by standard

methods.

# Maintain records of responses by plants and animals to determine if changes

need to be made in timing or frequency of drawdowns.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 49

Native Woodlands

There are approximately 500 acres of native bur oak woodlands on the Refuge. The

overstory consists mostly of bur oak, green ash, basswood, elm, and hackberry. The

understory includes choke cherry, buffalo berry, Juneberry (serviceberry), and

buckbrush. Ground cover is dominated by sedges and stinging nettle. Before the

establishment of the Refuge, food plots of 10 to 30 acres in size were cut out of three

woodland areas (West Woods, Centerwoods, and Clubhouse Woods). After the Refuge

was established, these three fields continued to be used for wildlife food plots. Rye was

planted in the fall for green browse, the n plowed under in spring and planted to millet,

which was left standing for wildlife (D. Okroi, pers. comm.). When waters began rising

these area s were planted to alfalfa a s staff realized getting equipm ent to these soon to

be isolated sites would be impossible.

Objectives

R1.5 Restore native trees on 3 food plots of 10 to 30 acres in size (total of 50 acres)

within the Refuge’s native woodlands (Map 6), within 15 years, to decrease

fragmentation to reduce brown-headed cowbird populations and increase woodland

bird species and their nes ting success.

Rationale for Objective: From 1994 to 1996 a constant effort mist netting site was

set up in Centerwoods. Data collected also contributed to the Monitoring Avian

Productivity and Survivorship (M APS) progra m. Poin t counts were conducted in

conjunction with the mist netting. Results averaging the 3 yea rs of point counts

showed brown-headed cowbirds were the second most abundant species observed,

after red-winged blackbirds. They also made up nearly 6 percent of total captures

in mist nets. Even though yellow warblers comprised 10 percent of total captures,

only one hatch year bird was banded during this study period. Yellow warblers are

one of the three most frequent cowbird hosts (Ehrlich et al. 1988) and the high

abundance of cowbirds may be affecting yellow warbler nest success in this area.

Nests that occur along forest edges and in small forest patches experience greater

rates of nest predation (Wilcove 1985, Yahner and Scott 1988) and brood parasitism

by brown-headed cowbirds (Brittingham and Temple 1983, Gates and Gysel 1978).

Replanting the old farm fields will reduce edges and increase effective woodland

size, thereby reducing n egative edge effects and possibly brood parasitism.

Strategies:

# Replant old farm fields located on Headquarters, Centerwoods, and West

Woods islands to native trees.

# Monitor, with point counts, changes in bird populations as reforestation

progresses.

# Research appropriate methods, such as field prepara tion and tree species to

use within 5 years.
50 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

R1.6 Develop and implement a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for oak savannah and

eastern deciduous forest types, within 5 years, to protect and sustain these important

habitats for migratory birds and other wildlife.

Ration ale for O bjective: Few mana geme nt plans h ave been developed specifically

for Refuge woodlands, although they encompass nearly one third of upland

habitats. Forest management is generally outside the scope of current staff and

most of their time is dedicated to wetland and grassland habitats. Although a few

prescribed burns have been executed in and around woodland areas, little is known

about the effects these burns have had or how best to continue management of

these areas. Consulting with people more knowledgeable in this field and

developing long-term management plans can provide benefits to many species that

inhabit these sites. Some woodland-dependent bird species that currently occur on

the Refuge that could benefit from improved management include black-billed

cuckoo, Cooper’s hawk, least and great-crested flycatchers, red-eyed and warbling

vireos, yellow warbler, northern oriole, and rose-breasted grosbeak.

Strategies:

# Use GIS or other methods to map forest types.

# Consult forestry experts to help formulate forestry management plans.

# Maintain 60 acres of ro tating food plots (outside forest areas), annually, to

reduce browse pressure on woodlands from wintering deer.

# Develop research study to determine impact of white-tailed deer to forests and

possible strategies to minimize these impacts.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 51

Wildlife

■ R2 - Wildlife Go al: To promote a natural diversity and abundance of native flora

and fauna of the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains on Waubay National

Wildlife Refuge.

Because wildlife populations are dynamic and can be affected by factors such as

weather, disease, pollution or other factors outside of human control, the following

objectives focus on increasing our knowledge of wildlife needs and monitoring wildlife

populations and land use patterns in order to better direct habitat m anagem ent.

Objectives

R2.1 Develop an Inventory and M onitoring Plan, within 3 years, to locate and track

specific locations used by the following endangered or threatened species: bald eagle,

piping plover, American burying beetle, and western prairie fringed orchid.

Rationale for Objective: The species listed above may potentially use the Refuge

for some part of their life-cycles. Bald eagles were previously only seen during

migration on the Refuge and in the District, but within the last 3 years, nesting

pairs have been found in Roberts and Marshall Counties. Sightings of bald eagles

are also becom ing more com mon d uring summe r months (Re fuge files).

Piping plovers rarely nested in Day and Codington counties (South Dakota

Ornithologists’ Union 1991), with the last known nesting attempt in 1985 between

North and South Waubay Lakes (SDGFP 1994). Major habitat changes have

occurred since then, reducing available sand or gravel beaches preferred for

nesting. However, even small reductions in water levels now can open up new

nesting sites for these birds. Monitoring for these changes can help to protect

future nesting pa irs.

Recent trapping efforts have found Am erican burying beetles in extreme south

central South Dakota, primarily in Tripp and Gregory counties (Backlund and

Marrone 1995). A trapline set-up on the Refuge in 1996 produced no American

burying beetles. However, their presence cannot be ruled out without further

survey s. Knowing of their pre sence a nd locations will help Re fuge m anage rs avoid

adversely affecting them through actions such as prescribed burning and pesticide

application.

The Western prairie fringed orchid is the only known federally threatened plant

species that may be present on the Refuge. Historical locations have included sites

in the Big Sioux River valley in th e southeastern part of South Dako ta. It occurs in

moist, tallgrass prairies and sedge meadows, both of which can be found on the

Complex. It appears to have been extirpated from South Dakota, but rem ote

populations may have been overlooked as it does occur in adjacent counties of

Minnesota, North Dakota, Iowa, and Nebraska.

Strategies:

# Protect Refuge sites used by endangered and threatened species.

# Monitor public use of documented sites for adverse impacts and restrict access

if and when necessary to minimize disturbance and habitat degradation.

# Use appropriate management techniques and timing to help ensure continued

survival of these species.
52 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

R2.2 Develop an Inventory and M onitoring Plan, within 3 years, to locate and track

specific locations used by the fo llowing State species at risk: regal fritillary, Dakota

skipper, and powesheik skipper butterflies; osprey; northern redbelly snake; banded

killifish; and central mudminnow.

Rationale for Objective: South Dakota’s endangered species law was passed in 1977

to ensure the protection of threatened and endangered species within the state.

The Game, Fish, and Parks Com mission reviews the list of species every 2 years

with species added or deleted depending on their vulnerability, with the Game,

Fish and P arks Department in charge of the protection of listed species. The South

Dakota Natural Heritage Program also documents and monitors over 400 plant and

animal species considered at risk in South Dakota. Ongoing monitoring is achieved

through the cooperation of various agencies and individuals and helps to keep

species from declining to the point where they m ust be liste d. We can further this

goal by monitoring these species as well as limiting or adjusting habitat

mana geme nt efforts to redu ce potential negative impacts.

Certain species may also serve as indicators of the health of an ecosystem, such as

butterflies. Butterflies are part of the prairie ecosystem. If th ese spe cies are in

trouble, other endemic (and harder to track) species may also be in decline.

Tracking these butterflies and ad justing m anage ment to benefit th em should

benefit other prairie endemics, improve the health of the prairie ecosystem, and

help to prevent the listing of these and other species that have declined due to the

poor health of p rairie habitats.

Strategies:

# Initiate surveys during appropriate flight times to monitor presence,

abundance, and locations of at risk butterfly species.

# Protect Refuge sites where the above mentioned species are located.

# Monitor public use of documented sites for adverse impacts and restrict access

if and when necessary to minimize disturbance and habitat degradation.

# Use appropriate management techniques and timing to ensure continued

survival of these species at risk.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 53

R2.3 Rewrite and update the W ildlife Inventory Plan to include methodology for a

variety of surveys, increasing the number and quality of surveys of residential and

migratory wildlife species, within 10 years.

Rationale for Objective: Incredible habitat changes have occurred since 1968 and

1972 when the W ildlife Inventory Plan for Waubay NW R was written and last

amended. The CCP prov ides an opportunity to upd ate the Plan. Better quality

surveys will increase the staff’s knowledge of Refuge use patterns by resident and

migratory species. Past surveys ha ve concen trated on w aterfowl and deer w ith

little effort d evoted to other birds or wildlife besides casual observa tions. Newly

developed refuge management plans and looking at regional plans developed by

The Nature Conservancy, Partners in Flight, Prairie Pothole Joint Venture, and

others, will help to direct which species would best benefit from monitoring.

Continued participation in cooperative surveys helps to contribute to long-term

national databases and a larger scale understanding of wildlife populations. These

surveys can help staff understand the Refuge’s role regionally, and to develop local

goals and objectives. W hite-tailed deer populations a re regulated by the So uth

Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. Cooperation with them is essential for providing

recreation and keeping deer herds in check to reduce depredation complaints and

habitat d estructio n.

Strategies:

# Continue participation in cooperative surveys such as the Christmas Bird

Count.

# Cooperate with SDGFP on deer surveys and population management.

# Review regional and national plans to help determine how to broaden surveys,

for which species.

# Research and determine appropriate survey methodologies for habitats and

species targeted.
54 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Cultural Resources

■ R3 - Cultural Resources Goal: Protect and interpret significant historic and

prehistoric cultural resources associated with Waubay National Wildlife Refuge.

In 1981 a complete survey for cultural resources was conducted on the Refuge (Keller

and Zimmerman 1981) as well as other partial surveys (Zimmerman et al. 1978, Winham

1983, Bradley and Ranney 1985). A total of 27 sites were found: 14 prehistoric and 13

historic. Most of the prehistoric sites consist of mounds or habitation sites from several

major cultural groups, including the Plains Woodland and Plains Village cultures

(Keller and Zimmerman 1981). The historic sites are mostly foundations of destroyed

structures from early homesteads or farms inhabited prior to the establishment of the

Refuge.

Jackson and Toom (1999) believed that Keller and Zimmerman (1981) misinterpreted

the guidelines of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) since they believed

the four major Refuge prehistoric sites were not eligible for nomination to NRHP.

Jackson and Toom pointed out that NRHP eligibility was not limited to just national

significance, but also can be evaluated on the basis of local or state importance

(National Park Service 1998).

Historic sites, mostly old foundations, dating from around 1900, were submitted by the

Service for NRHP eligibility, but were found not to be significant resources. However,

the major prehistoric sites were not submitted to NRHP.

Objectives

R3.1 Within the 15 year life of this plan, locate, map, and determine NRHP eligibility of

all significant historic and prehistoric cultural and archaeological resources on the

Refuge.

Ration ale for O bjective: All sites sh ould be relocate d and re evaluated as to their

current condition and protection needs. Unfortunately, some of the sites have

probably been covered or partially covered by high water levels. Sites that are

under water should be monitored closely for the appearance of artifacts and other

important materials. Jackson and Toom (1999) believe that most of the

archaeological sites should be reevaluated to determine their NRHP eligibility.

Most of the historic sites are likely ineligible. The information revealed from these

sites can help guide current and future management by providing a historical

background of habitats, wildlife, and cultural uses which shaped this land and the

changes that have occurred since then.

Strategies:

# Nominate for listing on the NRHP the four major prehistoric archaeological

sites.

# Reevaluate and record the remaining documented sites to determine official

NRHP status.

# Produce a cultural resource overlay for Geographic Information System (GIS)

database.

# Consult with the Regional Historic Preservation Officer prior to all proposed

actions.

# Monitor sites that are now un der water and exposed sho relines as wate r levels

recede for the appearance of artifacts and other important materials.

# Avoid areas of known cultural sites and potential sensitive areas when practical

and mitigate any adverse effects to sites.

# Utilize standard law enforcement practices and strategies to protect cultural

resources already identified and those that may be discovered where

development of water control structures, wetland restorations, and other

ground breaking activities will occur.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 55

R3.2 Interpret the cultural resources of the Refuge for visitors of all ages and abilities

through at least 3 exhibits within 7 years.

Rationale for Objective: Prehistoric and historic cultural sites can provide a

fascinating wealth of information about the history of this area and the people and

cultures that inhabited it. They help us learn how these cultures related to wildlife

and the environment. Interpreting these sites will allow the public to learn more

about this history and these relationships. This can often be an important step to

understanding and developing solutions to current issues. Partnering with the

Sisseton-Wa hpeton Sioux T ribe will give a vital perspective ofte n missing in

cultural interpretation.

Strategies:

# Upgrade Refuge kiosk exhibit as advised in the 2001 Visitor Services

Requirement report prepared by the regional Education and Visitor Services

group.

# Upgrade Refuge visitor center exhibit as advised in the 2001 Visitor Services

Requirement rep ort.

# Investigate establishment of a cooperative interpretive site with SissetonWahpeton Sioux Tribe.

# Ensure all new visitor materials and facilities reach the broadest audience

possible by follow ing the U niversa l Design concep t.

# Incorporate interpretation of Wetland Management District cultural resources

into the Refuge program, presenting a more comprehensive interpretive

progra m.
56 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Public Use and Education

■ R4 - Wildlife-dependent Recreation Goal: To foster an understanding and

appreciation of the ecology and management of the fau na and flora and of the role

of humans in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains by providing Refuge

visitors of all abilities with compatible wildlife-dependent recreational

experiences.

In 1997, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act was signed into law. In

addition to establishing a mission for the NWRS, it also determined that wildlifedependent recreation, when compatible with a Refuge’s purpose, are legitimate uses

and should be facilitated where appropriate. Priority wildlife-dependent uses include

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education

and interpretation.

Hunting

Three types of deer hunting are allowed on the Refuge: archery, rifle, and blackpowder rifle (or muzzleloaders). Bows and black-powder rifles are considered primitive

weapons. Modern rifles are more effective for controlling herd numbers than either of

the primitive weapons. Currently, no separate archery season occurs on the Refuge.

Anyone with an east river or Statewide tag may archery hunt on the Refuge. In Day

County, and others, there is also an antlerless deer tag offered for archery hunters.

This season runs from late September through mid-January. These tags can also be

used on the Refuge.

For muzzleloader hunters, the Refuge offers two 5-day seasons for any deer before the

regular rifle seasons (Refuge or S tate). The State only offers a late December to

January hunt for antlerless only deer. Since most tags are sold each season, Refuge

hunts appear to be attractive to hunters.

Waterfowl hunting is not allowed on the Refuge for several reasons. Abundant

waterfowl hunting opportunities exist in the six county area around the Refuge,

including 40,000 acres of Waterfowl Production Areas managed by the Service, 46,700

acres of state-managed public hunting areas, and 88,700 acres of public walk-in areas,

for a total of 175,400 acre s. South Dakota Ga me, Fish and Parks realizes the ne ed to

maintain closed areas to allow migrating birds to rest during the hunting season and

currently manages six waterfowl refuges closed to hunting, with Waubay NWR

providing another closed area for waterfowl. The Service has developed retrieval zones

on prime hunting areas along Refuge boundaries to facilitate hunting on neighboring

lands.

Pheasant hunting is also not allowed on the R efuge. W aubay N WR and the immediate

surrounding area is m arginal pheasant habitat. In 2002, less than a dozen pheasants

were found on the Refuge, numbers too low to warrant a hunt. Additionally, as with

waterfowl hunting, 175,400 acres in the six county area are already open to pheasant

hunting.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 57

Objective

R4.1 Regulate hunter numbers to no more than one hunter per 100 acres of upland deer

habitat to provide safe, quality, deer hunting experiences.

Rationale for Objective: Before 1939, white-tailed deer did not occur on the Refuge

(Revised Master Economic Use Plan 1949, Refuge Files). Since then, deer herds

have grown and have taken a toll on Refuge woodlands and surrounding lands,

especially during harsh winters. The objectives for white-tailed deer hunting on the

Refuge are to keep deer herds in check to protect Refuge and surrounding habitat,

and to provide quality recreational opportunities. The Refuge is also used for

protection and feeding by wintering deer herds. These needs must be considered

when developing season lengths as well as any conflicts with other public uses, such

as ice fishing. License numbers are based on past season hunting success, winter

survival, herd size, and the desire to maintain a quality, uncrowded hunting

experience.

Strategies:

# Work with S outh D akota G ame, F ish and P arks to a nnually evaluate perm it

numbers, season lengths, and types.

# Work with South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks to conduct law enforcement

patrols to ensure regulation com pliance a nd to provide a safe experience for all

visitors.

# Maintain designated hunting parking areas.

# Identify areas open to hunting and inform the public about Refuge hunting

regulations and access through signs, news releases, and pamphlets.

# Consider limiting the season length of the archery antlerless deer season,

currently late September to mid-January, in order to make sure wintering deer

herds are not overly disturbed later in the season.

# Investigate feasibility of offering hunts for people with disabilities and youth.

# Continue to promote primitive weapon (archery, black-powder rifle) Refuge

deer hunts.
58 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Fishing

Before 1997, no sustainable fishery existed on Refuge lakes. Shallowness and a

tendency to winterkill prevented any sport fish populations from developing. Since

Spring and Hillebrand Lakes have merged with Waubay Lake, populations of perch,

walleye, northern pike, and others have grown dramatically and inhabit all corners of

this 20,000-acre lake system. Some 2,500 to 3,000 acres of the Waubay Lake system

currently occur within Refuge boundaries.

Fishing is one of the priority public uses as outlined in the Refuge Improvement Act of

1997. However, all uses must be considered compatible with the mission of the System

and the Refuge’s purpose, namely “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds

and wildlife.” The productivity, abundance, and distribution of waterbirds can be

impacted by fishing activities (Bell and Austin 1985, Edwards and Bell 1985, Cooke

1987, Bouffard 1982). Waterfowl tend to be wary of any disturbance, especially that

associated with loud noise and rapid movement (Korschgen and Dahlgren 1992). Cooke

(1987) also found that anglers on shore or in a boat tend to fish the same areas that

birds favor, namely shallow, sheltered bays and creeks. Johnson (1964) also found that

breeding, feeding, or resting waterfowl will be disturbed often by anglers in boats or on

shore. Human disturbances to breeding waterfowl can affect numbers of breeding

pairs, cause increased desertion of nests, reduce hatching success and decrease

duckling survival (Korschgen and Dahlgren 1992, Beard 1953, Barngrover 1974, Jahn

and Hunt 1964, Keith 1961). Migrating birds may also be negatively affected by

increasing energy expenditures and depleting fat reserves and prolonged disturbances

can ultimately affect migration patterns (Evenson 1974, Heitmeyer 1985, Korschgen et

al., 1985). Recreational activities can also have detrimental effects on plants (both on

and offshore) and water quality (Liddle and Scorgie 1980 ).

Shore line fishing offers se veral pr oblem s in additio n to wa terfow l disturbance. There is

only one area accessible to the public for shoreline fishing, the headquarters road.

Large numbers of vehicles would park along this road due to a lack of parking areas. To

build more parking areas would necessitate destroy ing native prairie. Secondly, this

road would be very susceptible to damage from vehicles being parked on the shoulders

during wet conditions. This road is vitally important since it is the only link to the

outside for all the facilities and equipment housed at the headquarters area. Erosion

and ruts are difficult to repair. A third issue is safety. Anglers parking along the

headquarters road would need to make their way across about 30 feet of slippery

boulders to reach the waters edge. Injuries are inevitable. During the winter, these

boulders are usually snow-covered, providing a good ramp down to the ice. Once on the

ice, there is no need to hop from boulder to boulder like there is during the summer.

Fourth, shoreline fishing would conflict with birders who use the headquarters road for

this activity, and because fishing would likely scare the birds away from the area.

Lastly, there are literally hundreds of good fishing lakes in northeastern South Dakota.

Because fishing and other recreational activities can disturb waterfowl, the Service has

determined that boating and spring and summer fishing activities on Waubay NWR

would interfere with breeding and migratory birds and is not compatible with Refuge

purposes.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 59

Objective

R4.2 Provide unique ice fishing opportunities during daylight hours and without the

use of vehicles, including snowmobiles, on Refuge lakes from the end of deer firearm

seasons (early Dece mber) to ice-out.

Rationale for Objective: Wildlife use of the Refuge is more limited in winter

months. Since there are fewer direct impacts with wildlife, especia lly waterfowl,

ice-fishing is deemed compatible with Refuge purposes. Limiting ice fishing to dayuse only and not allowing vehicles (including snowmobiles) on the ice reduces

disturbances to wintering deer. It also provides a unique experience for the user;

one that is not marred by the view of numerous vehicles, permanent ice shacks, or

excessive noise. This helps to preserve the wild and peaceful nature of the Refuge

setting.

The current fishery is opportunistic due to current water conditions, as explained

above. No efforts will be made to sustain this fishery on the Refuge once water

levels begin to decline. Spring and Hillebrand Lake will eventually separate from

Waubay Lake and each other at some time. When this occurs, shallow waters and

winterkill will, again, likely prohibit a viable fishery on the Refuge. The Service

will not take me ans, such as fish stocking and storing water to keep lake levels

high, to maintain the fishery.

Strategies:

# Maintain ban on vehicles, overnight shacks, and night fishing.

# Continue use of “Youth Ice Fishing Day” to teach methods and ethics of ice

fishing to area children.

# Work with South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks to conduct law enforcement

patrols to ensure regulation com pliance a nd to provide a safe experience for all

visitors.

# Identify areas open to fishing and inform the public about Refuge fishing

regulations and access through signs, news releases, and pamphlets.
60 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Environmental Education

Environmental education programs are offered on a case-by-case basis, when

requested and if staff are available. This often limits the number of groups that can be

accomm odated. A new pro gram called “1-2-3 To The Re fuge” wa s develope d in 2001 to

bring all first, second , and third graders in Day County to the Refuge to learn about a

variety of environmental subjects. It is hoped this program will be expanded to include

other co unties in th e District as well.

Objective

R4.3 Improve the environmental education program by doubling the number of

students reached on the Refuge from 300 to 600 in the next 5 years.

Rationale for Objective: Although the Refuge is within 30 miles of six schools, few

educators take advantage of the resources the Refuge has to offer. Oftentimes,

teachers do not feel they have enough information to lead an educational program.

Developing and implementing educational programs that may be used with or

without refuge staff assistance may encourage more teachers to use the Refuge for

science and environm ental based curricula.

Strategies:

# Develop educational packets about Refuge habitats that can be used by

educators during Refuge field trips with minimal staff assistance.

# Conduct one teacher workshop, annually, to prepare them to lead environmental

education programs for their students.

# Seek partners and explore development of an environmental education center

for programs and student research, either on the Refuge or nearby.

# Continue developm ent of “1-2-3 To The R efuge” to include 43 scho ols in the six

county area and reach a wider audience of first, second, and third grade

students.

# Conduct or host as least 10 schools and group tours on the Refuge per year.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 61

Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography, Interpretation, and Community

Involvement

The Refuge has a number of trails, signs, exhibits, and other visitor use facilities. Some

are adequate, but most could use some updating or expanding to improve visitor

experiences and Service messages. Currently, interpretive kiosks with leaflet

dispensers are located at Headquarters and the Observation Tower. Although these

are good locations, visitors must drive 1.5 miles into the Refuge before finding them.

Providing an orientation kiosk near the entrance would greatly improve visitor

orientation to Refuge lands. Interpretive panels for the existing kiosks were developed

in the 1980s or earlier. Many have outdated information and do not reflect current

Service messages o r standa rds. Ofte ntimes, these are the only messages the public

sees, especially during weekends when the office is closed. These panels need to be

update d to bette r educa te the pu blic abou t current issues or proble ms.

Many visitors come to the refuge hoping to get out of their cars and do some exploring.

Two walking trails are available durin g dayligh t hours. O ne is abo ut 1⁄2 mile long an d is

located near the Headquarters building. A portion of this trail is accessible to persons

with disabilities. The other trail travels approximately 1⁄4 mile up a small hill to a view

of Sprin g Lake and native prairie. Both trails inclu de interpretive signs. Po ssible

locations for longer trails include Headquarters Island to the west, West Woods (when

water levels recede), and/or a grassland trail on the east side of the Refuge. The

Headquarters Island also offers the opportunity to develop a short boardwalk and

viewing/photography blind ne ar a wetland w ith won derful w ildlife view ing potential.

Another potential trail site sho uld be considered in the long-term future. Day C ounty

3A is a north-south county road which cut across the western edge of the Refuge.

Currently, this road is completely inundated within Refuge boundaries. When water

levels recede - which may take 10 to 15 years - Refuge staff would consult with Day

County officials to ask them to consider not reconstructing this gravel road, but to use

it as a biking, hiking, or unimproved auto tour route. This would help to retain the

remote and wild nature of the Refuge and could increase tourism by offering unique

opportunities for wildlife observation and wildlife photography.

Half of the Headquarters building is used for office space, the other half for visitor use

and interpretation. Even with movable exhibits, this space begins to feel quite crowded

with 20 to 30 people. This limits the ability to present programs, or host open houses or

meetings where more than 30 people are expected. Staff generally make use of

facilities off-Refuge for events that draw larger crowds, but this is inconvenient when

staff would like to use the Refuge for part of the program or allow visitors to explore

the Refuge after the program. Constructing additional space for public presentations,

meetings, and interpretive programs would give staff more flexibility when developing

or hostin g such events.
62 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Objectives

R4.4 Expand and improve Refuge access, programs, and public use facilities to better

accommodate visitors of all abilities and ages in their use of the Refuge, increasing

potentia l for use b y 5,000 people, within 7 years. 

Rationale for Objective: While a variety of visitor facilities currently exist at the

Refuge, the value and quality of the visitor experience could be improved through

the development of additional facilities planned utilizing universal design principles

which allow access by visitors of all ages and abilities. In addition, many facilities

and sign s need to be updated to presen t a better image of the Service to the public

and enhance their visit to the Refuge.

Strategies:

# Develop a kiosk near the Refuge entrance to provide visitor information and

orientation to Refuge lands.

# Update existing kiosk interpretive panels to reflect current Service messages

and standards as advised in the 2001 Visitor Services Requirement report

prepared by the regional Education and Visitor Services group.

# Develop one or two longer hiking trails with an observation blind to provide

more opportunities to experience R efuge h abitats and wildlife. Mak e part or all

of these trails accessible to people with disabilities.

# Explore development of a low impact trail system (walking, biking, or

unimproved auto tou r route) on Da y County 3A (curren tly inundated) in

conjunction with Day County officials to offer additional wildlife observation

opportunities.

# Construct additional space at headquarters to be used for public presentations,

meetings, and other interpretive programs.

# Ensure all new visitor materials and facilities reach the broadest audience

possible by follow ing the U niversa l Design concep t.

R4.5 Develop 5 public outreach programs to foster public appreciation for the resources

of the Refuge to gain support from individuals and groups that can help the Refuge

achieve its goals.

Rationale for Objective: In order to achieve m any of the R efuge’s goals, commu nity

support and inv olvem ent are needed. Getting local commu nities and people

involved in Refuge goals promotes a sense of ownership, and local communities

often benefit from the increase in tourism . Currently, one or two special events are

offered each year, usually National Wildlife Refuge Week and the Christmas Bird

Count. Presenting additional programs throughout the year will help to bring

visitors to the Refuge and foster a greater appreciation for the resources Refuges

have to offer, especially for public use and education.

Strategies:

# Develop a Refuge Friends Group within 5 years.

# Involve tourist boards and Chambers of Commerce in program development

and promotion.

# Develop and implement at least four special events annually, such as National

Wildlife Refuge Week, National Wildlife Week, Migratory Bird Day, National

Fishing Day, Christmas Bird Count, bird-watching events, etc.

# Inform local wildlife and community groups once a year about the importance

and economic benefits of the Refuge, Refuge activities, management, and

issues.

# Visit with congressional offices annually to keep them up-to-date on Refuge

activities, management, and issues.

# Maintain a Waubay Complex website with current information.

# Host a Refuge Open H ouse every year.

# Write 10 news releases for local and state newspapers annually. Conduct

television and radio spots upon request.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 63

R4.6 Within 5 years, develop and promote an active volunteer program to recruit 20

volunteers contributing 500 hours per year to enhance the Refuge’s ability to meet

goals and objectives.

Rationale for Objective: Many opportunities to promote the Refuge are missed

because of a lack of dollars or staff. An active volunteer program can help recoup

these missed opportunities and turn them into achievements. Developing and

promoting an active vo lunteer progra m wo uld help a ccomplish som e of these goals

without the need to hire additional staff. It would also help build local support for

the Refuge as volunteers share their positive experiences with others in the

comm unity.

Strategies:

# Develop a Refuge Friends group to help organize and recruit volunteers.

# Work with the South Dakota Volunteer Coordinator to develop a volunteer

program to meet Refuge needs.

# Provide room and board for volunteers while they are working on the

Complex.

# Develop two trailer pads for volunteer use.
64 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Waubay Wetland Management District

The Service has varying amounts of influence on lands within the Wetland

Management District. These lands include Waterfowl Production Areas; grassland,

wetlan d, and co nserva tion easemen ts; and pr ivate lands. WP As are owne d in fee-title

and can be directly manipulated to benefit wildlife. The various easement programs

provide protection for their respective habitats but ownership and management

ultimately rests with the landowner. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program was

developed specifically to provide technical assistance and often cash incentives for

landowners eager to improve their own lands. WMD goals seek to address the land as a

whole while working within the constraints of these differing landownership (and

mana geme nt) classe s.

Habitat

■ D1 - H abitat G oal: To preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity of

grasslands, wetlands, and native woodlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of the

Great P lains on the W aubay Wetland Manage ment District.

Grasslands

The Great Plains of North America once covered over a million square miles through

the center of the continent. Tallgrass prairie comprised the eastern third of this vast

ecosystem, covering almost 200 million acres. An extraordinary biodiversity developed

from complex interactions between animals, soils, plants, climate, and fire. The loss of

natural disturbances, fragmentation, and increased invasion of nonnative species has

rendered the tallgrass prairie region one of North America’s most endangered

ecosystems (Noss et al. 1995).

The six counties of northeastern South Dakota encompasses 3.4 million acres, half of

which has been converted to cropland. Of the 1.3 million acres of remaining grasslands,

approximate ly one m illion acres is considered native prairie. This “native” prairie is

defined as grassland that has never been plowed, but all plant communities have been

altered from pristine conditions, to some extent, due to nonnative plant introductions,

livestock grazing impacts, lack of fire, and other factors since European settlement. It

is safe to assume that few, if any, native grasslands retain the species composition,

number of species, or structure of the original grasslands encountered only 150 years

ago. Even so, there are at least 300 species of plants, 113 species of butterflies, 35

species of reptiles and amphibians, 60 species of mammals, and 260 species of birds

known to breed in or use tallgrass prairie in North and South Dakota (USFW S 2000).

The following objectives work together to make an effect on a landscape scale - to stem

the loss of grasslands to reduce fragmentation, protect remaining tallgrass prairie, and

restore some of the lost natural ecosystem processes and biodiversity.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 65

Grassland Preservation Objectives

D1.1 Preserve, on average, 10,000 acres of grasslands annually for the benefit of

waterfowl and othe r grassland-de pende nt wildlife.

Ration ale for O bjective: Today , less than 4 perce nt of the o riginal tallgrass prairie

remains (Steinauer and Collins 1996). As the average prairie size has diminished

from 1,000,000 acres in 1790 to today’s 40 acres, biodiversity has been reduced

(Apfelbaum and Chapman 1996). These smaller, isolated tracts are less complex

and, therefore, less able to renew themselves or respond to changes in the

environment. These grasslands continue to disappear. USDA data compiled by the

USFW S showed that 700,000 acres of native prairie in South Dakota were

converted to crop production from 1985 to 1995 (C. Madsen, pers. comm.). More 

recently, the Farm Services Agency in South Dakota reported that 40,000 acres of

native prairie had been plowed under for crops in 2001. At the same time,

grassland-dependent bird species across the continent have shown the most

consistent and widespread declines of all migratory birds (Knopf 1994). Butterflies

and other invertebrates have also suffered: there are seven butterfly species of

concer n that occur in So uth Da kota (M offat and McP hillips 1993).

This objective seeks to stem the continued losses of grasslands and associated

species by purchasing grassland easements from willing sellers and with minimal

fee title purchases. This objective cannot stop the continued conversion of

grasslands but can protect what is still there. Since less than 3 percent of the land

base in Waubay WMD is devoted to wildlife management, protecting private lands

becomes paramount to restoring the overall health of grasslands and wildlife

populations. Keeping land in grass cover will also help to reduce soil erosion,

improve water quality, and help trap snow and rain, recharging water supplies.

Purchasing easements from willing sellers is the preferred method to protect

against further loss of habitat in the six northeast counties. Ten thousand acres per

year is an achievable goal although this may fall short if conversion rates continue

at present levels. Easements will be selected and evaluated by tract size, percent

native prairie, number of waterfow l pairs it sup ports, an d other factors (Appe ndix

J). Occa sionally it m ay be advanta geous to purch ase a tra ct under fee-title to gain

more control over the management and other rights. Fee-title purchases from

willing sellers will be considered only for larger acreages (160 acres or greater) of

exceptional habitat. Larger blocks of grassland (40 acres or greater) have been

found to attract more nesting waterfowl, with increased nest success (Duebbert et

al. 1981). In addition, the species richness of grassland birds is positively associated

with the size of a g rassland area (Herkert 1994).
66 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Strategies:

# In easem ent procu rement, focus on areas scoring 40 or more pairs/square mile on

the Waterfowl Breeding Pair Distribution (WBPD) (Map 8) for the benefit of

waterfowl and migratory birds.

# Focus on tracts exceeding threshold scores for the grassland easement

evaluation worksheet. Factors evaluated include tract size, percentage of

native prairie, soil capability, etc. (Appendix J).

# Enforce contract terms on all grassland easements through annual monitoring,

and send reminder letters every 3 to 5 years to contract owners.

# Develop a Region-wide computerized mapping system of grassland easements,

with the lead of the Habitat and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET) and

the Realty Division, to greatly reduce staff time and errors on manual mapping

and facilitate information transfer to other agencies and individuals.

# Consider potential or likely ranges where remote populations of the western

prairie fringed orchid might occur.

# Inform easement holders of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program that

provides technical assistance to private landowners on rotational grazing

systems to provide more residual vegetation for waterfowl and other groundnesting birds.

# Preserve unique grassland/wetland complexes by making limited (less than 500

acres annually) fee-title purchases, using Duck Stamp funds.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 67

D1.2 W ork with the Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife M anagem ent Area staff to

protect 100,000 acres of high-quality tallgrass prairie in eastern South Dakota, by 2016,

to ensure the future of this highly endangered ecosystem.

Rationale for Objective: The Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area

seeks to preserve a total of 190,000 acres of native tallgrass prairie in eastern

North and South Dakota to help maintain biodiversity and slow habitat

fragmentation (US FWS 2000). Efforts will be m ade to cluster protected areas into

10,000 to 20,000 acre blocks. Lands will be preserved primarily through perpetual

easements purchased from willing sellers.

 Nearly all of the original tallgrass prairie has been lost to agriculture and other

development (Noss et al. 1995). What remains, tends to be in isolated parcels,

surrounded by agricultural lands. This isolation and sm all patch size exacerbate

edge effects, pesticide and contaminant drift, infiltration of exotic species, and

increases the susceptibility of prairie-dependent species to extirpation or

extinction (Steinauer and Collins 1996, The Nature Conservancy 1998). Some of the

largest remaining tracts of native tallgrass prairie occur on the Coteau (Leoschke

1997). This is largely due to the hilly and rocky nature of the region which lends

itself more to grazing than crop production. This makes this part of northeastern

South Dako ta essential to the preservation of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem. This

objective recog nizes tha t Wau bay W MD can play a large p art in fulfilling the goa ls

of the D akota T allgrass Prairie P roject.

Strategies:

# Assist A berdeen Wetland A cquisition office and Dak ota Tallgrass Prairie

Wildlife Management Area coordinator to locate and contact prospective

easement holders.

# Recruit farm organ izations, USDA, conservation groups, and others to

promote grassland preservation programs.

# Assist with development and use of a Geographic Information System (GIS)

mapping method to aid identification and delineation of native prairie tracts.

# Acquire a 300+ acre high quality (diverse native vegetation composition)

tallgrass prairie tract, fee-title, for the perpetuation of prairie species and

grassland-dependent birds. This tract could also serve as a seed source for

future restorations and as a demonstration site for private, State and Federal

agencies to promote current management program s and techniques.

# Cluster protected areas into 10,000 to 20,000 acre blocks.

# Develop funding sources and programs outside the Small Wetlands Acquisition

Program for tallgrass prairie that often is not associated with adjacent

wetlands in the Minnesota-Red River Lowlands, Lake Dakota Plain, and the

James River Lowland.
68 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

D1.3 W ork with partners to de velop a 20,000 + acre Prairie C oteau N atural A rea in

southwestern Roberts County or southeastern Marshall County to protect northern

tallgrass prairie habitat and to educate the public about this dynamic and rich

ecosystem.

Rationale for Objective: Few people have seen an intact piece of prairie ecosystem

or are aware of the complexities and interactions that make up a healthy system.

The development of a large tract of prairie could be enhanced and used as a

showcase for tourism, for educating landowners and school children, and as a

center for research. Benefits to the landscape would include increased air and

water quality, greater biodiversity, reduced soil erosion and fragmentation of

habitat.

Strategies:

# Assist The Nature C onservancy (TNC) or other partners to fulfill their plan to

acquire this habitat with a combination of private, State, or Federal funding.

# Assist partners with developing a land management system using grazing

impacts and fire as a dem onstration area for land man agers o n the Prairie

Coteau.

# Assist partners in developing a showcase for natural prairie system to be used

by the area’s educators.

# Stress natural disturbance regimes, research, and environmental education

programs in management of the Natural Area to benefit all preservation,

restoration, and enhancement efforts for prairie on the Prairie Coteau.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 69

Grassland Restoration and Enhancement Objectives

D1.4 Convert cropland and poor quality tame grass to diverse grasslands, emphasizing

native plants, on 295,500 acres of private land and 4,500 acres of Waterfowl Production

Areas, for a total of 300,000 acres, within 15 years.

Rationale for Objective: Changes made to private lands have a greater impact

overall on the landscape than the smaller number of acres in public ownership (less

than 3 percent of lands in the WMD are state or federally protected). Bird use and

productivity are negatively influenced by cultivated lands. Despite its high

availability in some areas, cropland is the least preferred nesting habitat for ducks

except northern pintails (Naugle et al. 2000). Nongame bird species may also be

negatively impacted by the presence of tame grasses (Wilson and Belcher 1989).

Through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife and USDA programs, thousands of

acres of lands could be converted to native grasses, thus stemming the continued

losses of grasslands and restoring poor quality tam e grassland s and croplands to

higher quality native seedings. This may also ultimately help reduce global

warming effects as prairie grasslands are superior carbon sinks (Seastedt and Knapp

1993).

Legum es currently used, usually alfalfa, mature about June 1; pushing this date

back to August 1 would save many nesting birds. Current haying practices on

private haylands involve two or three cuttings, the first usually occurring in June

during the height of the nesting season. This can cause much damage to nests and

is oftentimes fatal to incubating females. Native vetches can be used as an

alternative to alfa lfa. Canada m ilkvetch m atures later so th ere is no loss of protein

if cutting is delayed until after the nesting season. The addition of native forbs,

such as Canada milkvetch, may assist butterfly populations by providing a nectar

source during flight periods.

Strategies:

# Inventory and map existing croplands and tame g rasses on the W MD within

one year.

# Research appropriate native seed mixes and their availability, within one year.

# Provide technical and personnel assistance to USDA and other agencies

implementing private land wildlife habitat programs such as Conservation

Reserve Program (CRP), Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), Waterbank, and

other set-aside programs.

# Provide financial incentives and technical assistance for landowners to reseed

their croplands and low quality grasslands to native prairie communities.

# Convert croplands on acquired grassland easement properties and W PAs to

native prairie communities.

# Convert 300 acres of WPA tame grasslands to native plant communities,

annually.

# Manage restored native plantings on WPAs for maximum height and density,

based on grass species involved and site conditions.

# Develop management plans on WPAs to monitor restored native grasslands for

weeds, grassland condition, and wildlife response.

# Restore all WPA food plots to grasslands within 2 years.

# Manage tame grasslands on WPAs not scheduled for conversion to natives for

maximum height and density, based on grass species involved and site

conditions. Ideally, residual cover in mid-April would measure at least 20 cm (8

inches) total visual obstruction (as measured by a Robel pole) for waterfowl

nesting (Duebbert et al. 1981).

# Work with partners to develop three sites demonstrating late-maturing

legumes as a hay crop.
70 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

D1.5 A ssist Partners for Fish and Wildlife to enhance grasslands on approximate ly

5,000 acres of private lands, annually, for a total of 75,000 acres.

Rationale for Objective: In northeastern South Dakota, most landowners practice

season long grazing, often using the same pastu re year-after-year, w ith no rest.

Native vegetation is altered, resulting in plant species better adapted to repeated

clipping or those of low stature. Certain plant species increase under these

conditions while others decrease or disappear altogether. In addition, pastures

grazed season long often exhibit less residual cover and higher rates of erosion

than idled pastures or those under rotational systems. This type of grazing tends to

have negative effects on the production of mo st upland nesting b irds (Kirsch et al.

1978) as well as limiting maximum livestock production. The weight of beef

produced per unit area can increase by 15 to 44 percent by changing to a short

duration or twice-over rotation system (Hertel 1987). Monitoring of these systems

can help m ake sure o bjectives for both wildlife and beef production are be ing met.

An evaluation of grazing systems by Barker et al. 1990 in North Dakota found that

systems designed to leave more residual vegetation were more attractive and

productive for nesting d ucks tha n traditional season-long grazing system s. Their

study found ducks used well managed pastures at 70 percent of the rate of idled

grasslands (no grazing). Since nearly 1,000,00 0 acres of native tallgrass prairie

remains in eastern South Dakota, m ostly in Waubay W MD (Higgins et al. 2001),

compared to the 40,000 acres in Service ownership, the potential impact realized by

improving pastured grasslands for waterfowl and other grassland birds is clear.

Strategies:

# Provide financial and technical assistance to landowners to improve wildlife

habitat on existing livestock pastures.

# Provide landowners information about the use of fire to improve w ildlife

habitat on livestock pastures.

# Preserve and enhance grasslands by creating small wetlands (embankment

ponds) that allow farme rs and ranchers to ma intain their curren t land base in

its grassland status.

# Design grazing systems that leave at least 15 cm (6 inches) of vegetative cover

(visual obstruction reading) on or about June 1, during the prime nesting

season.

# Monitor a subset of 10 grazing systems to determine height/density of

grasslands and evaluate effectiveness of the program.

# Develop new and current partnerships (conservation districts, grazing

associations, agricultural groups, etc.) to promote and monitor improved

grazing practices on private land.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 71

D1.6 Eliminate 90 percent of Russian olive and juniper stands and 45 percent of other

nonnative plants, such as leafy spurge and Canada thistle, on WPAs over the next 15

years.

Rationale for Objective: In the absence of regular fire, brushy and woody species

can encroach on grasslands, reducing habitat for species that depend on areas free

of this type of veg etation. F or grassland-obligate sp ecies, w oody vegetation shou ld

cover less than 5 percent of available habitat (Sample and Mossm an 1997).

Junipers, Russian olives, and other woody vegetation (especially that over 1m, or

39 inches, in height) in grasslands can provide habitat for nest parasites, predators,

and corridors for predator movement (Berkey et al. 1993). Removing woody

vegetation can improve nesting habitat and success for waterfowl and other

grassland species.

Noxious weeds, particularly Canada thistle and leafy spurge, have no natural

controls and can aggressively invade grasslands. This can reduce the overall

biodiversity, structure, and productivity necessary for healthy grasslands and

wildlife species. Integrated Pest Management (IPM ) is a multi-faceted approach to

nonnative plant control that uses a practical, economical, and scientifically based

combination of biologica l, mecha nical, and chemical control meth ods. Oftentime s, a

combination of methods is used for the most effective treatment. Promising results

have been seen in the reduction of leafy spurge using biological controls,

particularly Apthona spp. (flea beetles). USFWS will continue to urge the use of

bio-controls to reduce the use of potentially harmfu l chemicals in the environm ent.

Bio-control methods can also reduce landowner costs and time spent spraying

chemicals.

Strategies:

# Inventory and map existing d istribution of nonn ative plants on W PAs w ithin

10 yea rs.

# Utilize a combination of biological, chemical and mechanical means, with an

emphasis on biological control (especially in native grasslands) to reduce

noxious weed infestations and protect biodive rsity.

# Conduct annual flea beetle collections and distribute to infe cted are as on pu blic

and private lands to con trol leafy spurge .

# Promote biological noxious weed (Canada thistle, absinthe wormwood) control

methods on private lands by providing insectories on Federal lands, education,

and assistance to state biological control groups a nd landowne rs.
72 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

D1.7 Over the next 10 years, develop a Habitat Managem ent Plan for the 61 Category

“A” W PAs to m aintain maximum vegetative cover during Spring of each year to

provide waterfowl nesting cover for blue-winged teals, mallards, and gadwalls.

Ration ale for O bjective: Some WPA s are sm all and re latively unman ageab le (i.e.,

are all water or inaccessible). Other sites have recently become unmanageable due

to high water levels. In an average year and with current dollars and staff, 10 to 15

percent of uplands are managed in some form. An Integrated Habitat Management

Plan will prioritize WPAs, allowing managers to better direct their time and

energies to the best tracts (or those most needing management), thereby

improving or maintaining what will generally be larger tracts capable of sustaining

greater diversity and wildlife populations. As each WPA varies in habitat, size,

landscape location, developments, or management tools that can be used,

developing individual site plans will help current and future managers know what

the site has for resources, problems, cooperators, past management, which

management tools worked, and which did not work.

Strategies:

# Determine the level of management intensity on each WPA using the WPA

Priority Management list (Appendix H ).

# Develop individual W PA unit plans, based on the Priority M anagem ent List,

with objectives and strategies for management, biological inventories, and

monitoring activities carried out on each site. Site plans would determine

current grassland condition and strive to ward optimum pote ntial cond ition.

# Establish monitoring criteria to evaluate grassland management techniques on

WPA s, within 5 years. 

# Deve lop pres cribed burn plan s for all W PAs w hich would benefit from periodic

burning.

# Develop site plans for all existing water control structures on WPAs.

# Develop plans to incorporate mechanical (haying, mowing, cropping, cutting),

chemical, biological, and grazing weed control techniques into WPA

management.

# Decrease the number of Category “C” WPAs (see Appendix H) by creating

five larger blocks of contiguo us lands using land exchanges with South Dakota

Game, Fish and Parks, private landowners, and others.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 73

Wetlands

Wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining

the natu re of soil develop ment a nd the types of plant and animal comm unities living in

the soil and on its surface (Cowardin et al. 1979). It is estimated that the contiguous

United States once contained 221 million acres of wetlands, just 200 years ago (Dahl

1990). By the mid-1970s, only 46 percent of the original acreage remained (Tiner 1984).

Wetlands now cover about 5 percent of the landscape of the lower 48 states. One of the

most productive wetland regions in the world is the Prairie Pothole Region. Containing

only 10 percent of the breeding habitat in North America, this region produces up to 50

percent of the continent’s waterfowl (Batt et al. 1989). It is estimated that over 19

million acres of potholes (wetlands) were once present in the Prairie Pothole Region,

sometimes covering as much as 40 to 60 percent of the landscape (Frayer et al. 1983 ).

Currently, only about 35 percent of the original prairie potholes rem ain (USDO I 1988).

Objectives

D1.8 Preserve, on average, 2,000 acres of wetlands annually for the benefit of

waterfowl and other migratory birds.

Ration ale for O bjective: The average size of w etlands in eastern South Dak ota is

only .4 acre; 72.9 percent of wetlands are 1 acre and 92.1 percent are 5 (Johnson

and Higgins 1997). The small size an d temporary nature of many wetlands in South

Dakota makes them prim e targets for drainage. A pproximately 35 percent of South

Dakota’s wetlands have been destroyed since settlement, most in the last 60 years

(Johnson and Higgins 1997). In 1981, Weller believed that all privately owned

prairie wetlands in the United States would be drained by 2050. Hundreds of

species of fish, wildlife, and p lants inha bit or use wetlan ds during some part of their

life cycle. More than 50 percent of the Nation’s migratory bird species use wetlands

for nesting, migration, and wintering (U SFW S 1990). Abo ut one-third of federally

threate ned or endangered species require wetlan d habitats for their surviva l.

These relatively rare and critical ecosystems help protect the quality of our waters

by reducing sediments and erosion, and storing nutrients (Kusler and Brooks 1987,

Mitsch and Gosselink 1986). Wetlands also provide flood control and recharge

groundwater supplies. Wetlands would be protected primarily through purchase of

easements from willing sellers, with only rare fee title purchases made for

exceptional wetlands or wetland complexes in imminent threat of drainage.

Strategies:

# For wetland easements purchased with Duck Stamp funds, focus on areas

ranking 40 pairs/square mile or better on the Wate rfowl B reeding Pair

Distribution (WBPD) map and on tracts meeting criteria established for the

Small Wetlands Acquisition Program, including wetland complex size, presence

of brood water, and other factors important for breeding waterfowl and

migratory birds.

# Assist Aberdeen Wetlands Acquisition office to locate and contact prospective

wetland easement sellers.

# Work with farm organizations, USDA, conservation groups, and others to

promote wetland preservation programs.

# Assist USDA with their farm program wetland protection provisions and

wetland easement programs.

# Develop a computerized mapping system of protected wetlands, with the lead

of Habitat and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET) and the Realty Division.

# Map all wetlands on pre-1976 wetland easement contracts.

# Enforce contract terms on all wetland easements through annual inspections,

and send reminder letters every 3 to 5 years to contract owners of wetland

easem ents.
74 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

D1.9 Work with Partners for Fish and Wildlife to restore a minimum of 1,000 wetland

acres annually on private lands, for a total of 15,000 acres over 15 years.

Rationale for Objective: Since settlement, 35 percent of South Dakota’s wetlands

have been destroyed, most in the last 60 years (Johnson and Higgins 1997). Since

small wetlands are easier to drain than larger ones, the biggest impacts of drainage

affect the temporary and seasonal wetlands most important for breeding and

feeding waterfowl (Baldassarre and Bolen 1994). To reduce the effects of continued

wetland drainage and restore previously drained wetlands, this plan would work

with private landown ers, federal, state and local go vernme nts, and private

organizations to promote and provide assistance for wetland restoration. Restored

wetlands may or m ay not be protected by a Service w etland ease ment.

Strategies:

# Partner with private organizations, landowners, watershed groups, State and

other Federal agencies, Conservation Districts, and other partners to restore

wetlands.

# Provide technical and personnel assistance to USDA and other agencies

implementing private land wildlife habitat programs such as CRP, WRP,

Waterbank, and other set-aside programs.

# Restore 100 percent of wetlands on WPAs and newly acquired easement lands,

within 2 years of acquisition.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 75

Watersheds

A watershed is the area of land that catches rain or snow and drains or seeps into a

marsh, stream, river, lake, or groundwater. What happens on the land in a watershed

will ultima tely affect the water. A lake that is surrou nded by cropla nd or feedlots w ill

suffer from increased sediment and phosphorous loads, reducing water clarity and

increasing algal blooms and eutrophication (SD State Lakes Preservation Committee

1977). La ke cabins and associate d sewage treatm ent needs can also have drastic effects

on water quality.

Objective

D1.10 Participate in watershed protection projects throughout the WMD to implement

conservation practices to enhance wildlife habitat and water quality over the next 15

years.

Rationale for Objective: The State of South Dakota has an active program for

watershed improvement in which conservation practices are applied to individual

watersheds over a set period of time, usually 5 years. Funding and personnel are

concentrated on an individual watershed, then the process is repeated in another

watershed. Watershed conservation practices, such as improved grazing systems,

conversion of cropland to grassland, wetland restoration, and wetland creation,

often compliment Partners for Fish and Wildlife habitat improvement program s.

Watershed protection projects concentrate on conservation practices that improve

water quality, which often produces a side benefit of improving habitat conditions

for wildlife and fish. Funding packages often can be developed to partner local

funds with matching federal dollars to maximize the acres impacted by w ildlife

habitat improvement projects. Watershed protection groups currently active in the

WMD and working with the Service Partners for Fish and Wildlife program

include Big Stone Lake, Pickerel Lake, Blue Dog Lake, Upper Waubay Lake,

Upper Big Sioux River, Little Minnesota River, North Fork Whetstone River,

Pelican Lake, Lake Byron, Crow Creek, Wild Rice River, White Lake, and Clear

Lake Watershed Protection Projects.

Strategies:

■ Research current water quality in Bitter and Waubay Lakes to establish a

baseline for future comparisons.

■ Develop partnerships with The Nature Conservancy, South Dakota Game,

Fish and Parks, local governments, private landowners, and others.

■ Continue implementing Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) best

management practices on Service lands.

■ Cooperate with Waubay Watershed Protection Project (WWPP) to take water

quality samples and monitor annually.

■ Assist watershed protection projects through Partners for Fish and W ildlife

efforts to implement conservation practices on private lands (e.g. buffer/filter

strips, fencing cattle off riparian areas, wetland restoration, rotational grazing

systems, restoring grasslands).

■ Assist Partners for Fish and Wildlife program and other watershed partners

with monitoring compliance of conservation practices.

■ Purchase grassland and wetland easements to reduce sedimentation and

nutrient loading.
76 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Native Woodlands

Native woodlands are a natural part of the landscape, occurring in the draws on the

east slopes of the Coteau des Prairie and also at the edges of larger lakes and lake

systems. Most, if not all, of the Prairie Coteau woodlands (including the Sica Hollow

area), were cut for lumber, fenceposts, and firewood by the early part of the 20th

century for use by Fort Sisseton and the influx of settlers in 1892 (L eoschke 1997).

Present day woodlands have regrown from that era.

No long-term studies of avian communities have been conducted in wooded draws.

Casual observations have found five species of warblers during spring migration as

well as reports of turkey vulture s and pile ated w oodpe ckers in wood ed coulees in

Roberts County. One study of woodland types in the Little Missouri National

Grasslands found tha t certain neotropical migrants (red-eye d vireo, black-a nd-white

warbler, yellow-breasted chat, American redstart, lazuli bunting, rufous-sided towhee,

lark sparrow, and American goldfinch) were significantly more abundant in ash

woodlands than in juniper, pine or even cottonwood habitats (Hopkins et al. 1986).

Objective

D1.11 Preserve 1,000 acres of critical blocks of native woodlands on the Wetland

Management District, by year 2017.

Rationale for Objective: Although these habitats cover less than 1 percent of the

northern Great Plains, wooded draws can attract a disproportionately rich number

of bird species compared to other plains habitats (Dobkin 1992). These woodlands

are often subjected to heavy grazing (Faanes 1987) and/or used for lumber and

firewood. Cattle grazing of wooded draws can create open canopy stands that

consist of a low shrub layer, a sparse overstory of decadent trees, an herbaceous

layer of invasive, mostly alien species, and the complete absence of intermediate

layers (Hodorff et al. 1988). Grazing will often preclude any woody plant

recruitment by trees and tall shrubs, leading to the eventual conversion of these

woodlands to grass-forb communities. Preserving and understanding these

wood land habitats may be vital to certa in migra tory and breeding birds.

Strategies:

# Inventory and map native woodland habitat base.

# Establish baseline bird inventory of woodland habitats.

# Document use of and threats to native woodlands for breeding and migratory

birds and other wildlife. 

# Develop a task force with South Dakota Gam e, Fish and Parks; The Nature

Conservancy; Audubon Society; Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe; Coteau

Watch; and others to identify priority woodlands for preservation.

# Protect native woodlands through easements or fee-title purchases from

willing sellers.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 77

Wildlife

# D2 - Wildlife Go al: To promote a natural diversity and abundance of native flora

and fauna of the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains on Waubay Wetland

Managem ent District.

Since wildlife populations are dynamic and can be affected by factors such as weather,

disease, pollution or other factors outside of human control, specific wildlife objectives

have not been developed. It is especially impossible to develop specific wildlife

objectives for a wetland management district with hundreds of disjunct pieces of land

spread throughout a wide range of habitats, land use, and even physiographic regions.

Therefore, the following objectives focus on increasing our knowledge of wildlife needs

and monitoring wildlife populations and land use patterns in order to better direct

habitat management.

Objectives

D2.1 Develop a Monitoring Plan, within 3 years, to locate and track specific locations

used by the following endangered or threatened species: bald eagle, piping plover,

whooping crane, Eskimo curlew, interior least tern, American burying beetle, Topeka

shiner, and western prairie fringed orchid.

Rationale for Objective: The species listed above may potentially be found on or use

WPA s for som e part of their life-cycle. Co nfirming their presence and loca tion will

help Refuge managers prevent potential adverse effects from some management

actions, such as prescribe d burnin g and pesticide a pplication .

Strategies:

# Investigate and document sightings and reports of bald eagle nests.

# Promote protection and perpetuation of native fisheries, including Topeka

shiner, by working with partners to protect streams, lakes, and watersheds.

# Protect sites on the WMD used by endangered and threatened species.

# Use appropriate management techniques and timing to help ensure continued

survival of these species.
78 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

D2.2 Develop a Monitoring Plan, within 3 years, to locate and track specific locations

used by the following State species at risk: regal fritillary, Dakota skipper, and

powesheik skipper butterflies; ospre y; banded killifish; central mudminnow ; troutperch; northern redbelly dace; northern redbelly snake.

Rationale for Objective: South Dakota’s endangered species law was passed in 1977

to ensure the protection of threatened and endangered species within the State. The

Game , Fish, and Parks Com mission reviews the list of species every 2 years w ith

species added or deleted depending on their vulnerability, with the Game, Fish and

Parks D epartment in charge of the protection of listed species. The South Dakota

Natural Heritage Program also documents and monitors over 400 plant and animal

species considered at risk in South Dakota. Ongoing monitoring is achieved through

the cooperation of various agencies and individuals and helps to keep species from

declining to the point where they must be listed. We can further this goal by

monitoring these species as well as limiting or adjusting habitat managem ent efforts

to reduce potential negative impacts.

Certain species may also serve as indicators of the health of an ecosystem, such as

butterflies. Butterflies are part of the prairie ecosystem. If th ese spe cies are in

trouble, other endemic (and harder to track) species may also be in decline.

Tracking these butterflies and ad justing m anage ment to benefit th em should benefit

other prairie endemics, improve the health of the prairie ecosystem, and help to

prevent the listing of these and other species that have declined due to the poor

health of prairie habitats.

Strategies:

# Initiate su rveys d uring ap propria te flight tim es on W PAs w ith native prairie

habitat to monito r presence, abu ndance, and locations o f these at risk species.

# Protect WPA sites where the above mentioned species are located.

# Use appropriate management techniques and timing to ensure continued

surviva l of these butterflies.

D2.3 Rewrite and update the W ildlife Inventory Plan to include methodology for a

variety of surveys, increasing the number and quality of surveys or residential and

migratory wildlife species, within 10 years.

Ration ale for O bjective: This objective w ould see k to incre ase the overall

knowledge of wildlife species present so that informed decisions can be made

regarding habitat needs and the development of models or the use of indicator

species as a method of measuring the success of management goals and practices.

Strategies:

# Conduct an additional Breeding Bird Survey route (one is currently done).

# Conduct passerine surveys on selected intensively managed WPAs to monitor

for management impacts to grassland species.

# Locate sharp-tailed grouse and prairie chicken dancing and booming grounds.

# Continue 4-square mile waterfowl pair surveys at current levels (22 plots).

# Continue participation in coope rative su rveys such as m ourning dove, sa ndhill

crane, Christmas Bird Count, etc.

# Cooperate with South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks on deer surveys and

population m anagem ent.

# Review regional and national plans to help determine how to broaden surveys,

for which species.

# Research and determine appropriate survey methodologies for habitats and

species targeted.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 79

Cultural Resources

# D3 - Cultural Resources Goal: Protect and interpret significant historic and

prehistoric cultural resources associated with Waubay Wetland Management

District.

Long before Europeans arrived, various cultures and native peoples occupied the

Northern Great Plains, some documented as early as 12,000 years ago (Jackson and

Toom 1999). Reminders of these cultures can be found throughout the WMD in burial

mounds, cultural material scatter sites (containing artifacts such as ceramics, tools, or

animal bones among other things), or trails. It is important to remind ourselves of these

peoples and how they lived on the land, making use of its rich resources, without

causing the vast changes that E uropeans have wrought o n the landscape .

Objectives

D3.1 Within the 15 year life of this plan, locate, identify, map, and determine NRHP

eligibility of all significant historic and prehistoric cultural and archaeological resources

on 30 Category “A” WPAs.

Rationale for Objective: Although a recent study has been compiled for

archaeological resources found in and around the Refuge, a similar study has not

been done for the WMD. Cultura l resource sites known in the W MD have usually

been discovered w hen water development or other ground breaking projects

required a survey to comply with the National Historic Preservation A ct (NHPA ).

This is probably the best way to find and survey these culturally important sites

considering the extent of the WMD and the impossibility of doing a wide-ranging

study.

Strategies:

# Utilize standard law enforcement practices and strategies to protect cultural

resources already identified and those that may be discovered where

development of water control structures, wetland restorations, and other ground

breaking activities will occur.

# Produce a cultural resource overlay for Geographic Information System (GIS)

database.

# Consult with the Regional Historic Preservation Officer prior to all proposed

actions.

# Avoid areas o f know n cultura l sites and potentia l sensitive areas w hen practical,

and m itigate any adverse effects to sites.

# Investigate and inventory two known archaeological resources and other

possible sites, as found, for presence of cultural resources.
80 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

D3.2 Interpret the cultural resources of the WMD for visitors of all ages and abilities

through a combination of 3 programs, within 7 years.

Rationale for Objective: Interpreting these sites can help to establish a link

between past and present generations. Learning how other cultures lived and used

natural resources can help current and future inhabitants understand their ro le in

the environment. This insight may help to solve current issues by providing a larger

backdrop and history often forgotten.

Strategies:

# Upgrade Refuge kiosk exhibit as advised in the 2001 Visitor Services

Requirement report prepared by the regional Education and Visitor Services

group.

# Upgrade Refuge visitor center exhibit as advised in the 2001 Visitor Services

Requirement rep ort.

# Investigate establishment of a cooperative interpretive site with SissetonWahpeton Sioux Tribe.

# Ensure all new visitor materials and facilities reach the broadest audience

possible by follow ing the U niversa l Design concep t.

# Incorporate interpretation of Wetland Management District cultural resources

into the Refuge program, presenting a more comprehensive interpretive

progra m.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 81

Public Use and Education

# D4 - Wildlife-dependent Recreation Goal: To foster an understanding and

appreciation of the ecology and management of the fau na and flora and of the role

of humans in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains by providing Wetland

Management District visitors of all abilities with compatible wildlife-dependent

recreational ex periences.

The Refuge Improvement Act recognized the importance of developing an

understanding and apprecia tion of ou r fish and wildlife re source s and m andate d six

priority public uses on Refuge lands. They include hunting, fishing, wildlife

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation.

Objectives

D4.1 C ontinue to provide hunting, fishing , and trapping opportunities on W PAs in

accord ance w ith State regulations, seasons, an d population cha nges.

Rationale for Objective: When Waterfowl Production Areas are purchased, they are

open to public hunting, fishing, and trapping by statute. W PAs m ay be ope ned to

other recreational activities only if they do not materially interfere with or detract

from the purposes for which they were established, namely to provide breeding and

nesting habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds. Travel is restricted on

most W PAs to foot trav el only. This helps to protect habitat and retain the wild

nature of these tracts. Most of these activities also occur during fall or winter when

breeding and nesting activities are done. Few improvements ha ve been m ade to

WPAs besides grassed parking lots and fencing to facilitate grazing management

and reduce tre spass problem s.

Strategies:

# Provide law enforcement assistance to ensure compliance with State and

Federal regulations on WPAs and for hunting seasons on migratory game birds.

# Work with S outh D akota G ame, F ish and P arks to a nnually evaluate perm it

numbers, season lengths, and types.

# Investigate feasibility of offering youth deer hunts or hunts for people with

disabilities.
82 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

D4.2 Develop 5 educational opportunities which highlight the Wetland Management

District and its role in wildlife conservation in the Prairie Pothole Region, over the

next 15 years.

Rationale for Objective: Few people know about Wetland Management Districts or

why they exist. Even fewer students or teachers take advantage of Waterfowl

Production Areas tha t may b e located near rural sch ools. This objective would

actively promote environmental education opportunities and develop new programs

for use either in area schools or on WPAs near schools. This would provide new

opportunities for many rural schools and increase exposure of students to the

environmental challenges faced today and the benefits of protecting our natural

resources. Interpretive signs and a birding trail will also help reach a wider

audience and increase tourism dollars and appreciation of Service programs.

Strategies:

# Conduct a minimum of one educational program at 15 schools in the WM D each

year so that one-third would be served each year (there are 43 schools in the

WM D).

# Develop and implement educational programs for educators to use on a WPA to

explain functions of various habitats in the WMD (i.e. wetlands, prairies, and

woodlands), and their importance to wildlife.

# Conduct one teacher workshop, annually, to prepare them to lead environmental

education programs for their students.

# Develop at least two interpretive kiosks on WPAs located on well traveled

roadways to promote and interpret the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program

(possible sites: Berwald, Jensen, Grass Lake, or Lardy WPAs).

# Work with partners to develop the Coteau Birding Trail to find, map, and

interpret birding hot spots to increase tourism and an appreciation of local

natural resources.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 83

Summary Comparison of Management Alternatives

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan -Alternatives

Alternative A

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Tallgras s Prairie

Alternative C

Enhanced Management

(Proposed Action)

HABITAT: Grasslands

Protection

Restoration

Enhancement

N/A

130 acres

2,742 acres burned or

grazed

N/A

0

2,742 acres burned or

grazed

N/A

262 acres

5,484 acres burned or

grazed

HABITAT: Wetlands

Protection

Restoration

Enhancement

N/A

N/A

175 acres burned or

grazed

N/A

N/A

175 acres burned or

grazed

N/A

N/A

350 acres burned or

grazed

HABITAT: Native Woodlands 0 0 988 acres managed

WILDLIFE

T&E Species

Other Wildlife

1 survey

0

0

0

2 surveys

4 surveys

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Protection

Interpretation

27 sites

0

27 sites

0

27 sites

2 signs/exhibits

WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT

RECREATION

Hunting

Fishing

Other Uses*

Volunteers

500 hunters

1,500 anglers

8,500 visitors

5 volunteers

500 hunters

1,500 anglers

5,000 visitors

10 volunteers

600 hunters

2,000 anglers

12,000 visitors

20 volunteers

* wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation
84 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Waubay Wetland Management District

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - Alternatives

Alternative A

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Tallgras s Prairie

Alternative C

Enhanced Management

(Proposed Action)

HABITAT: Grasslands

Protection

Restoration

Enhancement

100,000 acres

300 acres

50,000 acres rotational

grazing

185,000 acres

1,000 acres

10,000 acres rotational

grazing

250,000 acres

4,500 acres

75,000 acres rotational

grazing

HABITAT: Wetlands

Protection

Restoration

Enhancement

20,000 acres

7,500 acres

0

10,000 acres

0

0

30,000 acres

15,000 acres

0

HABITAT: Native Woodlands 0 inventories

0 protected

0 inventories

0 protected

1 inventory

1,000 acres protected

WILDLIFE

T&E Species

Other Wildlife

2 surveys

4 surveys

0

0

3 surveys

7 surveys

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Protection

Interpretation

0 inventories

0 programs

0 inventories

0 programs

2 inventories

1 program

WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT

RECREATION

Hunting

Fishing

Other Uses*

Volunteers

38,750 hunters

1,000 anglers

5,280 users

0 volunteers

40,000 hunters

1,000 anglers

6,000 users

10 volunteers

45,000 hunters

1,500 anglers

7,500 users

20 volunteers

* wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 85

V. Implementation and Monitoring

Funding and Personnel

The follow ing staff chart shows current staff and proposed additional staffing needed to

fully implement the CCP. Proposed staff increases reflect the minimum staffing plan

establish ed for the Com plex. If all positions w ere filled, th e Com plex cou ld carry out all

aspects of the CCP. If some positions are not filled, all aspects of the Plan cannot be

completed or those completed may be done over a longer period of time. Staffing and

funding are expected to be accomplished over the 15-year life of this Plan.

Complex staff currently totals 11 positions (10.5 FTEs), plus two Private Lands biological

technicians. Minimum staffing requirements would increase staffing levels to 21

positions (19 FTEs).

In fiscal year 2000, Waubay Complex had a baseline budget of $439,000 to fund annual

operating expenses, including staff salaries. Station backlogs identified in fiscal year

2000 Maintenance Management System (MMS) and Refuge Operations Needs System

(RON S) totaled $1,236,000 and $2,679,000, respectively. The CCP prop oses to

accomplish more resource protection and habitat management, which only can be

realized by fully funding the MMS and RONS projects.

Current/Proposed Staffing Plan - Waubay Complex

Position NWRCurrent

NWRProposed

WMDCurrent

WMDProposed

Com plex - Fully

Staffed (Totals)

Project Leader GS-13 1.0 1.0

Deputy Project Leader GS-12 1.0 1.0

Wetlands Manager GS-11 0.5 0.5

Wetlands Manager GS-11 0.5 0.5

Ref. Operations Spec. GS-9 1.0 1.0

Complex Biologist GS-11 1.0 1.0

Wildlife Biologist GS-9 1.0 1.0

Resource Specialist GS-11 1.0 1.0

Private Lands Bio. GS-7/11 1.0 1.0

Private Lands Tech. GS-3/7 1.0 1.0

Law Enforcement GS-11 1.0 1.0

Administration GS-9 1.0 1.0

Administration GS-7 1.0 1.0

Outdoor Rec. Planner 1.0 1.0

Maintenance WG-8 1.0 1.0 2.0

Maintenance WG-6 0.5 0.5

Tractor Operator WG-6 1.5 2.0 3.5

Totals 5.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 19.0
86 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Step-down Management Plans

The CCP is intended as a broad umbrella Plan that provides general concepts;

wildlife and habitat objectives; an d endangered specie s, public use, and partnership

objectives. Depending on Refuge needs, these may be very detailed or quite broad.

The purpose of step-down managem ent plans is to provide greater detail to managers

to implement specific actions authorized by the CCP. The following table outlines the

current and potential step-down management plans that apply to the Complex.

Step-Down

 Management Plan

Status of 

Station Plan

Proposed

Revision Date

Safety Program /

Operations

1998 Safety Plan No revision necessary

Hazardous Material Oper. 1988 Hazardous Material

Oper.

2005

Pollution Prevention 1997 Spill Prevention Plan No revision necessary

Integrated Pest

Management

2002 Integrated Pesticide

Management Plan

2005

Refuge Uses

(Compatibility)

1990 Compatibility Review 2002 CCP

Visitor Services Plan None 2003

Hunting 1983 Hunting Plan 2005

Fishing None 2002

Cultural Resources None 2006

Refuge Habitat

Management Plan (HMP)

1973 Land Use Plan 2007

WMD Habitat

Management Plan (HMP)

2012

Fire Management 1999 Fire Management

Plan

No revision necessary

Wildlife Inventory Plan 1972 2012

Disease Prevention &

Control

None 2004

Fisheries Resources

Management

None 2002
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 87

Partnership Opportunities

Since the ad vent o f the Partne rs for Fish a nd W ildlife Progra m in 1988, th e Ser vice’s

collective eyes have been opened to the potential for improvement of wildlife habitat

on private land. Over 97 percent of the landscape of Waubay Wetland Management

District is privately owned; to ignore private lands is folly with the hope of

accomplishing landscape ecosystem management. In the past 12 years, funds and

services have been contributed toward the wildlife improvement effort by the

following individuals/organizations: hundreds of landowners; Sisseton-Wahpeton

Sioux Tribe; Federal Emergency Management Agency; Natural Resource

Conservation Agency; Farm Service Agency; Grant, Day, Marshall, Roberts, Clark,

and Codington County Soil and Water Conservation Districts; Friends of Big Stone

Lake; Ducks Unlimited Inc.; South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks; Minnesota Area

III Conservation Districts; Lake Farley Watershed; South Dakota Conservation

Commission; North American Wetlands Conservation Council; Aberdeen

Development C orporation; East Da kota Water Developme nt District; Pheasants

Forever; Big Stone Lake Watershed; Lake Kampeska W atershed; Lake Traverse

Watershed; and others. Our private lands partners have chipped in to restore

wetlands, create wetlands, restore grasslands, improve grasslands for wildlife, and

other projects.

The limited environmental education program at Waubay NWR/W MD Complex has

been aided by our partners at Glacial Lakes Outdoor School and the students and

teachers of area schools. Many area school children have had the opportunity to enjoy

their National Wildlife Refuge through the efforts of these dedicated individuals. The

potential has barely been scratched, but the enthusiasm of the young people has let

us know that we’re providing a much-needed service.

These success stories give hope to fulfilling other needs. Potential partners for

habitat conservation, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental

education and interpretation and other wildlife related recreation is limited only by

one’s imagination. Potential partners for these projects include conservation

organizations, civic groups, tourism groups, State and Federal government agencies,

individuals, corporations, and others.

Monitoring and Evaluation

The CCP identifies and incorporates monitoring and evaluation activities as

strategies under the objectives developed for Waubay NWR and WMD . Each

Complex program has specific guidelines described in the appropriate step-down

plan. Step-down plans include approaches and methods to monitoring management

activities and specific criteria to evaluate the outcomes of the activities. As new

information becomes available through baseline data, research, or outcomes of

management projects, the existing Complex programs would be adjusted. Step-down

plans including the monitoring and evaluation sections would require periodic review,

program evaluation, and adjustments, as necessary.

The Complex CCP will be a useful working document for present and future

managers. Periodic review, evaluation, and the addition of information will be

required to achieve effective implementation of the CCP, even as Refuge programs

evolve over time.

Plan Amendment and Revision

The Waubay Project Leader will refer to the CCP annually to ensure station

priorities and work guidance is on track with the CCP. Appropriate staff members

will be assigned tasks and projects identified in the CCP to accomplish the objectives

stated in the Plan. The Pro ject Leader will review the CCP at least every 5 years to

determine if it needs revision. Any necessary revisions will be incorporated into the

Plan, with proper public participation. The Plan will be revised no later than 2017.

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 EA-89

WAUBAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX

including

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

and

Waubay Wetland Management District

 Environmental Assessment

Prepared March 2002

Completed by Waubay NWR Complex Staff, Region 6
EA-90 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Table of Contents

I. Purpose of Proposed Action ........................................... EA-91

II. Need For Proposed Action ............................................ EA-91

III. Affected Environment .............................................. EA-91

IV. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ........................... EA-92

Alternative A. Current Management (No Action) Alternative

National Wildlife Refuge .......................................... EA-93

Wetland Managem ent District ...................................... EA-96

Alternative B. Tallgrass Prairie Alternative

National Wildlife Refuge ......................................... EA-100

Wetland Managem ent District ..................................... EA-102

Alternative C. Enhanced Management (Proposed Action)

National Wildlife Refuge ......................................... EA-104

Wetland Managem ent District ..................................... EA-110

V. Environmental Consequences

Alternative A. Current Management (No Action)

National Wildlife Refuge ......................................... EA-114

Wetland Managem ent District ..................................... EA-115

Alternative B. Tallgrass Prairie Alternative

National Wildlife Refuge ......................................... EA-116

Wetland Managem ent District ..................................... EA-116

Alternative C. Enhanced Management (Proposed Action)

National Wildlife Refuge ......................................... EA-118

Wetland Managem ent District ..................................... EA-119

Summary of Actions Proposed Under Management Alternatives

National Wildlife Refuge ......................................... EA-121

Wetland Managem ent District ..................................... EA-122

VI. Consultation and Coordination with Others ............................ EA-123
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 EA-91

I. Purpose of Proposed Action

Waubay Complex was established to provide “. . . a refuge and breeding ground for

migratory birds and other wildlife.” The purpose of the proposed action, the

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), is to accomplish the goals established for the

Com plex, including:

■ Habita t Goal: To preserve, restore and enhance the ecological diversity of

grasslands, wetlands, and native woodlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of the

Great P lains on Waubay N ational Wildlife Refu ge Com plex.

■ Wildlife Goal: To promote a natural diversity and abundance of native flora and

fauna of the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains on Waubay National

Wildlife Refuge Complex.

■ Cultural Resources Goal: Protect and interpret significant historic and

prehistoric cultural resources associated with Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

Complex.

■ Wildlife-depen dent R ecreation Goal: To foster an understanding and

appreciation of the ecology and management of the fauna and flora and of the

role of humans in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains by providing

Complex visitors of all abilities with compatible wildlife-dependent recreational

experiences.

II. Need For Proposed Action

The need for a CCP for the Complex has been made clear by the declining status of

numerous grassland and wetland-dependent wildlife and their habitats and an

increased demand for wildlife-dependent public use. Since the establishment of the

Refuge in 1935 and the WMD in the 1960s, many changes have occurred to the

landscape. Much habitat has been lost to agriculture, roads, towns, and other

development. This loss of habitat has had a profound effect on wildlife populations that

once depended on vast expanses of undisturbed grasslands and wetlands. Management

of the Complex as outlined in the CCP will help to stem these losses and help to restore

biodiversity to the landscape.

There is also a need to better define how the Complex will satisfy the needs of citizens

and agencies that have a vital interest in how the Complex is manage d. The CCP also

addresses the need to provide an understanding and appreciation of wildlife and of

people’s role in the environment. Providing more environmental programs and better

interpretation will increase the public’s knowledge about the biological values that

continue to be lost each d ay and the nee d to prevent further losses. The Plan also calls

for increased opportunities for w ildlife-com patible re creation.

III. Affected Environment

For a description of the affected environment, please refer to Chapter III of the CCP -

Summary W aubay Complex and Resource Descriptions.
EA-92 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

IV. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

To carry out the proposed action, the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), the

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service must comply with provisions of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). An Environmental Assessment (EA) is required

under N EPA to evaluate reasonable alternatives that will meet stated goa ls and to

assess the possible impacts of all alternatives to the human environment. The EA

serves as the basis for determining whether implementation of the proposed action

would constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human

environment, in which case an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be needed.

The EA also provides for the involvement of other Federal agencies, non-governmental

organizations and the public in the decision making process.

Three alternative CCPs are considered and discussed in this Environmental

Assessment. They include N o Action, Enhanced Managem ent, and Tallgrass Prairie

alternatives. Under the No Action alternative, current management would continue as

is with no increase in funding or staffing. Enhanced Manageme nt would require

additional funds and staff to provide proactive habitat management, wildlife and

habitat m onitoring, and public use and education progra ms. The Tallgrass Pra irie

alternative would concentrate staff efforts and funding on preserving, restoring and

managing the highly imperiled tallgrass prairie ecosystem, especially in the MinnesotaRed R iver Lo wland s.

These alternatives will facilitate continuity of management and describe the decisions

made to achieve upland and wetland protection, restoration, and management for the

next 15 years. They are designed to further the achievement of Refuge System and

Waubay Complex goals, which center on the protection and enhancem ent of wildlife

and their habitats. The goals and their associated objectives will also contribute toward

the accomplishment of the goals of the Tallgrass Prairie/Missouri River Main Stem

ecosystem, as well as other regional plans such as the North American Waterfowl

Management Plan.

Other alternatives such as Custodial (all lands are closed, little to no management or

public use, staff reduced to one o r two people) a nd All Public Use (increa se all efforts in

public use and education, reduce management of lands) were considered but rejected

because they would not comply with the purposes of the Refuge System or Waubay

Com plex.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 EA-93

Alternative A. 

Current Management

(Refuge)

Alternative A. Current Management (No Action) Alternative

Current management of the Complex w ould continue. No new funding or staff

levels would occur, and programs would follow the same direction, emphasis, and

intensity as they do at present.

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

No ad ditional re storation of grasslands would occur on the R efuge u nder this

alternative. Continuing the current management approach will probably result in a

degradation of native grass stands over time. No effort will be made to enhance or

research the im portance of R efuge w oodlands. Monitoring w ill be limited to mostly

waterfowl surveys with incidental sightings of threatened and endangered species.

Public use programs will continue, as is, with no additional educational or recreational

programs offered.

All grasslands within the approved boundary of Waubay National Wildlife Refuge are

protected. No plans exist to increase the boundaries beyond current limits. Before

water levels increased, there were approximately 1,700 acres of native grasslands and

less than 200 acres of tame grasslands on the Refuge. High water has probably covered

400 to 500 acres of mostly native grasses since 1996.

Restoration of tame grasslands on the Refuge would not occur. Management would be

focused on maintaining maximum height and density for nesting cover. Mon itoring to

achieve or maintain these conditions would not be done except for visual observations.

Restoration of degraded native grasslands or those that reappear from receding waters

would also not occur, except to provide necessary weed control.

Current management of Refuge grasslands is based on maintaining overall condition

and contro lling weeds. Grazing is the management tool of choice to re duce litter and to

impact cool season exotic grasses. Haying and burning are used minimally, but the

goals would be the same. Over time, native grasslands will slowly degrade in condition

and composition under this management regime. More aggressive and active

management and monitoring are needed to enhance and maintain the ecological

diversity of native prairie tracts. Under this alternative, Russian olive, juniper and

buckbrush stands will likely increase, reducing habitat for grassland species, including

species of concern such as the Dakota skipper butterfly.

Of the approximately 2,000 acres of wetlands on the Refuge, only about 100 acres are

temporary/seasonal in nature. Another 200 acres are semipermanent or hold water

throughout the growing season most years. Waubay Lake (currently encompassing

Hillebrand’s and Spring Lakes) makes up the remainder of Refuge wetlands.

Two semi-operable water control structures exist; a third is under water and was

located between Spring Lake and Swan Pond. No plans are in place for monitoring or

mana ging these wetlands to enhance their p roductiv ity for wetland w ildlife.

Approximately 200 acres of woodlands occur on the Refuge. Forest types include oak

savannah and eastern deciduous forests. Early in the Refuge’s history, three fields (50

acres total) were cut out of woodlands to provide food plots for wintering deer. As

water levels rose, these plots were planted to alfalfa to reduce maintenance needs.

These croplands would be allowed to reforest naturally, but no special effort will be

made to shorten this time frame with plantings or other restoration efforts.

Enhancement of Refuge woodlands would not occur except to maintain food plots,

outside traditional forest areas, to reduce deer browsing pressure. No effort will be

made to research the impacts of deer on woodlands or ways to minim ize these impacts

or to monitor any changes in wildlife use over time.
EA-94 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Alternative A. 

Current Management

(Refuge) cont’d.

Wildlife

Endangered and threatened species that may occur on the Refuge include the

American burying beetle, bald eagle, piping plover, and western prairie fringed

orchid. Incidental sighting s of these specie s will be noted, but no special effort will

go into developing inventory or monitoring plans for these rarely seen species. If

any of these species of concern are observed on the Refuge, special effort will be

made to protect them and their habitat needs.

In the past, the focus of Refuge wildlife surveys has been waterfowl. Although high

water levels have m ade it more difficu lt to get accurate survey s, staff effo rts are still

mostly dedicated to waterfowl surveys. Some effort has gone into surveying for

American burying beetles and Dakota skippers, but these activities are not high

priorities. A constant effort mist netting station to determine survival and reproduction

of passerines was begun in 1994, but most sites were flooded out by 1996. Currently,

the only banding conducted is for educational purposes.

Waterfowl surve ys will be continued to document use and any potential conflicts with

other Refuge activities or public use. Staff will also continue to assist with cooperative

surve ys suc h as State fisheries or de er sur veys and N ationa l Audubon Socie ty’s

Christmas Bird Count. Rewriting and updating the Wildlife Inventory Plan will be a

low priority item.

Cultural Resources

Previous surveys have found numerous cultural and historical sites and artifacts on the

Refuge. Only one outdated kiosk sign exists to inform visitors of this rich resource.

Without additional funding this is not likely to chan ge. Little effort w ill go into

interpreting these resources or monitoring and protecting sites affected by high water

levels. Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) regulations will be complied

with where developments or other ground breaking activities occur to meet minimum

require ments.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 EA-95

Alternative A. 

Current Management

(Refuge) cont’d.

Public Use

Public use and recreation programs will continue at current levels. White-tailed

deer hunting would continue for archery, rifle and muzzleloader seasons. Providing

deer hunts for youth and people with disabilities will not be planned for. Ice fishing

(with current restrictions) will be allowed on the refuge.

Two trails are available for visitor use. One is 1⁄2 mile and circles around the

headq uarters, traveling around a pond and through bur oa k woo ds. Part of this trail is

accessible to people with disabilities. The other trail is 1⁄4 mile a nd traverses a hill

through native grasses allowing the visitor an overview of Spring (Waubay) Lake.

These trails offer variety and good birding opportunities, but do not allow those who

would like to spend more time hiking the opportunity to do so. Under this alternative,

little effort will go into correcting this deficiency.

With no Outdoor Recreation Plan ner on staff, edu cational and interpretive efforts fa ll

to the regular staff. Educational programs are limited and not actively promoted.

Programs, for use on or off the Refuge, are generally developed when requested, which

may be three to four times per year. Requests for programs either at area schools or on

the Refuge are often turned down if staff is not available or conflicts with management

activities o ccur. A “Wetland Trunk” is also available for te achers to use at their schools

and a “M igratory Bird Trunk” for use on the Refuge. These trunks allow teachers to

lead classes a nd activities without the need for staff expertise. Although these ten d to

be popular items for both staff and teachers, limited time and resources will not allow

more to be developed.

Currently, programs are offered either in the Visitor Center, outside (if weather

permits), or in the shop are a when necessary. Although a building devoted solely to

environmental education could increase visitation and provide for year-round learning,

development of this center will not be explored under this alternative.

Special events are limited to a program offered during National Wildlife Refuge Week

and the Christm as Bird Count. This leve l of participation w ould con tinue under this

alternative.

Volunteers are a rarely used resource at the Refuge. Although many opportunities are

available for volunteers, a lack of time and knowledge as to how to develop and

promote a core grou p limits ou r ability to b enefit fro m their assistance and to add this

additional suppo rt base. 
EA-96 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Alternative A. 

Current Management

(District)

Waubay Wetland Management District

Continued management at current levels could result in a gradual degradation of

native prairie sites as staff efforts and funding fall short of optimal management

goals. Tame grasslands will exhibit fewer noticeable changes in condition.

Monitoring efforts will continue to fall behind management needs. Public use

(fishing, hunting, and other uses) will continue as is, but educational programs

would not be promoted or developed beyond the minimal efforts accom plished n ow.

Habitat

Grassland easements would continue to be purchased at current levels from willing

sellers. In the 10 years since the grassland easement program has been in effect, an

average of 10,000 acres per ye ar have been protected. No effort would be made to

promote or increase the current level or location of easement purchases. Since Duck

Stamp funds are use d to protect these lands, tracts are selected primarily for the ir

benefit to waterfowl and must rate 40 or more pairs/square mile on the Waterfowl

Breeding Pair Distribution (WBPD) (Map 8) and meet or exceed the threshold scores

for the grassland easement evaluation worksheet. No alternative funding sources

would be explored to protect grassland tracts that do not meet these criteria. Tallgrass

prairie sites would not be protected unless they meet th e requirements for w aterfow l,

i.e., within high density wetland zones. Assistance to the Tallgrass Prairie Biologist

would be limited to providing office space and su pplies as needed.

Few, if any lands, are presently considered for fee-title acquisition. It is not the

preferred method for protecting habitat because of the added management burden of

new tracts and the host of management challenges they present. Fee-title acquisitions

would be limited to exceptional tracts or those requiring special protection, or

particular roundouts to WPAs. Partnerships would not be explored for protecting

important habitats or for assisting with development and managem ent of such tracts.

Promotion of other funding sources, and assistance to other agencies, watershed

groups and pa rtners w ould be minimal.

Most crop fields and food plots on Waterfowl Production Areas have already been

planted to tam e or native grasses. Little effort has gone into restoring tame grasses to

native species due to a lack of time, funds and equipment operators. Most grassland

restoration is restricted to newly acquired WPAs. Tame grasslands on WPAs are

currently managed to provide height and density for nesting cover. Where croplands

are present on newly purchased grassland easement tracts, these fields are restored at

the landowner’s expense. On privately owned grasslands, without grassland easements,

incentives for private landowners to restore grasslands are limited to dollars and staff

available in the Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW) program and current program

direction.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 EA-97

Alternative A. 

Current Management

(District) cont’d.

Grazing, haying, and prescribed burns are the tools presently used to manage

WMD grasslands. Grazing is used most often as it generally accomplishes the job of

reducing litter and rejuvenating native stands, as well as provide forage for local

landowners. In general, grazing rates average one AUM/acre and cattle may be on

a site for up to one month, during the period May 15 to September 1, depending on

the size of the tract. Smaller units of larger tracts may be grazed twice, or just one

part of a large tract may be grazed in a year. Haying is used infrequently since rested

grasslands ofte n become ha vens for pocke t gophe rs. Pock et goph er infested land is

rough on equipment and operators. Haying is also not allow ed on S ervice lands until

after July 15, and this deters some landow ners be cause o f the correspon ding decrease in

forage quality. H owev er, during period s of drou ght, mo re habitat man agem ent is

accomplished through haying as landowners are in greater need of hay and are willing

to hay within manag ement guidelines on S ervice lands. A small staff, sa fety

considerations, and sometimes negative public perception (e.g., burning up needed

forage ) limit the use of pre scribed burning as a manage ment to ol.

Native grasslands are treated to perpetuate native sp ecies an d diversity. This is

accomplished through remov al of vegetative litter and timing management to

negatively im pact cool sea son exotic grasses, brush or weeds. Little effort is m ade to

manage low quality stands more aggressively or to document changes (positive or

negativ e) resulting from mana geme nt activities. Tame grasslands ar e generally

managed to provide dense nesting cover - mostly through periodic removal of litter.

Management of Service owned lands would continue at existing levels. In 1999, 3,554

acres w ere gra zed, 67 acres hayed and 15 acres prescribed burne d in the W MD. This

amounts to 15 percent of total upland acres managed in some form. The remaining 85

percent of uplands that are rested provide cover and nesting habitat for waterfowl and

other wildlife. Monitoring of most sites is not accomplished except for visual

observ ations.

With 199 WPAs, treating each and every one is neither practical nor necessary. At the

current rate it would take 7 years to manage all upland acres. Some tracts need regular

maintenance while others can remain idle for a number of years without any loss of

diversity or vigor. Generally, each tract needs to be managed separately and on its own

schedule according to vegetation type, weed problems, soils, etc. Current management

is based according to which WPAs need it most and can be ma naged easily, i.e., where

cooperators are located, which have the necessary access or water developments, etc.

Although this works for the most part, some tracts may be neglected and if existing

managers leave, no plans or manageme nt objectives are in place for the next m anager to

follow. Under this alternative, diversity of native grasslands may suffe r since efforts to

manage and monitor these sites will probably lag behind vegetative changes, espe cially

since clear objectives for each site have not been developed.

Biological control of weeds would remain an emphasis in this alternative, with

assistance provided to State and local agencies and private landowners. Chemical and

mechanical methods would still be employed to help reduce or control nuisance plants,

as necessary.

Creating larger blocks of habitat in order to maximize management efforts and to

recreate historical landscapes would not occur. Incentives for private landowner

management of grasslands, e.g. grazing rotations, would be limited by Partners for

Fish and Wildlife funding and program emphasis.

Maintenance of grasslands would be reduced as monitoring is limited on both easem ents

and fee-title lands. Private lands improve d with W ildlife Extension Agreements

(WE As) an d Conservation Extension Agreemen ts (CEAs) are not m onitored at all.

This effort would not change under this alternative. Although a computerized mapping

system would greatly expedite monitoring and maintenance of easements, fee-title and

other lands, this w ould not be a priority in terms of fu nding or staff effo rt.
EA-98 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Alternative A. 

Current Management

(District) cont’d.

Wetlands would continue to be protected, mostly by purchasing easements from

willing sellers. An average of about 2,000 acres of wetlands are protected each year

under the easement program. Selection criteria for wetland easements purchased

with Duck Stamp dollars would remain the same - focusing on areas rated 40 or

more pairs/square mile on the Waterfowl Breeding Pair Distribution (WBPD) map,

and meeting other criteria established for the Small Wetlands Acquisition

Program. Only high quality wetlands or those requiring special protection would be

acquired under fee-title. No special effort would be made to assist or advise USDA or

other conservation groups, local governme nts or partne rs to promote ongoing or to

develop new wetlan d protection pro grams.

Wetlands would be restored on all fee-title and easement lands, as currently occurs.

Restoration efforts on private lands will continue and would be limited only by

available staff an d funding for the PFW progra m.

Enhancing and managing wetlands would continue on a limited basis. In 1999, 3 of 16

wetlands with water control structures had boards removed to lower water levels and

encourage vegetative growth. No monitoring is in place on these wetlands except for

visual observations. There are no overall plans or individual site plans in place for

managing or monitoring wetlands with water control structures. Productivity of these

wetlands will suffer as a result. Attendance at meetings and assistance to watershed

groups and others interested in protecting and enhancing wetlands will be limited.

Creation of w etlands on priva te lands will contin ue as lon g as funding and staff is

available in the PFW program.

Monitoring of wetland easement contracts would continue, but development of a

mapp ing syste m to im prove and facilitate enfo rcement and other public nee ds would

not be e mpha sized. R estored or created w etlands on priva te lands are not currently

maintained or monitored.

Native woodlands are a neglected and little known resource in the WMD. Currently,

there are no coulee or other woodlands protected by public ownership in this area

except at Sieche Hollow State Park. These areas may be magnets for migratory birds,

and very impo rtant for some species, especially warb lers. In 19 99, five different

warbler species were observed on a privately owned tract in Roberts County. Turkey

vultures and pileated woodpeckers have also been observed in these woodlands and

may be nesting here. No effort would be made to research, protect or monitor the loss

or use of woodlands in the WMD under this alternative.

Wildlife

Complex staff would continue to document the presence and location of bald eagles,

piping plovers, whooping cranes, eskimo curlew, interior least terns, American burying

beetles, Western prairie fringed orchids and Topeka shiners as they became known,

but no special effort would be made to develop inventory or monitoring plans for these

or other species of concern.

With only one biologist to cover 40,000 acres of W PAs, monitoring of other wildlife

species would continue at current levels. This includes one Breeding Bird Survey

(BBS), waterfowl breeding pair surveys, and cooperative surveys such as mourning

dove and Christmas Bird Count, in addition to other duties. It w ould be difficult,

without additional personnel and funding, to conduct an additional BBS route,

determine sharp-tailed grouse and prairie chicken breeding sites, conduct passerine

surveys on selected W PAs, to rewrite and update the Wildlife Inventory Plan, and to

increase the overall quality and quantity of surveys completed in the WMD.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 EA-99

Alternative A. 

Current Management

(District) cont’d.

Cultural Resources

When ground breaking activities occur in the WMD for wetland restorations or

other habitat manipulations, regulations covered under ARPA will be followed.

Know n cultural resources will be protected, but no effort will be made to

investiga te other sites. Interpreting these site s or edu cating others of their

historical or cultural significance w ill not be a priority. N o effort will be m ade to

investigate a cooperative project with Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe.

Public Use

Waterfowl Production Areas are open to hunting, fishing, and trapping by statute.

They are opened to other recreational activities only if they do not interfere with or

detract from the purpose for which they were established, i.e. to provide habitat and

breeding sites fo r wate rfowl and othe r migra tory bird s. WPAs which adjoin fishable

waters are open to fishing, though access is generally restricted to foot traffic only. No

change would occur in providing these recreational activities on WPAs. Law

enforcement assistance would continue to ensure compliance with State and Federal

regulations.

With no Outdoor Recreation Plan ner on staff, edu cational and interpretive efforts fa ll

to the regular sta ff. Few progra ms are currently offere d in the W MD unless a specific

request is made and staff is available. Providing and improving opportunities for

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation

in the W MD is limited. C urrently , only one or two school program s are no rmally

provided each year, despite having 43 schools in the WMD. Educational programs for

use on a WP A wo uld not be developed. In terpretive kiosk s for use on one or two welltraveled highways would not be pursued.

The volunteer program would continue at its current level with no additional funding or

effort made to promote a more active volunteer corps or develop a Friends’ group.

Friends’ groups have been shown to be very successful in providing additional sources

of fundin g and expanding com munity support for Refuge p rogram s.
EA-100 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Alternative B. 

Tallgrass Prairie

Alternative B. Tallgrass Prairie Alternative

Before European settlement, the Great Plains were once the continent’s largest

ecosystem, covering nearly one quarter of the lower 48 states. These once vast

grasslands were home to bison, elk, prairie wolves and other animals and birds

adapte d to this open landscape . Very little of this on ce thriving ecosy stem still

exists in a function ing form, m ostly due to fra gmentation and decreasing biodiversity

resulting from agriculture, development and nonnative plantings. In recent years,

grassland bird species h ave shown th e most consiste nt and w idespre ad declines of all

migratory birds (Knopf 1994).

The grasslands, in their native form, comprise three regions: short, mixed and tallgrass

prairies, depending on the species the soils and climate would sustain. In Waubay

WM D, tallgra ss prairie covere d much of the W MD east of th e Prairie Cotea u in what is

known as the Minnesota-Red River Lowlands. Less than 4 percent of the original

tallgrass prairie exists today, much of it converted to cropland and other agricultural

uses.

The tallgrass prairie alternative would focus on protecting any remaining native tracts,

restoring diversity to degraded grassland sites, replanting croplands to native grasses

and forbs, and e nhancing and mainta ining these sites to support a functioning prairie

ecosystem. Protecting and restoring native grasslands will benefit waterfowl, although

to a lesser extent than in areas with higher densities of wetlands. Other grasslanddependent birds and wildlife species will also benefit from the protection and

restoration o f this quickly disappearing habitat.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 EA-101

Alternative B. 

Tallgrass Prairie

(Refuge)

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

Habitat

In order to concentrate protection, restoration and management efforts in the

WMD , especially in the target area of the Minnesota-Red River Low lands,

activities and management on the Refuge would be reduced to minimum levels.

Since acquisition of the Refuge is complete within the approved boundary and the

Refuge lies in the Coteau des Prairie and not in the target area for this alternative, no

protection or acquisition of grasslands would be needed. Native grasslands on the

Refuge tend to be m ixed (tall and short grass species) rather than true tallgrass prairie

and so would not warrant special treatment under this alternative. Restoration of

croplan ds, or tam e or degraded native grasslands would occ ur secondarily to efforts in

the Minnesota-Red River Lowlands. Management of native grass sites on the Refuge

would continue , but at a m inimum level in order to focus attention on tallgrass prairie

sites.

Since all wetlands on the Refuge are protected or have been restored, no need exists

for these activities under this alternative. The two wetlands with water control

structures will be allowed to fluctuate naturally and will not receive water-level

manipulation.

Restoration and management of Refuge woodlands would not occur as efforts would be

directed towar ds prote cting, restoring and ma naging tallgrass prairie site s.

Wildlife

Threatened and endangered species would be documented, but additional surveys or

inventory plans will not be initiated. Surveys and monitoring would be minimized on

the Refuge since it would be more important to document wildlife changes where

increased protection, re storation and m anage ment a ctivities w ere occurring.

Cultural Resources

Minimum requirements will be followed with regards to ARPA regulations when 

ground breaking activities occur. Additional inventories and upgrading of educational

messages would not be accomplished under this alternative.

Public Use

Current hunting and fishing seasons would continue with no effort to expand or offer

more accessible opportunities. No ch anges would be made to provide additional trails

or other wildlife observation opportunities or to increase the number or types of

educational programs offered, whether on or off the Refuge.

A strong volunteer base and program would be needed to conduct management and

restoration activities and to promote the Tallgrass Prairie Alternative goals and

objectives. Developm ent of a F riend’s group w ould help to further the goals of this

alternative and would be able to provide additional funding sources to implement

recom mend ations.
EA-102 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Alternative B. 

Tallgrass Prairie

(District)

Waubay Wetland Management District

This alternative would increase protection, restoration, management and w ildlife

monito ring efforts in the M innesota-Red River Low lands, w here tallgrass pr airie

historically occurr ed. Other parts of the W MD would receive minimal attentio n in

terms of man agem ent and wildlife m onitoring. Oppo rtunities fo r public use would

remain the same in areas outside the target area and would increase in areas

targeted for increased acquisition in order to protect and restore tallgrass prairie.

Habitat

Protection of tallgrass prairie would be accomplished through fee-title acquisition,

easements or through partnerships with State, Tribal or private organizations. An

emph asis wo uld be placed on acquiring all rem aining na tive prairie tracts, especially

those that are high quality or requiring special or immediate protection for migratory

birds. The area targeted for increased acquisition and easements would be the

Minne sota-R ed River Low lands, the historic loc ation of ta llgrass pr airie in the WM D.

Under this tallgrass alternative, crite ria to pur chase fee-title lan ds or ea sements would

not be based on the Waterfowl Breeding Pair Distribution map as the benefits would not

be limited to or targeted for waterfowl. LWCF or other funds would be used as much of

the targeted area ranks low for duck pairs per square mile, but still attracts 20 to 29 duck

pairs/sq. mile. W e wou ld expect more pairs to be attracted to this area a s tallgrass prairie

and wetlands are restored. Additional benefits of restoring large tracts o f native p rairie

include increasing biodiversity and providing breeding, feeding and resting habitat for

grassland-dependent species, particularly migratory birds. Nesting success should also

increase as grassland tract size increases and edge effects minimized (Johnson and

Temple 1990).

Increased restoration of degraded grasslands and croplands also would occur under

this alternative. Acquiring these lands in fee-title would enhance our ability to restore

these lands completely and to provide a larger functioning unit. Technical assistance

and ince ntives w ould be provide d for landown ers to im prove lands in private ownership

or under easement. To facilitate this, alternative farming practices would be

encouraged such as development and planting of native seed stocks and seed cleaning

and processing plants. All croplands on grassland easements and new WPAs, as well as

a minimum of 1,000 acres of tame grasslands on lands owned in fee-title, would be

converted to native grasses and forbs.

Management of native and restored grasslands in the Minnesota-Red River Lowlands

would be aggressive using fire, grazing and haying to re store, re juvena te and m aintain

tracts in good-to-excellent condition where possible. Monitoring of all sites would be

essential for tracking progress and maintaining optimum plant and wildlife diversity.

Management of fee-title and easement lands outside the target area, especially tame

grasslands, would decrease accordingly.

Include d in this alte rnative would be an effort to pr ovide co rridors b etween fee-title

and other protected lands by acquiring grassland easements. Lower quality grasslands

would be acceptable for this effort. This objective would help to accomplish the goal of

reestablishing larger, contiguous blocks of habitat for the benefit of declining grassland

bird species, wa terfow l and other prairie-depe ndent w ildlife.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 EA-103

Alternative B. 

Tallgrass Prairie

(District) cont’d.

In this alternative, wetlands would also be protected and restored, but the

emphasis would be placed on protecting and restoring wetlands in the MinnesotaRed River Lowlands. All methods would be used to protect wetlands including

acquiring in fee-title , through easements or throu gh partnership s. All we tlands in

fee-title or unde r easement would be restored and incentives would be provide d to

landow ners to restore those in p rivate ownership.

Private landowners, watershed groups, Conservation Districts and other partners

would be encouraged to create additional wetlands, through the private lands program,

again targeting historic tallgrass prairie areas.

Management of wetlands with water control structures on WPAs would be reduced

and allowed to fluctuate with natura lly occurring habitat changes in order to

concentrate our efforts on tallgrass prairie restoration and protection in the MinnesotaRed River Lowlands. Sites for future water management structures would only be

considered in the target area to provide additional habitat for shorebirds and other

wetland-dependent birds.

Since the focus of this alternative is restoration and protection of native prairies, native

wood lands in th e WM D wo uld not be targeted for protection, nor w ould their

importance to migratory birds be researched.

Wildlife

Documentation of threatened and endangered species would be tracked, but at

minimum levels. Inventory and monitoring plans would not be developed for these or

other species of management concern. Protection and monitoring of native fisheries

would also be diminished.

Wildlife monito ring, in areas outside the Minne sota-R ed River Low lands, w ould

decrease. Staff will be concentrating efforts on tracking changes in wildlife populations

due to increased management and restoration of grasslands. Surveys outside the target

area w ould be reduce d to absolute m inimum levels. 

Cultural Resources

ARPA regulations would be complied with when developing water control structures,

restorations or other gro und breaking activities. Ho wever, no effort will be made to

investiga te other sites or to interpre t know n resou rces.

Public Use

An increase in fee-title lands through this alternative would provide expanded

opportunities for public use. As WPAs, these lands would be open to hunting, fishing,

wildlife observa tion and other co mpatib le uses. 

Deve lopme nt of an e ducation/visitor/re search center w ithin the Tallgrass Prairie

Ecosystem would be used to educate the public and provide a place for long-term

studies on the dynamics and richness of this threatened habitat. Interpretive and

educational programs and special events programming would be minimized to focus

staff ene rgies on the tallgra ss prairie .
EA-104 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Alternative C. 

Enhanced Management

(Proposed Action)

(Refuge)

Alternative C. Enhanced Management (Proposed Action)

To achieve our purpose and goals, management of the Com plex would be much

more aggressive and proactive. Many of the goals would be achieved through

the support of private landowners, reducing the need for increasing Federal

landownership. Fee-title lands would be managed and monitored more

aggressively to maintain higher quality habitat and to address problems before

serious deg radation could occur. Public use and recreation w ould be expanded to

provide additional and im proved educational experiences for visitors. 

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

Management of Refuge habitats w ould be aggressive w ith increased monitoring to

track progress towa rds management goals. All tam e grassland s would be converte d to

native stands and native grasslands would be enhanced by eliminating or controlling

brush, trees, weed, or tame grass infestations. Management objectives would be

developed for individual habitats and water control structures on the Refuge.

Woodlands would be restored to reduce edge effects and brown-headed cowbird

populations. The Refuge Wildlife Inventory Plan would be rewritten to increase the

quality and quantity of surveys completed on the Refuge. Archaeological resources

would be protected and interpreted to develop a respect for other cultures and peoples.

Huntin g opportunities w ould be augm ented b y offering youth hunts or hunts fo r people

with disabilities. Opportunities for wildlife observation, wildlife photography,

environmental education and interpretation would be expanded. A more active

volunte er prog ram w ould be developed and prom oted.

Habitat

Since acquisition of lands within the approved boundary is complete, no effort is needed

to protect additional grasslands. To improve the quality and quantity of grasslands

within the Refuge, approxim ately 26 2 acres of tame grass, dense n esting co ver, and old

alfalfa fields would be converted to native grass communities over a period of 10 years

to make sure plantings are successful and to closely monitor weed infestations. Tame

grasslands not yet converted will be managed for maximum potential height and

density to provide nesting habitat for waterfowl and other grassland nesting birds. An

increased effort will go into eliminating or controlling Russian olive and juniper stands,

and other nonnative invading plants. Biological controls will be emphasized to reduce

the use of chemicals and negative effects to native forbs.

All grasslands will be enhanced by developing a Habitat M anagem ent Plan w ith

management goals, site plans, biolog ical inventories a nd monitoring methods to

optimize management and track progress towards meeting objectives. Management

will be aggressive and timely to improve and mainta in native grasslands at their

optimal state and to minimize weed or other nonnative invasive problems.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 EA-105

Alternative C. 

Enhanced Management

(Proposed Action)

(Refuge) cont’d.

There are thre e wate r contro l structures locate d on the Refug e. One is

completely inundated by the extreme water levels and will not be replaced or

repaired when water levels recede. Another, which affects approximately three

acres, is located along the entrance road and is in need of repair. It will be

replaced with an ordinary culvert to reduce maintenance problems and protect

the road. The third is located on Barse Slough, a 15-acre wetland on the east side

of the R efuge. S ome m inor rep airs are needed to ma ke this structure fully

functional. A site plan will be developed for this structure to cycle the wetland through

different stages (dry, regenerating, lake and degenerating) to improve productivity.

Many of the wetlands on the Refuge have been in a high water cycle for 4 to 5 years

with a resulting loss of invertebrates and emergent plant growth. Macroinvertebrates

are extremely important for waterfowl, especially for egg production, ducklings, and

feather growth. By allowing wetlands to go through a drying period, vegetation and

invertebrate populations will change. Productivity is usually highest the first few years

after drying and reflooding a w etland, re sulting fro m a release of nutrients in the so il

and decomposition of flooded vegetation (Baldassarre and Bolen 1994). Stable water

conditions result in slower a nd even arrested decomposition rates and productivity

(Ruttner 1953).

Approximately 500 acres of native woodlands occur on the Refuge. Both oak savannah

eastern deciduous forest types are represented. Early in the Refuge’s history, three

fields (50 acres total) were cut out of woodlands to provide food plots for wintering

deer. As water levels rose, these plots were planted to alfalfa to reduce maintenance

needs. These farm fields would be replanted with native tree species to shorten the

length of time ne eded fo r restoration of th ese woodlands. Replanting these areas w ill

reduce edge effects and increase the size of intact woodlands. Nest predation is higher

and success lower near forest edges than in the interior of a forest patch (Dobkin 1992).

Brown-headed cowbirds comprise d the second most numerous species on point counts

and the fourth most numerous in captures for a banding and point count study

conducted in Centerwoods from 1994 to 1996 (Refuge files). Restoration of Refuge

woodlands could increase nesting success and reduce populations of brown-headed

cowbirds and their effect on nesting success. Point counts would be used to monitor

changes in bird populations.

Management plans would be deve loped to enhance the success of restoration and to

improve the management of wooded areas on the Refuge. Forestry experts would be

consulted to determine the best tools to enhance and maintain this unique habitat. The

existing 60 acres of food plots outside the woodlands would be maintained o reduce

negative im pacts of wintering white-tailed deer on understory. Using G IS/GPS to

accurately map forest types and management actions will greatly improve managers’

ability to track changes and monitor success. Researching the effects of wintering deer

on Refuge forests will improve our ability to develop strategies to minimize these

impacts.
EA-106 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Alternative C. 

Enhanced Management

(Proposed Action)

(Refuge) cont’d.

Wildlife

An inventory and monitoring plan would be developed for threatened and

endangered species, including bald eagles, piping plovers, American burying

beetle, and western prairie fringed orchids. A monitoring plan would also be

developed to locate and track State species at risk, including regal fritillary,

Dakota, and powesheik skipper butterflies; osprey; northern redbelly snakes;

banded killifish; and central mudminnows.

Although a great deal is known about wildlife species on the Refuge, particularly for

passer ines and water fowl, changing habitat conditions may be caus ing chan ges in

species harder to detect. Good baseline and ongoing surveys are needed to document

these variations especially for waterfowl, reptiles, amphibians and insects, including

the Dakota skipper butterfly (a species found on the Refuge which was a candidate for

listing). Being able to detect differe nces in species numbers or com position may help to

indicate habitat changes not easily observed. To accom plish this, the Refuge Wildlife

Inventory Plan would be rewritten.

Continued cooperatio n in national surve ys suc h as N ationa l Audubon Socie ty’s

Christmas Bird Count may help to detect more widespread changes in wintering bird

populations. Working with South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks on deer surveys and

population management will help to keep deer populations at manageable levels and

maintain hunting opportunities.

Cultural Resources

In 1981, Keller and Zimmerman conducted a complete archaeological study of Waubay

National Wildlife Refuge. Other studies have been conducted in and around the Refuge

since the 1890s, many to identify significant cultural resources on Federal lands or

before undertaking any projects where Federal funds were involved (Jackson and

Toom 1999). A total of 27 archaeological sites have been recorded on the Refuge: 14

with prehistoric components and 13 historic sites. An effort will be made to locate these

sites so that they may be protected from inadvertent activities. Sites that may be

underwater can no longer be protected, but an effort would be made to monitor

recedin g wate r levels and exposed sh orelines for artifacts that m ay appear.

One outdated exhibit us ed to inte rpret cultural resources exists on the Re fuge. It is

part of a rotating system of signs used in outdoor kiosks. A new exhibit interpreting

cultural resources was left out of the finished plan for the Visitor Center when

conside ring ma intenan ce (of the planned exhibit) and do llars available. Un der this

alternative, a new exh ibit would be designed for the V isitor Center if spa ce is available

after renovation. With all kiosk signs in need of updating and replacement, special

effort would go into developing one for interpreting cultural resources. This would give

visitors a better “sense o f place” a nd its end uring 12 ,000+ y ear histo ry, a history that is

in danger of being lost unless an effort is made to protect, preserve and interpret these

resources. Staff would also consider developing an interpretive site with the SissetonWahpeton S ioux Tribe, either on the Refug e or at a site nearby on tribal land s. A

shared interpretive site with the Tribe could help in decreasing racial tension and

cultural misunderstandings for visitors and local inhabitants alike.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 EA-107

Alternative C. 

Enhanced Management

(Proposed Action)

(Refuge) cont’d.

Public Use

White-tailed deer hunting is the only hunting allowed on the Refuge. Three

different seasons and types of hunting (archery, rifle and muzzleloader) are used

to control wintering dee r populations. L imiting the num ber of lice nses av ailable

and access to vehicles helps to provide a high quality hunt not available on other

public lands. W ith current w ater levels, access is even m ore restricted with

some areas o nly reac hable by wate rcraft. A lthough this limited access is

somewhat controversial, thousands of acres of other public lands exist that can be

hunted by less strenuous mean s. We believe it is more im portant to provide a quality

hunt that is different from that on other public lands. By restricting vehicle access and

allowing only non-motorized boats, fewer hunters are usually encountered by those

who h unt here and w intering w ildlife are less disturb ed.

The Refuge muzzleloader season is offered before the rifle season, which is different

than w hat the S tate offe rs. The state-wide black powd er rifle season is offered in

December for most public lands. Hunters may use black powder rifles during the

regular rifle seasons, but few hunters do. A D ecember hunt takes away the opportunity

for these primitive weapons hunters to hunt during the rut and often subjects them to

harsher weather conditions. We will continue to offer an earlier season for

muzzleloaders as it is quite popular and provides another unique hunting experience.

Under this alternative, staff will also consider providing special hunting experiences

for youths or the physically challenged. Hunters with disabilities have extremely

limited opportunities in this area. Staff will investigate Refug e sites suitable to these

hunters. Pro viding a youth hunting day or wee k can provide a stress free opportunity

for youths to learn deer hunting techniqu es or fur ther their exper ience.

Before 1995, Refuge lakes could not support a fishery. Lakes were too small and

shallow and would often winterkill. Since Waubay Lake has joined up with Spring and

Hillebrand’s Lakes, these waters now support healthy and thriving populations of

northern pike, walleye, perch, crappies, bullheads, rock and white bass, among others.

The portion of Waubay Lake outside of the Refuge attracts thousands of anglers each

year, ye ar-round.

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge was established as “a refuge and breeding ground for

migratory birds and other wildlife.” Refuge waters and uplands are used by migrating

and breeding waterfowl and other migratory birds. A verage duck numbers per m onth

can vary from near 100 to over 5,000 in the course of a year (Refuge files). Although

higher water levels have changed waterfowl use somewhat, surveys in 1998 show duck

numbers varied from a high of 540 in April to a low of 148 in August. These numbers do

not include other water birds that use the Refuge. Numerous studies have shown that

fishing and other human activities can disturb feeding and nesting waterfowl (Johnson

1964; Braun et al. 1978; Mendall 1958; Vander Zouwen 1983). For these reasons,

boating and spring and summer fishing is incompatible with the purposes for which the

Refuge was established and is, therefore, not permitted.

Ice fishing is presently allowed o n the R efuge a nd wo uld contin ue under this

alternative. There are few direct impacts to wildlife with this activity. There was a

concern about disturbance of wintering white-tailed deer, however, so activities are

limited to foot travel, with no motorized vehicles. This accomplishes a number of things.

It reduces disturbance to deer which helps to keep them on the Refuge instead of

foraging on private lands, it is self-limiting - those who prefer to drive to ice fishing

locations must go somewhere else, and it helps to preserve the wild and peaceful nature

of the Refu ge setting. R efuge restric tions o ffer anglers a unique experience that ca n’t

be foun d on the nume rous oth er public waters.
EA-108 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Alternative C. 

Enhanced Management

(Proposed Action)

(Refuge) cont’d.

Currently, only one or two special events are offered each year, usually National

Wildlife Refuge Week and the Christmas Bird Count. Presenting additional

programs throughout the year will help to bring visitors to the Refuge and

foster a greater appre ciation for the resources Refug es have to offer, especially

for public use and education. Ideally, four special events would be hosted each

year under this alterna tive.

Although the Refuge is within 30 miles of six schools, few educators take advantage of

the resources the Refuge has to offer. Oftentimes, teachers do not feel they know

enough to lead an educational program without staff assistance and, furtherm ore, staff

are often not available to lead these programs. Educational programs that may be used

with or without staff assistance would be developed and implemented to encourage

more teachers to use the Refuge for science and environmental based curricula. The

development of an outdoor classroom would be explored to draw in more educators,

students, and volunteers. Such a facility could be used all year-round, with programs

developed for each of the seasons.

Half of the Headquarters building is used for office space, the other half for visitor use

and interpretation. Even with movable exhibits, this space begins to feel quite crowded

with only 20 to 30 people. This severely limits the ability to present programs, or host

open houses or meetings where more than 30 are expected. Staff generally make use of

facilities off-refuge for events that draw larger crowds, but this doesn’t work when

staff would like to use the Refuge for part of the program or allow visitors to explore

the Refuge after the program. The headquarters building would be expanded to give

staff much more flexibility when developing or hosting presentations, meetings,

interpretive programs, and other such events.

Many visitors come to the Refuge hoping to get out of their cars and do some exploring.

Unfortunately, Waubay has only two short trails to offer visitors - the longest is 1⁄2 mile.

Although these trails offer variety, nice scenery and good birding opportunities,

neither is long enough for those who would like to spend more than a half-hour hiking.

Unde r this alternative, one or tw o additional longer trails w ould be developed. Po ssible

locations for longer trails include Headquarters Island to the west, West Woods (when

water levels recede) and/or a grassland trail on the east side of the Refuge. The

Headquarters Island site also offers the opportunity to develop a short boardwalk and

viewing/photo graphy blind ne ar a wetland w ith won derful w ildlife view ing potential.

Any of these trails would give visitors enhanced opportunities to explore and learn

about Refuge habitats and wildlife.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 EA-109

Alternative C. 

Enhanced Management

(Proposed Action)

(Refuge) cont’d.

Another potential trail site would be considered in the long-term future. Day

County 3A was a north-south county road which cut across the western edge of

the Refuge. Currently, this road is completely inundated within Refuge

boundaries. When water levels recede - which may take 10 to 15 years - Refuge

staff would con sult with Day C ounty o fficials to co nsider not reconstructing this

gravel road, bu t using it as a biking o r minim al use au to tour route. Th is would

help to retain the remote and wild nature of the Refuge and could increase

tourism by offering unique opportunities for wildlife observation and wildlife

photography.

In order to achieve many of the goals, more people are needed. Therefore, an active

volunteer program would be developed to help accomplish some of the goals without

the added burden and tax dollars needed to hire staff. Getting local communities and

people involved in Refuge go als would give th em a sense of owne rship. Th is would help

the Refuge as the local community would care more about the Refuge and the

environmen t and how it is protected a nd promoted. Loca l comm unities w ould benefit

by drawing in more tourism and preserving the quality of life. Developing a Friends’

Group would give the Refuge an outside voice and additional ways of generating

dollars fo r projects, programs, and improvements. Again, the local e conom y wou ld

benefit by an increase in tou rism and the preservation of a healthy environ ment.

Visitors who enjoy their experience will spend more time and may return with others

in tow. Many opportunities are missed to promote the Refuge because of a lack of

dollars or staff. An active volunteer program and a Friends Group can help to recoup

these m issed op portunities and tu rn them into achie veme nts.
EA-110 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Alternative C. 

Enhanced Management

(Proposed Action)

(District)

Waubay Wetland Management District

Protection, restoration, and management of vital habitats would continue, but by

enlisting the support of private landowners through easements, incentives and

other private lands based programs. Management of fee-title lands would be

more aggressive w ith stated objectives and plans for specific tracts, with

monitoring used to follow progress and adapt management if needed.

Restoration, creation, and sound management of wetlands with water control

structures would also occur under this alternative. The uniqueness of native woodlands

would be explored and these habitats protected where necessary. The knowledge base

of wildlife populations would improve as the quality and quantity of inventories is

increased. Recreational activities would continue with an increase in educational

programs offered for WMD schools, and increased interpretive opportunities for

visitors to WPAs.

Habitat

Fee-title grasslands make up less than 1 percent of total land area in the WMD. The

only way to make an impact at the landscape level within the WMD is to enlist the

support and interests of private landowners. Two efforts to protect grassland habitat

would occur under this alternative. The first would be to continue the current

grassland easement program, purchasing easements only from willing sellers and using

the WBPD map to target areas important for waterfowl production. The other

concurrent strategy would target tallgrass prairie remnants and would require

alternative funding sources and rating criteria. This would help to protect the

remaining 1 percent of original tallgrass prairie that remains.

Fee-title purchases would be limited to protecting high quality tracts or tallgrass

prairie remnants in need of special protection. Acquisition would be limited to tract

sizes of at least 160 acres to ease management and protect nesting birds from the

negativ e edge effects of smaller parcels. Smaller parcels may be purchase d if

surrounding lan d uses (e .g., grassla nd easemen ts or CR P) prov ide a larg er overall

protected grassland landscape. Development of a “Prairie Coteau Preserve” would be

considered for protecting and increasing awareness of the importa nce of this habitat,

and for providing environmental education and research opportunities and expanding

tourism for this economically depressed area.

Conversion a nd resto ration of croplan ds and poor qu ality tam e grasslands on fee-title

and privately owned lands would help to build co nnections and larger tracts of quality

habitat. Incentives must be found to induce landow ners to make these changes and to

make it profitable for them in the long run. Management plans and monitoring would be

conducted to keep track of vegetative and wildlife responses and to reduce problems

before they get out of hand.

To enhance grassland condition, we would promote the use of grazing systems on

private lands which not only improve pastures, but can increase weight gain of cattle,

providing a natural incentive for landow ners. We would also promote the use of late

maturing legumes as an alternative to alfalfa to help improve nesting success of

grassland birds and possibly reduce landowner workloads during busy spring seasons.

Eliminating or controlling nonnative plants, especially with biological control methods,

can improve the ecological diversity of habitats and red uce the use of potentially

harmful chemicals in the environment. Bio-control methods can also reduce landowner

costs and time spent spraying. We will continue to provide Apthona spp. (flea beetle) to

private landowners and other State, local and Tribal agencies for biological control of

leafy spurge and spearhead efforts to develop biological controls for Canada thistle and

other nuisance weed s.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 EA-111

Alternative C. 

Enhanced Management

(Proposed Action)

(District) cont’d.

There are 199 WP A units in the W aubay WM D. Many of th ese units are sm all

and relatively unmanageable, i.e. are all water or inaccessible. Some sites have

recently become unmanageable due to high water levels. In an average year and

with current dollars and staff, 10 to 15 percent of uplands are managed in some

form. A priority management list would be developed, better enabling managers

to direct their time and energies to the best tracts, thereby improving or

maintaining what will generally be larger tracts capable of sustaining greater

diversity and wildlife popu lations. E ven tho ugh this a lternative and the CCP should

strive to manage all lands under fee-title that can be managed, this is unrealistic and

impractical. By developing this priority listing, as more dollars or staff are added more

WPAs can be managed. Ranking criteria and the Priority Management List can be

seen in Appendix H.

After dete rmining w here best to direct management efforts using the Priority

Management List, the next step would be to develop Habitat Management Plans for

each WPA. As each WPA varies in habitat, size, landscape location, developments, and

management tools that can be used, developing individual site plans will help current

and future managers know w hat the site has for resources, problems, cooperators, past

mana geme nt, and w hat wo rked and what did not. This is extreme ly valuable

information that is currently held, for the most part, in the minds of current managers.

This alternative would compel managers and biologists to document their efforts for

the health of the land and for future generations.

Grasslands would also be enhanced by combining management units to develop larger

blocks of habitat. This would involve divesting or exchanging lands to maximize

management efficiency, help to restore a more natural ecosystem, and reduce edge

effects which can be detrimental to nesting waterfowl and other migratory birds.

Maintenance of grasslands at optimum condition can only be attained through regular

monitoring. Without monitoring there is no way to track progress to, or from,

management objectives. Efficient, effective monitoring methods would be developed

under this alternative to provide a biological basis for making and improving

management decisions.

Developing a useful mapping system and combining these strategies of protection,

restoration, and maintenance will help to reconstruct just a small portion of the once

vast gra sslands that covered the Grea t Plains and provided habitat for innum erable

species of mammals, birds, insects, plants, and other wildlife. Providing larger tracts of

grass and connecting these areas with corridors will help to restore a balance, lost since

European settlem ent.

Wetland s are often considered swamps or nuisances and m uch effort has gone into

draining them to provide m ore land for farming or developm ent. In the past,

government programs have ev en assisted in the demise of these valuable habitats.

Wetlands can be some of the most productive ecosystems, providing food, cover,

breeding, and resting a reas for a variety of wild life as well as providing flood control,

filtration, water recharge, recreational opportunities, and food for humans. The

ecological, economic and social benefits associated with wetlands are only now

beginning to be appreciated. However, over 40 percent of South Dakota’s wetlands

have already been drained or filled since settlement, most in the last 40 years.

Drainage occurs to this day, but programs to restore or create wetlands are gaining

interest.
EA-112 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Alternative C. 

Enhanced Management

(Proposed Action)

(District) cont’d.

The majority of wetlands in northeastern South Dakota occur on private lands.

In order to protect and perpetuate this resource, landowners must have

incentives to do so. Purchasing wetland easem ents from willing landow ners puts

a dollar value on wetlands and allows the Service to protect wetlands in a cost

effective manner. This alternative continues the wetland easement program at

current levels, using the WBPD m ap and Small Wetlands Acquisition Program

criteria to rate sites to protect wetla nds biolo gically important to waterfow l.

Fee-title purchases to protect wetlands would be limited to unique areas or sites that

need special protection. They would also be limited to roundouts to existing WPAs or

would have to be at least 160 acres in size and include or be near a variety of wetland

types and sizes (a wetland complex). Smaller parcels are harder to manage and do not

provide enough habitat to protect nesting birds from brood parasitism or predation

(Johnson and Temple 1990). Waterfowl also need a variety of sizes and types of

wetlands through out their lives to fulfill critical needs (Baldassarre and Bolen 199 4).

Partnersh ips would also be explored for protecting unique wetland complexe s and to

protect important watersheds.

Restora tion of wetlands wou ld be an important part of this alternative. The private

lands program would be instrumental in accomplishing this, as well as w orking with

other agencies, Conservation Districts and private organiza tions. W etlands on fee-title

lands would be restored as soon as they are discovered. Easement wetlands will be

restored as part of the purchase agreement.

Created wetlands can provide habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife while enhancing

pastures for private landowners. Through the PFW program, small wetlands would be

created on private lands. Since landowners can use these ponds for livestock watering,

grass is more likely to rem ain the predominant land cover, w hich is more beneficial to

wildlife than are crop fields.

Developing site plans for managed wetlands will enhance their productivity. A total of

16 wetlands with water control structures exist throughout the WMD. Since these

water control structures are so w idely spaced and in varying landscapes with a va riety

of wetland types and sizes, it would be difficult to provide habitat with these wetlands

that could not be found somew here else in the landscap e. The m anage ment g oal wo uld

be to make these wetlands more productive by cycling them through different wetland

stages and monitoring vegetative and invertebrate response. Increasing the

productivity of these wetlands should increase wildlife use.

A computerized mapping system, the single most useful tool for monitoring and

maintaining wetland resources, would be developed. It would also help to identify sites

for acquisition or easements or to facilitate information transfer to other agencies and

individua ls.

Native woodlands are a natural part of the landscape, occurring in the draws on the

east slopes of the Coteau des Prairie and also at the edges of larger lakes and lake

systems. Although these habitats make up a very small part of the Great Plains,

wooded draws can attract a large number of bird species compared to other plains

habitats (Dobkin 1992). Casual observations have found five species of warblers during

spring m igration as well as reports of turk ey vultures and pileated wood peckers in

wooded coulees in Roberts County. Further research would probably find many more

species using these important woodland habitats. This alternative would research the

importance of these woodlands to migratory and breeding birds. An inventory and

mapp ing of the se woodlands would also he lp to docu ment lo sses or changes to this

habitat.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 EA-113

Alternative C. 

Enhanced Management

(Proposed Action)

(District) cont’d.

Wildlife

Althou gh much is known ab out the w ildlife species that occur in the WM D, an all

out effort has not been made to document the presence and location of

threatened and endangered species that may occur here. Under this alternative,

a monitoring plan would be developed to locate and track specific locations used

by endangered and threatened species, specifically the bald eagle, piping plover,

whooping crane, eskimo curlew, interior least tern, American burying beetle,

Topeka shiner, and western prairie fringed orchid. Developing and implementing

inventory and monitoring plans for the above listed species is necessary to protect and

promote these species as well as to reduce impacts and conflicts with normal

management practices.

Since wildlife populations are dynamic and can be affected by factors such as weather,

disease, pollution or other factors outside of human control, specific wildlife objectives

have not been developed. It is especially impossible to develop wildlife goals for a

wetland management district with hundreds of disjunct pieces of land spread

throughout a w ide rang e of hab itats, land u se, and e ven physiogra phic regions. This

alternative would seek to increase the overall knowledge of wildlife species present so

that intelligent decisions can be made regarding habitat needs and the development of

models or the use of indicator species as a method of measuring the success of

management goals and practices.

Cultural Resources

Although a recent study has been compiled for archaeological resources found in and

around the Refuge, a similar study has not been done for the WMD. What sites are

known in the WMD are usually discovered when water development or other ground

breaking projects require a survey to comply with ARPA. This is probably the best

way to find and survey for these culturally important sites considering the extent of

the WMD and the impossibility of doing any other wide-ranging type study.

This alternative would recognize the importance of conducting more thorough studies

at two known archaeological resource sites. Sites that have been identified would be

inventoried, protected and monitored to ensure degradation by natural or other means

does not occur. This alternative also presents an educational opportunity to interpret

one of these sites - possibly in conjunction with the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe.

Without developing these messages, this history may be lost which would be a great

loss to current an d future inhabitants of the Northern Great Plain s.

Public Use

Hunting opportunities w ould continue to be provided on W PAs in accordance with

State regulations, seasons, and recommendations for population goals (within Federal

guidelines for migratory birds). The Service would continue to provide a somewhat

“primitive” hunt by not providing any additional vehicle tr ails or other “improvements”

on WP As. Law enforcem ent assistance would be provided to ensure co mpliance w ith

State and Federal regulations.

As WPAs, these lands are open to hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and other

compatible uses.

Few educational and interpretive programs are currently offered in the WMD unless a

specific request is made and staff is available. This alternative would improve this by

actively promoting opportunities for environmental education, interpretation and other

outdoor re creation. A minimum of 15 schoo ls would be visited each year (out of 43) with

an appropriate educational program presented. Additional programs would be

developed for use on WPA s that are near schools that can be used with or w ithout staff

present. Interpretive kiosks would be developed on at least two WPAs located along

well traveled highways to encourage travelers to stop and explore these little known

pieces of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
EA-114 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A.

Current Management

(Refuge)

V. Environmental Consequences

Alternative A. Current Management (No Action)

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

Natural Resource Consequences

This alternative maintains the current grassland management strategies on 

the Refuge. Although much effort is put into m aintaining this resource, with

a staff stretched thin trying also to maintain 40,000 acres of WPAs, Refuge grasslands

may slowly degene rate, mostly from the influx of no nnative grasses and brush. This in

turn would have a ne gative effect on grassland bird species and native prairie insects

such as the Dakota skipper butterfly which currently exists on the Refuge.

Without putting extra effort into restoring native woodlands, bird species may also

suffer over the long-term from the negative impacts of brown-headed cowbird breeding

activity and othe r negative edge effects .

This alternative would maintain current levels of public use which would have no

additional impacts on natural resources in the Refuge.

Cultural Resource Consequences

Under this alternative, protection and interpretation of cultural resource sites on the

Refuge would stay the same. Current known sites would be protected as part of the

Refuge, but no effort w ould be made to reduce degradation over time from small

animals, erosion, or other causes. There would be no effect on visitors as the current

level of interpretation would remain the same.

Public Use Consequences

This alternative maintains the existing public uses on the Refuge and will have the

least impact. It is believed that the current available use satisfies the demand for the

most part, especially for deer hunting and wildlife observation. With increased fishing

opportunities on Waubay Lake, some visitors have expressed an interest in summer

and lakeshore fishing on the Refuge. This alternative would not address this issue and

would result in a negative impact for increased fishing op portunities.

There would be no change in the education and interpretation programs offered.

Visitors would notice no difference in the level of these services offered and would not

be impacted.

Socio-Economic Consequences

Since all uses are mainta ined at cu rrent lev els, there should b e no socio-economic

impacts under this alternative. This alternative does not increase infrastructure

investment in the Refuge, nor does it increase Refuge staffing levels. The lack of these

increases does not take anything away from the local economy, but at the same time,

they do not add any extra opportunities.

By maintaining public use at existing levels, the current tourism contribution to the

local eco nomy from th e Refuge should rem ain the sa me.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 EA-115

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A.

Current Management

(District)

Waubay Wetland Management District

Natural Resource Consequences

This alternative, by maintaining current grassland management strategies,

should maintain most natural resources, but in the long-term may

eventually result in a slow degradation of native prairie. A mix of

management strategies, including rest, will provide habitat for many

species including waterfowl and other migratory birds. However, by not

pro-actively managing native prairie sites, the slow and inevitable encroachment of

brush, tame grasses, and other exotics may eventually out-compete native species.

These changes could be offset somewhat by continuing to protect and maintain habitat

on private lands through easements and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program.

No effort would go into determining the importance of, or protecting, native 

woodlands. It is unknown what impacts are currently occurring on native woodlands.

Continuing to protect and maintain wetlands and uplands will ensure healthy

ecosystems w hich in turn provide clean air and w ater and maintain the quality of life

for inhabitants.

Cultural Resource Consequences

This alternative maintains the current information base and minimum interpretation of

prehistoric and historic resources. The Refuge has not had funds to conduct cultural

surveys on selected WPAs. Cultural resources will be protected if they are on WPAs,

but visitors will be unaware of this resource.

Public Use Consequences

This alternative mainta ins the ex isting pub lic uses in th e WM D. Pub lic use of W PAs is

heaviest in fall during deer, waterfowl, and pheasant hunting seasons. Some trapping

occurs during winter months, but at relatively low numbers. It is believed that the

current availability of WPAs satisfies the demand and, therefore, will have no adverse

effect on public use.

This alternative will have no impact on visitors or lo cal inhab itants as n o change will

occur in the existing use of W PAs use d for education or interpre tation and few visits

are made to a rea schools for e ducational prog rams.

Socio-Economic Consequences

This alternative maintains the current management regime and, therefore, the current

amount of economic use of WPAs would be maintained. Supplies necessary for

management of public lands, e.g. gas, seed, fence posts, etc. will continue to be bought

from the local area, maintaining current sources of revenue for area businesses.

There would be no change from the easement program. It would continue at current

levels which provides additional sources of income for landowners while protecting

habitat.

The private lands program would also continue at current levels under this alternative.

There would be no change in economic effect as the current program levels of funding

and staffing would remain the same. Providing public lands open to hunting, fishing and

trapping will continue to offer economic benefits through license sales, hotel and

restaurant visits and other sales associated with hunting or fishing. These benefits

would remain at current levels with this alterna tive as no further improveme nts would

be ma de or additional public lands purchased.

Protecting habitat and providing healthy ecosystems have additional so cio-economic

benefits such as providing clean water and air, reducing soil erosion, increasing flood

control and increasing the quality of life. These tangible benefits, as well as more

intangible ones, will remain the same under this alternative.
EA-116 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Environmental Consequences

Alternative B.

Tallgrass Prairie Alternative

(Refuge/District)

Alternative B. Tallgrass Prairie Alternative

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

Natural Resource Consequences

The tallgrass prairie alternative would focus staff time and dollars in the

Minnesota-Red River Lowlands. As a result, restoration and enhancement

efforts w ould suffer on the Refuge and the quality of grassland s would

slowly degrade from encroaching brush and nonnative grasses. Wildlife

diversity would also diminish over time under these conditions. Restoration of native

woodlands would also not occur under this alternative. This would affect migratory bird

species which may suffer over the long-term from the negative impacts of brownheade d cowbird breeding activity and other negative edge effects.

Cultural Resource Consequences

There would be no effect on cultural resources as this alternative would make no

changes to existing policy, sites or interpre tive displa ys.

Public Use Consequences

Public use on the Refuge would continue as it is currently. There would be no impact on

visitors as they would already know what to expect. This alternative would not allow

for increased hunting, fish ing, wildlife observ ation or environ menta l education uses .

Socio-Economic Consequences

This alternative will concentrate staff efforts away from the Refuge. Therefore, few

improvements will be made to Refuge lands, buildings, interpretive or educational

programs. New opportunities for improving visitation and tourism will not be explored.

This will have a negative effect on visitors and community members who will not

benefit from the increased spending that could occur with these improvements.

Waubay Wetland Management District

Natural Resource Consequences

This alternative would increase protection, restoration, management, and w ildlife

monitoring efforts in the Minnesota-Red River Lowlands in order to restore a part of

the vanishing tallgrass prairie ecosystem. This would improve habitat and natural

resour ces in the target area, but would have negative effects elsewhere in the WM D.

Land use in the Minnesota-Red River Lowlands is primarily cropland. By returning

much of these lands back to grasslands and restoring wetlands, wildlife populations

should increase dramatically in this region. Over the long-term, habitat in the rest of

the W MD will degr ade from a lack of ma nagem ent and wildlife use in this area will

probably become less diverse.

No effort would go into determining the importance of or protecting native woodlands.

It is unknown what impacts are currently occurring on native woodlands.

Overall air and water quality should increase, improving the quality of life for wildlife

and human inhabitants.

Cultural Resource Consequences

This alternative maintains the current information base and minimum interpretation of

prehistoric and historic resources. The Refuge has not had funds to conduct cultural

surveys on selected WPAs. Cultural resources will be protected if they are on WPAs,

but visitors will be unaware of this resource.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 EA-117

Environmental Consequences

Alternative B.

Tallgrass Prairie Alternative

(District) cont’d.

Public Use Consequences

Under this alternative, more fee-title lands will be bought, increasing the

availability of public lands for hunting and wildlife observation. Restoring

tracts of grasslands and wetla nds will also increase wildlife use, particularly

waterfowl, which would also provide more hunting opportunities.

Development of an education/visitor center to interpret and research the

tallgrass prairie would provide new opportunities for education and interpretation.

However, efforts here would be offset by fewer events and program s offered by staff

elsewhere in the WMD.

Socio-Economic Consequences

This alternative would increase the purchase of fee-title and easements in the target

area. This could have a negative effect on the tax base of the affected counties since

Congress has yet to fully appropriate funds for Refuge Revenue Sharing payments.

Although additional funding has been provided in the form of the Revenue Sharing

Trust Fund to make up the shortfall, there is still a negative impression of Federal land

purchases. However, these affects may be offset by an increase in tourism dollars

generated by more public lands available for hunting and wildlife observation. Air and

water quality would be improved, providing both tangible and intangible benefits and

improving the quality of life for residents.

Management of newly purchased lands would increase in the target area. Local

economies would benefit from the increase in grass seed purchases as well as gas,

pesticide s and other item s needed to restore and ma intain these lands .

The use of prescribed fire may cause concern for local residents over the possibility of

an esca ped w ildfire that burns o nto adja cent priv ate land. The R efuge fire prog ram w ill

continue to minimize the risk of escapes by adhering to Service policy which requires

that a prescribed burn plan be approved before any prescribed burning takes place.

The burn plan addresses the potential for escape and specifies the personnel and

equipme nt needed, weather requirem ents, contingency plans, and many other aspects

of the burn to ensure it stays within prescription. Additional personnel and equipment

necessary to conduct prescribed burns will benefit the com munity by being available to

assist local rural fire departments in the suppression of lightning and human caused

wildfires that occur in the local area.
EA-118 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Environmental Consequences

Alternative C.

Enhanced Management

(Proposed Action - Refuge)

Alternative C. Enhanced Management (Proposed Action) 

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

Natural Resource Consequences

This alternative would maximize efforts to manage and enhance habitats on

the Re fuge. H igher qu ality and more diverse habitats would result. This in

turn would attract more diverse and healthier wildlife populations -

restoring the natural ecosystem balance. Grassland, wetland, and native

woodland species would benefit. Restoring this balance would also reduce the need for

continual chemical and mechanical manipulations saving fuel, soil, and nonmarket

species.

Cultural Resource Consequences

This alternative would protect all identified cultural and historical resources found on

the R efuge . Dev elopin g inter pretiv e signs and programs would increase the p ublic’s

understanding and awareness of these resources and their need for protection.

Public Use Consequences

This alternative would increase hunting and fishing opportunities, particularly for

youths and people with disabilities. An improved trail system would be developed

encouraging longer stays and greater appreciation for wildlife and their habitats.

Developing more special events would also promote public participation and increase

visitation to the R efuge a nd surrounding area.

This alternative would also improve interpretation and environmental education

programs. Educators would have a number of programs to choose from, whether on or

off Refuge and led by themselves or with staff assistance. Both children and educators

would benefit from the se increased re source s.

Socio-Economic Consequences

Increased managemen t efforts will benefit local economies through an influx of dollars

for supplies, fuel and equipment. To address the needs of this alternative and the

increased work load, the Complex will have to hire more personnel. Salaries of

additional staff will also add to the local economy.

The use of prescribed fire may cause concern for local residents over the possibility of

an esca ped w ildfire that burns o nto adja cent priv ate land. The R efuge fire prog ram w ill

continue to minimize the risk of escapes by adhering to Service policy which requires

that a prescribed burn plan be approved before any prescribed burning takes place.

The burn plan addresses the potential for escape and specifies the personnel and

equipme nt needed, weather requirem ents, contingency plans, and many other aspects

of the burn to ensure it stays within prescription. Additional personnel and equipment

that is necessary to conduct prescribed burns will benefit the community by being

available to assist local rural fire departments in the suppression of lightning and

human caused wildfires that occur in the local area.

Increased public use on the Refuge will benefit local economies with increased

spending on lodging, food, fuel, and other needs of visitors.

Information gained from cultural and historical sites would be used for interpretation

and environmental education programs. Preserving the historical and cultural values of

this area will benefit residents and tourists by developing a greater awareness of the

history of this area and the people and cultures that lived here. Partnering with the

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe to tell part of this story would benefit tribal members

and residents by decreasing racial tension and cultural misunderstandings.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 EA-119

Environmental Consequences

Alternative C.

Enhanced Management

(Proposed Action - District)

Waubay Wetland Management District

Natural Resource Consequences

This alternative would increase m anagem ent and restoration of ha bitats

and monitoring in the WMD. This would result in improved grasslands,

wetlan ds, woodlands, and w ildlife popu lations. W ater and air qua lity would

also imp rove, pr oviding a greater quality of life for residen ts.

Improved habitats, especially grasslands, could help stem the tide of decreasing

migratory grassland bird species. Restoration of native grasslands will also help to

perpetuate this declining habitat. Increas ing efforts to reduce and contro l exotic

species will improve the overall quality and diversity of grasslands. Healthier

ecosys tems w ill require less chemical an d mechanical manipulations saving fu el, soil

and nonmarket species.

Enlisting the support of private landowners in improving and restoring grassland and

wetland habitats will make a bigger impact on the landscape than Federal protection

alone could acc omplish .

Cultural Resource Consequences

This alternative would identify, inventory and protect cultural resources on WPAs.

Studies would be initiated on two WPAs with known resources, and additional sites as

neede d. There wou ld also be an increased effort to inte rpret these resources , possibly

in conjunction with the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe. By educating others about the

significance of these resources we improve the chances that these resources will be

protected and valued now and in the future.

Public Use Consequences

This alternative will improve current public use in the WMD. Few if any additional

lands will be purchased under fee-title, maintaining current levels of public lands

available for hunting and wildlife observation. However, improving federally and

privately owned lands may provide greater and more diverse wildlife populations for

consumptive and non-consumptive uses.

A greater effort will also be spent on increasing and improving interpretation and

environmental education programs in the WMD. The result of these efforts will be a

wider and more appreciativ e audience of our natural resources and the S ervice’s role in

protecting and mainta ining these resources.
EA-120 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Environmental Consequences

Alternative C.

Enhanced Management

(Proposed Action - District) cont’d.

Socio-Economic Consequences

Aggressively protecting, restoring and managing habitats in the WMD

will provide numerous benefits for residents and visitors. Some of these

benefits would include reduced flooding impacts and soil erosion, improved

water and air quality, and increased recreational opportunities. Increased

use and appreciation of these resources will attract visitors and tourism

dollars as well as new residents.

Increased management efforts will also benefit local economies through an influx of

dollars for supplies, fuel and equipment. To address the needs of this alternative and

the increased work load, the Complex will have to hire more personnel. Salaries of

additional staff will add to the local economy.

The use of prescribed fire may cause concern for local residents over the possibility of

an esca ped w ildfire that burns o nto adja cent priv ate land. The R efuge fire prog ram w ill

continue to minimize the risk of escapes by adhering to Service policy which requires

that a prescribed burn plan be approved before any prescribed burning takes place.

The burn plan addresses the potential for escape and specifies the personnel and

equipme nt needed, weather requirem ents, contingency plans, and many other aspects

of the burn to ensure it stays within prescription. Additional personnel and equipment

that is necessary to conduct prescribed burns will benefit the community by being

available to assist local rural fire departments in the suppression of lightning and

human caused wildfires that occur in the local area.

Native Ame rican tribes have a unique perspective of the history and resources of th is

land. Partnering with the Sisseton-Wa hpeton Sioux T ribe to tell this story w ould

provide benefits to tribal members and other residents by ensuring this cultural history

is not lost. Sharing this history will lead to a greater understanding and appreciation of

other cultures and help to reduce racial inequalities. This would also provide a unique

opportunity for the Tribe, local communities, and the Ser vice to increase tourism in this

area.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 EA-121

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences:

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - Alternatives

Alternative A 

Current

Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Tallgras s Prairie

Alternative C

Enhanced

Management

(Proposed Action)

HABITAT: Grasslands

Protection N/A N/A N/A

Restoration 0 - ++

Enhancement - - ++

HAB ITAT : Wetlands

Protection N/A N/A N/A

Restoration N/A N/A N/A

Enhancement 0 0 ++

HAB ITAT : Native Woodlands - - ++

WILDLIFE

T&E species 0 0 ++

Other wildlife 0 - ++

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Protection 0 0 ++

Interpretation 0 0 ++

WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT

RECREATION

Hunting 0 0 +

Fishing 0 0 +

Other Uses** 0 - ++

Volunteers/Community involvement 0 + ++

KEY

++ strong positive effect

 + positive effect

 0 no effect

 - negative effect

-- strong negative effect

N/A not app licable

**wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation
EA-122 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Waubay Wetland Management District

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - Alternatives

Alternative A 

Current

Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Tallgras s Prairie

Alternative C

Enhanced

Management

(Proposed Action)

HABITAT: Grasslands

Protection 0 ++/--* +

Restoration - ++/--* ++

Enhancement - ++/--* ++

HABITAT: Wetlands

Protection 0 ++/--* +

Restoration 0 0 +

Enhancement 0 -- +

HABITAT: Native Woodlands - - ++

WILDLIFE

T&E species 0 0 ++

Other wildlife 0 ++ ++

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Protection - - ++

Interpretation - - ++

WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT

RECREATION

Hunting 0 + +

Fishing 0 0 +

Other Uses** 0 + ++

Volunteers/Community involvement 0 + ++

KEY

++ strong positive effect

 + positive effect

 0 no effect

 - negative effect

-- strong negative effect

N/A not app licable

* the effect will be positive in the target area, but negative elsewhere

**wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 EA-123

VI. Consultation and Coordination with Others

The planning team consisted of Waubay Complex staff and the Regional Office

Planning Branch. A review team was made up of a variety of people including

biologists and others from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Regional Office,

nongovernmental organizations and interested individuals. Special meetings were

held with the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe and South Dakota Game, Fish and

Parks to encourage their participation and to address issues of concern to them.

Public input was gathered on issues in the Complex at 29 public meetings, through

leaflets and media news releases. People were given the opportunity to comment by

writing, e-mailing or by speaking to Refuge staff either directly or by telephone.

Feedback was generally supportive of the majority of existing Complex management

practices and programs. Socio-economic concerns in the area include wetland

drainage and flooding, low farm prices and loss of tax base, wildlife depredation,

weed control and public hunting/fishing access. For further discussion of issues

raised, refer to “Planning Issues” In Chapter II.

Internal copies of this document were made available to Service staff for comment

and review. This Environmental Assessment (EA) is the first opportunity that the

Service, other organizations and the general public will have to review the entire

planning effort. This Draft Plan, including the EA, will be made available to the

public by June 2002. A 30-day comm ent period will be provide d. A final Plan is

expected to be released by September 2002.

A ma iling list of all pe rsons that commente d or req uested notification is available in

Appendix G.
124 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Appendix A. Wildlife Species

of Waubay Complex

BIRDS

This list is based on the reference The Birds of South

Dakota (South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union 1991) along

with staff observations.

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

Clark’s Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii

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 Ardea alba

Snowy Egret Egretta thula

Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis

Green Heron Butorides virescens

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax

Ibises and Spoonbills

*White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi

New World Vultures

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura

Swans, Geese, and Ducks

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens

Ross’ Goose Chen rossii

Canada Goose Branta canadensis

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus

Wood Duck Aix sponsa

Gadwall Anas strepera

American Wigeon Anas americana

American Black Duck Anas rubripes

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera

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

Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata

White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca

Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus

Common Merganser Mergus merganser

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis

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

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus

American Coot Fulica americana

Cranes

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis

Whooping Crane Grus americana

Plovers

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola

American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus

Stilts and Avocets

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana

Sandpipers and Phalaropes

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia

*Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda

*Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus

Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 125

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres

Sanderling Calidris alba

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla

White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis

Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos

Dunlin Calidris alpina

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus

Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus

Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago

American Woodcock Scolopax minor

Wilson’s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus

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

Common Tern Sterna hirundo

Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri

*Black Tern Chlidonias niger

Pigeons and Doves

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura

Passenger Pigeon EXTINCT Ectopistes migratorius

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

*Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia

Long-eared Owl Asio otus

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus

Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus

Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus

Nightjars

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus

Swifts

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica

Hummingbirds

Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris

Kingfishers

Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon

Woodpeckers

*Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus

Tyrant Flycatchers

*Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi

Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris

Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus

Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Tyrannus forficatus

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 hudsonia

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

Larks

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris

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 atricapilla

Nuthatches

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis

Creepers

Brown Creeper Certhia americana

Wrens

House Wren Troglodytes aedon

*Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris

Kinglets

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula
126 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

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

Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum

Starlings

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris

Wagtails and Pipits

American (Water) Pipit Anthus rubescens

Waxwings

Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum

Wood Warblers

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla

Northern Parula Parula americana

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica

Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia

Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata

Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca

Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum

Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea

Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata

Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis

Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas

Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens

Tanagers

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea

Sparrows and Towhees

Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus

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

Le Conte’s Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii

Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni

Fox Sparrow Passerelia iliaca

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia

Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis

Harris’ Sparrow Zonotrichia querula

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis

Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus

*Chestnut-collared Longspur Calcarius ornatus

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis

Cardinals, Grosbeaks, and Allies

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus

Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea

*Dickcissel Spiza americana

Blackbirds and Orioles

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus

Western Meadowlark Surnella neglecta

Yellow-headed Blackbird

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus

Brewer’s Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius

Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula

Finches

Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra

White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera

Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea

Hoary Redpoll Carduelis hornemanni

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus

Old World Sparrows

House Sparrow Introduced Passer domesticus

*Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the

United States: The 1995 List
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 127

MAMM ALS

This list is based on the reference Wild Mammals of South

Dakota (Higgins et al. 2000) along with staff observations.

Opossums

Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana

Insectivores

Shrews

Cinereus or Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus

Northern Short-tailed Shrew Blarina brevicauda

Arctic Shrew Sorex arcticus

Hayden’s Shrew Sorex haydeni

Water Shrew Sorex palustris

Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi

Bats

Vespertilionid Bats

Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus 

Northern Myotis Myotis septentrionalis 

Eastern Red Bat Lasiurus borealis

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus

Lagomorphs

Hares and Rabbits

Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus

White-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus townsendii

Rodents

Squirrels

Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus

Woodchuck Marmota monax

Franklin’s Ground Squirrel Spermophilus franklinii

Richardson’s Ground Squirrel

Spermophilus richardsonii

Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel

Spermophilus tridecemlineatus 

Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis 

Eastern Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger 

Pocket Gophers

Northern Pocket Gopher Thomomys talpoides 

Plains Pocket Gopher Geomys bursarius

Heteromyids

Plains Pocket Mouse Perognathus flavescens 

Beavers

American Beaver Castor canadensis

Mice, Rats, and Voles

Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis

White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus 

Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

Northern Grasshopper Mouse Onychomys leucogaster 

Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus

House Mouse Mus musculus

Southern Red-backed Vole Clethrionomys gapperi

Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster

Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus

Common Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Jumping Mice

Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius

Western Jumping Mouse Zapus princeps

New World Porcupines

Common Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum

Carnivores

Canids

Coyote Canis latrans

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes 

Common Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Procyonids

Common Raccoon Procyon lotor

Mustelids

Ermine Mustela erminea

Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata

Least Weasel Mustela nivalis

American Mink Mustela vison

American Badger Taxidea taxus

Northern River Otter Lutra canadensis

Mephitids

Eastern Spotted Skunk Spilogale putorius 

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis

Cats

Feral Cat Felis catus

Bobcat Felis rufus

Cervids

Wapiti or Elk Cervus elaphus

Mule or Black-tailed Deer Odocoileus hemionus

White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus

Moose Alces alces

Pronghorn

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana

Bovids

American Bison Bos bison

Domestic cattle Bos taurus
128 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES

This list is based on the reference A Field Guide to South

Dakota Amphibians (Fischer et al. 1999) and A Field Guide

to Reptiles and Amphibians (Conant and Collins 1991),

along with staff observations.

Salamanders

Tiger Salamander Ambistoma tigrinum

Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus

Frogs and Toads

Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata

Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens

Wood Frog Rana sylvatica

Eastern Grey Treefrog Hyla versicolor

Woodhouse’s Toad Bufo woodhousei

American Toad Bufo americanus

Canadian Toad Bufo hemiophrys

Great Plains Toad Bufo cognatus

Turtles

Western Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta bellii

Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina

Spiny Soft Shelled Turtle Trionyx spiniferus

Snakes

Eastern Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis

Plains Garter Snake Thamnophis radix

Smooth Green Snake Opheodrys vernalis

Northern Redbelly Snake Storeria occipitomaculata

Western Hognose Snake Heterodon nasicus

Bullsnake Pituophis melanoleucus

Northern Prairie skink Eumeces septentrionalis

FISH

This list is based on the reference Guide to the Common

Fishes of South Dakota (Neumann and Willis 1994) along

with staff observations.

American Eel Anguilla rostrata

Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas

Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis

Stonecat Noturus flavus

Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus

Common Carp Cyprinus carpio

White Sucker Catostomus commersoni

Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus

River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio

Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum

Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens

Central Mudminnow Umbra limi

Banded Killifish Fundulus diaphanus

Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas

Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides

Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus

Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas

Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus

Northern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus eos

Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans

Trout-perch Percopsis omiscomaycus

Topeka Shiner Notropis topeka

Logperch Percina caprodes

Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum

White Bass Morone chrysops

Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris

Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides

Bluegill Lepornis macrochirus

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus

Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus

Orange-spotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis

Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus

White Crappie Pomoxis annularis

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum

Saugeye Stizostedion spp.

Northern Pike Esox lucius

Muskellunge Esox masquinongy
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 129

Appendix B. References

Amaral, M., A. Kozol, and T. French. 1997. Conservation

status and reintroduction of the endangered American

burying beetle. Northeastern Naturalist 4(3):121-132.

Anderson, R.S. 1982. On the decreasing abundance of

Nicrophorus americanus Olivier (Coleoptera:

Silphidae) in eastern North America. Coleopterists

Bulletin, 36:362-365.

Anderson, M., P. Bourgeron, M.T. Bryer, R. Crawford, L.

Engelking, D. Faber-Langendoen, M. Gallyoun, K.

Goodin, D.H. Grossman, S. Landaal, K. Metzler, K.D.

Patterson, M. Pyne, M. Reid, L. Sneddon, and A.S.

Weakley. 1998. International classification of ecological

communities: terrestrial vegetation of the United

States. Volume II. The National Vegetation

Classification System: list of types. The Nature

Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

Apfelbaum, S. I., and K.A. Chapman. 1996. Ecological

restoration: A practical approach In : M.S. Boyce and

A. W. Haney ( eds .) Ecosystem Management:

Applications for Sustainable Forest and Wildlife

Resources. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Backlund, D., and G. Marrone. 1995. Surveys for the

endangered American burying beetle (Nicrophorus

americanus) in Gregory, Tripp and Todd counties,

South Dakota, August, 1995. South Dakota Game, Fish

and Parks report.

Baldassarre, G.A., and E.G. Bolen. 1994. Waterfowl Ecology

and Management. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY.

609pp.

Barker, W.T., K.K. Sedivec, T.A. Messmer, K.F. Higgins,

and D.R. Hertel. 1990. Effects of specialized grazing

systems on waterfowl production in southcentral North

Dakota. Trans. North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resourc. Conf.

55:462-474.

Barngrover, L. 1974. W.E. Kirch Wildlife Management Area

resource inventory and long range plan summary.

Nevada Department of Fish and Game. 12pp.

Batt, B.D.J., M.G. Anderson, C. D. Anderson, and F. D.

Caswill. 1989. The Use of Prairie Potholes by North

American Ducks. Pages 204-227 in A. Vandervalk, ed.

Northern Prairie Wetlands. Iowa State Univ. Press,

Ames. IA.

Beard, E.R. 1953. The importance of beaver in waterfowl

management at the Seney National Wildlife Refuge.

Journal of Wildlife Management 17:398-436.

Bell, D.V., and L.W. Austin. 1985. The game fishing season

and its effects on overwintering wildfowl. Biological

Conservation 17: 183-206

Berkey, G., D. Johnson, R. Crawford, D. Lambeth, S.

Galipeau, and R. Kreil. 1993. A review of wildlife

management practices in North Dakota: Effects on

nongame bird populations and habitats. Unpublished

report submitted to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,

Region 6, Denver, CO. 51pp.

Bouffard, S.H. 1982. Wildlife values versus human

recreation: Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and

Natural Resources Conference 47:553-558.

Bradley, L.E.,and W. Ranney. 1985. Archaeological survey

and testing of a proposed construction site at Waubay

Wildlife Refuge, Waubay, South Dakota. Dakota

Interactive Services Inc., Vermillion, South Dakota.

prepared for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Braun, C.E., K.W. Harmon, J.A. Jackson, and C.D.

Littlefield. 1978. Management of National Wildlife

Refuges in the United States: its impacts on birds.

Wilson Bulletin 90:309-321.

Brittingham, M.C., and S.A. Temple. 1983. Have Cowbirds

caused forest songbirds to decline? Bioscience 33: 31-35.

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.

Coggins, et al 1987

Conant, R., and J.T. Collins. 1991. Field Guide to Reptiles

and Amphibians- Eastern and Central North America.

Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 450 pp.

Cooke, A.S. 1987. Disturbance by anglers of birds at

Grafham Water. ITE Symposium 19:15-22.

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. Department of the

Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79/31.

Washington, D.C. 131 pp.

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780s

to 1980s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish &

Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 13 pp.

Dobkin, D.S. 1992. Neotropical Migrant Land birds in the

Northern Rockies and Great Plains. USDA Forest

Service Northern Region. Publication No. R1-93-34.

Missoula, MT.

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

& Wildlife Service. Spec. Sci. Rep.- Wildl. 234. 21 pp.

Duebbert, H.F., and H.A. Kantrud. 1974. Upland duck

nesting related to land use and predator reduction. J.

Wildl. Manage. 38:257-265.
130 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Edwards, R., and D. Bell. 1985. Fishing in troubled waters.

New Science 1446, 7 March: 19-21.

Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The

Birder’s Handbook: A Field Guide to the Natural

History of North American Birds. Simon and Schuster,

Inc., New York, 785 pp.

Evenson, D.E. 1974. Migratory waterfowl use of Houghton

Lake, Michigan. M.S. thesis, University of Michigan,

Ann Arbor. 105 pp.

Faanes, C.A. 1987. Breeding birds and vegetation structure

in western North Dakota wooded draws. Prairie Nat.

19: 209-220

Fischer, T.D., D.C. Backlund, K.F. Higgins, and D.E.

Naugle. 1999. Field guide to South Dakota amphibians.

SDAES Bulletin 733. South Dakota State Univ.,

Brookings. 52 pp

.Frayer, W.E., T.J. Monahan, D.C. Bowden and F.A.

Graybill. 1983. Status and trends of wetlands and

deepwater habitats in the conterminous United States,

1950s to 1970s. Dep. Forest and Wood Sciences,

Colorado State Univ. Ft. Collins, CO. 31 pp. 

Gates, J.E., and L.W. Gysel. 1978. Avian nest dispersion and

fledging success in field-forest ecotones. Ecology 59:

871-883.

Heitmeyer, M.E. 1985. Wintering strategies of female

mallards related to dynamics of lowland hardwood

wetlands in the upper Mississippi Delta. PH.D. thesis,

University of Missouri, Colombia. 376pp.

Herkert, J.R. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on

Midwestern grassland bird communities. Ecological

Applications 4:461-471.

Hertel, D. R. 1987. Effects of grazing systems on habitats

used by upland nesting waterfowl in south central

North Dakota. North Dakota State University of

Agriculture and Applied Science. 94pp.

Higgins, K.F., E.D. Stukel, J.M. Goulet, and D. C. Backlund.

2000. Wild Mammals of South Dakota. SD Game, Fish

and Parks. 278 pp.

Higgins, K.F., V.J. Smith, J.A. Jenks, J.J. Higgins, and G.A.

Wolbrink. 2001. A provisional inventory of relic

tallgrass tracts remaining in eastern South Dakota.

South Dakota Coop. Fish and Wildl. Res. Unit.

Hodorff, R.A., C.H. Sieg, and R.L. Linder. 1988. Wildlife

Response to stand structure of deciduous woodlands.

Journal of Wildlife Management. 52:667-673.

Hopkins, R.B., J.F. Cassel, and A.J. Bjugstad. 1986.

Relationships between breeding birds and vegetation

in four woodland types of the Little Missouri National

Grasslands. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. RM-270.

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, Univ. of No.

Dakota, Grand Forks.

Jahn, L.R., and R.A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and Coot ecology and

management in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Conservation

Dept. Technical Bulletin 33, Madison, WI. 164 pp.

Johnson, J.R., and G.E. Larson. 1999. Grassland Plants of

South Dakota and the Northern Great Plains. SDSU,

College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences.

Brookings, SD. 288 pp.

Johnson, R.E. 1964. Fish and fowl. Pages 453-458 in J.P.

Linduska, ed. Waterfowl tomorrow. U.S. Department of

Interior, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. U.S. Government

Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Johnson, R.G., and S.A. Temple. 1990. Nest predation and

brood parasitism of tallgrass prairie birds. Journal of

Wildlife Management. 54:106-111.

Johnson, R.R., and K.F. Higgins. 1997. Wetland Resources

of Eastern South Dakota. South Dakota State

University. Brookings, SD.102 pp.

Keith, L.B. 1961. A study of waterfowl ecology on small

impoundments in southeastern Alberta Wildlife

Monograph 6, The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C. 88

pp.

Keller, S.W., and K.P. Zimmerman. 1981. Cultural Resource

Investigations of the Waubay National Wildlife Refuge.

Dakota Interactive Services, Inc., Vermillion, SD.

Kirsch, L.M., H.F. Duebbert, and A.D. Kruse.1978. Grazing

and haying effects on habitats of upland nesting birds.

Trans. North America Wildl. and Nat. Resour. Conf.

43:486-497.

Knickerbocker, B. 1869. Medical history of Fort Wadsworth,

Vol. l, Book 392, National Archives.

Knopf, F.L. 1994. Avian assemblages on altered grasslands.

Studies in Avian Biology No. 15:247-257.

Korschgen, C.E., L.S. George, and W.L. Green. 1985.

Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a migrational

staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:290-296.

Korschgen, C.E. and R.B. Dahlgren. 1992. Human

Disturbances of Waterfowl: Causes, Effects, and

Management. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13, Washington,

D.C.

Kusler, J.A., and G. Brooks. (Eds.) 1987. Proceedings of the

national wetland symposium: Wetland Hydrology.

Association of State Wetland Managers. Berne, NY. 339

pp.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 131

Leoschke, M. J. 1997. The prairie coteau natural areas

inventory: Day, Marshall, and Roberts Counties, South

Dakota. Midwest Regional Office. The Nature

Conservancy Minneapolis, MN. 56 pp.

Liddle, M.J., and H.R.A. Scorgie. 1980. The effects of

recreation on freshwater plants and animals: a review.

Biological Conservation 33: 65-80.

Lomolino, M.V., and J.C. Creighton. 1996. Habitat selection,

breeding success and conservation of the endangered

American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus).

Biological Conservation 77:235-241.

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.

Madsen, C. Personal communication. State Private Lands

Coordinator, USFWS. Brookings, SD.

Mendall, H.L. 1958. The ring-necked duck in the northeast.

University of Maine Bulletin, Vol. LX, No. 16.

University of Maine Studies, Second Series, No. 73. 317

pp.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1991.

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid.

Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van

Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York. 539 pp

Moffat, M., and N. McPhillips. 1993. Management for

butterflies in the Northern Great Plains: A literature

review and guidebook for land managers. U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. 19 pp.

National Park Service. 1998. How to Apply National

Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register

Bulletin 15. Cultural Resources Division, National Park

Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,

D.C.

The Nature Conservancy Northern Tallgrass Prairie

Ecoregional Planning Team. 1998. Ecoregional planning

in the northern tallgrass prairie ecoregion. The Nature

Conservancy. Midwest Regional Office, Minneapolis,

MN, 208 pp 

Naugle, D.E., K.F. Higgins, and K.K. Bakker. 2000. A

synthesis of the effects of upland management practices

on waterfowl and other birds in the northern great

plains of the U.S. and Canada. College of Natural

Resources, University of Wisconsin- Stevens Point.

Wildlife Technical Report 1. 28 pp.

Neumann, R.M., and D.W. Willis. 1994. Guide to the

Common Fishes of South Dakota. Dept. of Wildlife and

Fisheries Sciences- South Dakota State University, SD

Game, Fish and Parks, and South Dakota Cooperative

Extension Service. 60 pp. 

Niehus, C.A., A.V. Vecchia, and R.F. Thompson. 1999. LakeLevel Frequency Analysis for the Waubay Lakes Chain,

Northeastern South Dakota. Water-Resources

Investigations Report 99-4122. U.S. Dept. of the

Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Rapid City, SD.

Niehus, C.A., A.V. Vecchia and R.F. Thompson. 1999a.

Supplement to Water-Resources Investigation Report

99-4122, Lake-Level Frequency Analysis for the

Waubay Lakes Chain, Northeastern South Dakota.

Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4251. U.S.

Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Rapid

City, SD. 

Noss, R.F., G.T. La Roe III, and J.M. Scott. 1995.

Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A

Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation.

Biological Report 28, National Biological Service.

Washington, D.C. 58 pp.

Okroi, D. Personal communication. Administrative Officer,

USFWS. Waubay NWR.

Peterson, R.A. 1995. The South Dakota Breeding Bird Atlas.

South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union. Aberdeen, SD.

276pp.

Revised Master Economic Use Plan. 1949. Waubay NWR,

Refuge files.

Ruttner, F. 1953. Fundamentals of limnology. Univ. of

Toronto Press, Toronto, Ont. 242 pp.

Sample, D.W., and M.J. Mossman. 1997. Managing habitat

for Grassland Birds: A Guide for Wisconsin. Bureau of

Integrated Science Services. Department of Natural

Resources. Madison, WI. 154 pp.

Samson, F.B. 1980. Island biogeography and the

conservation of nongame birds. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour.

Conf. 45:245-251.

Sauer, J. R., Hines, J. E., Gough, G., Thomas, I., and B.G.

Peterjohn. 1997. The North American breeding bird

survey results and analysis. Version 96.3 Patuxent

Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

Seastedt,T. R., and A. C. Knapp. 1993. Consequences of

Nonequillibrium Resource Availability Across Multiple

Time Scales: The Transient Maxima Hypothesis. Am.

Nat. 141: 621-633.

Skinner, R.M., T.S. Baskett, and M.D. Blendon. 1984. Bird

Habitat on Missouri Prairies. Missouri Department of

Conservation. Terrestrial Series. 14.37pp.

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks. 1994.

Natural Heritage Database for Day County. Pierre, SD.

4 pp.

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks. 2001.

Art Smith, Compiler. 2000 Annual Report. Big Game

Harvest Projections. SD Game Report. No.2001-01.

Pierre, SD. 80pp.
132 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union, 1991. The Birds of

South Dakota, 2nd Edition. NSU Press, Aberdeen, SD.

411 pp.

State Lakes Preservation Committee. 1977. A Plan for the

classification, preservation, and restoration of lakes in

Northeastern South Dakota. Pierre, SD.

Steinauer, E. M. and S. L. Collins. 1996. Prairie ecology -

the tallgrass prairie. In Samson, F.B. and F. L. Knopf

eds, Prairie Conservation Preserving North America’s

Most Endangered Ecosystem. Island Press,

Washington, D.C. 339 pp.

Thanapura, P. 1998. Spatial modeling the initial stocking

rates of cattle grazing for the Waubay National Wildlife

Refuge, Day County, South Dakota. M.S. Thesis, South

Dakota State University. 76p.

Tiner, R.W. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current

status and recent trends. U.S.. Fish & Wildlife Service.

U.S. Government. Printing Office, Washington D.C. 59

pp

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1988. The impacts of

federal programs on wetlands. Washington D.C. 114 pp.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1988. Birds of Waubay.

Pamphlet.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1990. Wetlands action plan.

Washington, D.C. 31pp.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1993. Western Prairie Fringed

Orchid Recovery Plan, Draft.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1996. Quick Facts from the

1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife.

Associated Recreation Pamphlet.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1999. Waterfowl Breeding

Population and Habitat Survey for South and North

Dakota.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2000. Dakota Tallgrass

Prairies Habitat Preservation Area Environmental

Assessment. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Lakewood,

CO. 31 pp.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2000. Migratory nongame

birds of management concern in the United States: the

2000 list (Draft). Office of Migratory Bird Management,

Washington, D.C. 22 pp.

Vander Zouwen, W.J. 1983. Waterfowl use and habitat

changes of a refuge in southern Wisconsin:1947-1980.

M.S. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

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.

Weller, M.W. 1981. Estimating wildlife and wetland losses

due to drainage and other perturbations. In B.

Richardson [ed] selected proceedings of the Midwest

conference on wetland values and management. MN

Water Planning Board. St Paul. 337-346 pp.

Westin, F.C., and D.D. Malo. 1978. Soils of South Dakota.

Agriculture Experiment Station, SDSU, Bulletin 656.

Wilcove, D. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the

decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology 66:1211-1214

Wilson, S.D., and J.W. Belcher. 1989. Plant and bird

communities of native prairie and introduced Eurasian

vegetation in Manitoba, Canada. Conserv. Biol. 3:39-44

Winham, R.P. 1983. Report of a Cultural Resources Survey

of an Underground Power Line Installation at the

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge. Archaeology

Laboratory, Center for Western Studies, Augustana

College, Sioux Falls, SD.

Yahner, R.H., and P.P. Scott. 1988. Effects of forest

fragmentation on depredation of artificial nests. Journal

of Wildlife Management. 52:158-161

Zimmerman, L.J., L. Werner, L. Park, and J. Trudehope.

1978. A cultural resources survey of proposed

construction sites at six U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Refuges in South Dakota. Contract Completion Studies

56. University of South Dakota, Archaeology

Laboratory. Prepared for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service, Pierre, SD.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 133

Appendix C. Section 7

Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation has been initiated with

the Pierre Field Office and will be completed prior to final

approval of this Plan. Before any actions in this Plan are

implemented, a full Section 7 review will be conducted.
134 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Appendix D. Glossary

Anadromous: Fish which swim up rivers from the sea at

certain seasons for breeding (i.e. salmon).

Animal Impact: Sum total of all direct physical influences of

livestock on grasslands such as trampling, dunging,

urinating, salivating, rubbing, digging, etc. Animal impact is

controlled through stock density and time.

Animal Unit Month (AUM): An AUM is the amount of

forage necessary to maintain one 1,000-pound animal for

1 month.

Brood water: Wetlands with semipermanent or permanent

water regimes used by ducks for the rearing and protection

of ducklings.

Conservation Reserve Program(CRP): A Department of

Agriculture program where payments are made to

landowners to idle cropland.

Cool Season Exotic Grasses: Cool season grasses introduced

to the Waubay Complex. They include smooth brome, quack

grass, Kentucky bluegrass, intermediate wheatgrass, and

tall wheatgrass.

Cool Season Grasses: These grasses have a C3

photosynthetic process. Optimum growth of cool season

grasses is approximately 65-75 F. In the Waubay Complex,

their primary growth periods are spring and fall. Examples

include green needle grass, smooth brome, western

wheatgrass, intermediate wheatgrass, and needle-andthread.

Dense Nesting Cover (DNC): A combination of grasses and

legumes planted to provide tall dense cover. DNC describes

cover planted for upland nesting waterfowl in the Prairie

Pothole Region. Principal species of vegetation used in

DNC mixes include tall wheatgrass, intermediate

wheatgrass, alfalfa, and sweetclover. This mix of species

provides the necessary structural components for tall,

upright residual vegetation.

Deteriorated (poor condition): As applied to grasslands in

this EA, refers to a condition of less-than-potential total

biotic productivity. Low productivity is usually the result of

environmental conditions not natural to the site.

Deteriorated grasslands typically have low species diversity

(plant and animal), poor plant vigor, and significant

proportions of undesirable plant species.

Duck Stamp: Common name for Migratory Bird Hunting

and Conservation Stamp. Purchased by hunters and others

to fund land purchases for migratory bird conservation.

Endangered: A plant or animal species listed under the

Endangered Species Act that is in danger of extinction

throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Endemic Species: Plants or animals that occur naturally in a

certain region and whose distribution is relatively limited to

a particular locality. 

Eutrophication: The process of a lake aging caused by

nutrient enrichment, resulting in increased production and

deposition of organic matter.

Extirpated: no longer existing in area, wiped out, locally

extinct.

Fee-title: Lands owned by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Fauna: All the vertebrate and invertebrate animals of an

area.

Flora: All the plant species of an area. 

Forb: A broad-leaved, herbaceous plant; for example, a

columbine.

Grazing: Livestock feeding on grasses and herbage.

Grassland Succession: Natural process of change and

development in the entire grassland communities.

Haying: Mechanical removal of grasses and herbage for

livestock feed.

High Succession: Complex communities composed of

populations of many different species of plants, animals,

birds, insects, and microorganisms. Usually highly stable and

not prone to high fluctuations in numbers of individual

populations.

High Grassland Succession: Complex grassland communities

composed of populations of a great many different species of

plants, animals, birds, insects, and micro-organisms. Usually

highly stable and not prone to high fluctuations in numbers

of individual populations.

Indigenous: Occurring or living naturally in a geographic

area.

Indigenous Migratory Birds: Migratory birds occurring or

living naturally within the Waubay Complex. Synonymous

with native species.

Insectivore: mammals depending on insects as food. For

example - moles, shrews.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM): Control of pests

utilizing a practical, economical, and scientifically based

combination of biological, physical, cultural, and chemical

control methods. IPM emphasizes these methods in order to

reduce or eliminate the need for chemical pesticides. It is a

balanced approach which considers hazard to the

environment, efficacy, cost, and vulnerability of pests.

Legumes: Any of a large family of plants including peas,

beans, and clovers that are used for food and forage, bearing

nodules on the roots that contain nitrogen-fixing bacteria.

Litter: Residual vegetation which has lodged and become

matted.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 135

Low Succession: Simple communities composed of

populations of only a few species. Usually highly unstable

and vulnerable to fluctuations.

Low Grassland Succession: Simple grassland communities

composed of populations of only a few species. Usually

highly unstable and vulnerable to fluctuations.

Macroinvertebrate: larger invertebrates, animals without a

backbone.

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.

Mowing: Mechanical cutting of grasses and herbage without

the removal of the cut grasses and herbage.

Neotropical Migrant: A bird species that breeds north of the

U.S./Mexican border and winters primarily south of this

border.

Noxious Weed: A plant species designated by Federal or

State law as generally possessing one or more of the

following characteristics: aggressive or difficult to manage;

parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insect or disease; or

nonnative, new, or not common to the United States.

According to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a

noxious weed is one that causes disease or had adverse

effects on man or his environment and, therefore, is

detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of the Untied

States and to the public health.

Obligate hydrophyte: Species that are found only in

wetlands, such as cattails.

Overwater Nesting: Method of using wetland vegetation to

build a nest that floats on water; used by migratory birds

such as canvasback ducks, ruddy ducks, and grebes.

Passerine: Perching songbird; order includes over half of all

birds. For example - sparrows, finches, warblers.

Perpetual: Continuing forever, permanent.

Prescribed Burn: Controlled application of fire to wildland

fuels in either their natural or modified state. Fire is

confined to a predetermined area while producing heat

intensity and rate of spread required to achieve planned

management objectives.

Residual Vegetation: Upright dead vegetation remaining

from previous years of growth. Residual vegetation is

different from litter in that it has not lodged.

Revenue Sharing Trust Fund: A fund provided to the

County to offset the difference between taxes and revenue

sharing. The amount of the fund is set so that interest

earned yearly on this principal would provide the shortfall

amount.

Succession: Process of change and development in

community components--soil, micro-organisms, animal and

plant life and microenvironment.

Seeded Nesting Cover: Vegetation planted to provide

nesting cover, usually cover planted for upland nesting

waterfowl in the Prairie Pothole Region. This may include

DNC, cool and warm season grasses, forbs, and shrubs.

Small Wetlands Acquisition Program(SWAP): U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service program used to purchase easements and

fee-title land to protect wetlands.

Tame Grass Plantings: Planted vegetation, typically a

monotypic planting of a single cool season exotic grass such

as smooth brome, intermediate wheatgrass, or crested

wheatgrass. A legume, usually alfalfa, may be planted with a

grass.

Warm Season Grasses: These grasses have a C4

photosynthetic process. Optimum growth of warm season

grasses is approximately 90 to 95 F. In the Waubay

Complex, their primary growth periods are in the summer.

Examples include switchgrass, big bluestem, little bluestem,

and sideoats grama.

Waterbank: A Department of Agriculture program where

payments are made to landowners to protect wetlands and

uplands associated with these wetlands.

Waubay Complex: Includes both the National Wildlife

Refuge and the Wetland Management District.

Wetland Reserve Program(WRP): A Department of

Agriculture program where payments are made to

landowners to protect wetlands and uplands associated with

these wetlands.

Winterkill: When dissolved oxygen levels drop to a point

which cannot support large fish species. 
136 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Appendix E. Acronyms

ARPA - Archaeological Resources Protection Act

BBS - Breeding Bird Survey

CCP - Comprehensive Conservation Plan

CEA - Conservation Extension Agreement

COE - Corps of Engineers

CRP - Conservation Reserve Program

DTP-WMA - Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Mgmt. Area

EA -Environmental Assessment

FmHA - Farmers Home Administration

GIS - Geographic Information Systems

GPS - Global Positioning System

HAPET - Habitat and Population Evaluation Team

HMP - Habitat Management Plan

IPM - Integrated Pest Management

LWCF - Land and Water Conservation Fund

NHPA - National Historic Preservation Act

NWR - National Wildlife Refuge

NWRS - National Wildlife Refuge System

NRHP - National Register of Historic Places

PFW - Partners for Fish and Wildlife

PPR - Prairie Pothole Region

PUMR - Public Use Minimum Requirement

SD GF&P - South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks

SUP - Special Use Permit

SWAP - Small Wetlands Acquisition Program

TNC - The Nature Conservancy

USDA - United States Department of Agriculture

USFWS - U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

WBPD map - Waterfowl Breeding Pair Distribution

WEA - Wildlife Extension Agreement

WMD - Wetland Management District

WPA - Waterfowl Production Area

WRP - Wetland Reserve Program

WWPP - Waubay Watershed Protection Project
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 137

Appendix F. Key

Legislation/Policies

Volunteer and Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998: To

amend the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to promote

volunteer programs and community partnerships for the

benefit of national wildlife refuges, and for other purposes.

October 5, 1998

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.

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, wildlife

photography, 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.

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 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.

Americans With Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits

discrimination in public accommodations and services

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.

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.

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.

Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, Public Law 100-233:

Authorizes the Farmer’s Home Administration to transfer

fee-title or assign interests in real estate to the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service for the protection of floodplains,

wetlands, and surrounding uplands.

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.”

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.

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1980 and 1995: Requires

identification of proposed actions that would affect any lands

classified as prime and unique farmlands. The U.S. Natural

Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation

Service) administers this act to preserve farmland. Contact

the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service office in

the project area and ask them to determine if the proposed

action will affect any lands classified as prime and unique

farmlands.

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.

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.

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.
138 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

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 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. 

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the

Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major wetland

modifications.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974):

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological data

in Federal construction projects.

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.

Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires all Federal

agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of

endangered and threatened species.

Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public

Lands (1972): Defines zones of use by off-road vehicles on

public lands.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1972): This Act establishes a

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System for the protection

of rivers with important scenic, recreational, fish and

wildlife, and other values. Rivers are classified as wild,

scenic or recreational. The Act designates specific rivers for

inclusion in the System and prescribes the methods and

standards by which additional rivers may be added. The Act

contains procedures and limitations for control of lands in

federally administered components of the System and for

disposition of lands and minerals under Federal ownership.

Hunting and fishing are permitted in components of the

System under applicable Federal and state laws. 

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.

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally

owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to be

accessible to persons with disabilities.

National Historic Preservation Act (1966) as amended:

Establishes as policy that the Federal Government is to

provide leadership in the preservation of the nation’s

prehistoric and historic resources. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 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, wildlife photography,

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.

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.

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.

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a comprehensive

national fish and wildlife policy and broadened the authority

for acquisition and development of refuges.

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 “Dingell-Johnson 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.

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.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 139

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 “Pittman-Robertson 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.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act

(1934): Authorized the opening of part of a refuge to

waterfowl hunting. Also authorized the acquisition of

Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) through both fee title

and easements.

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 U.S. 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.

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 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.

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.
140 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Appendix G. Mailing List

Federal Officials

■ Senator Tom Daschle, Washington, D.C. and Aberdeen,

SD (Beth Smith)

■ Senator Tim Johnson, Washington, D.C. and Aberdeen,

SD (Sharon Stroschein)

■ Representative John Thune, Washington, D.C. and

Aberdeen, SD (Mark Vaux)

Federal Agencies

■ US Army Corps of Engineers; Steven Naler

■ US Department of Agriculture

APHIS-PPQ, Bruce Helbig

Farm Service Agency 

(Paul Hanson, Clark Co.; W. Stanley Lamb,

Codington Co.; Donna Beitelspacher, Day Co.; Joel

Foster, Grant Co.; Stan Thompson, Marshall Co.;

Curtis Sylte, Roberts Co.; Steven Cutler, State

Executive Director)

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

(Earl Henderson, Clark Co.; Arlene BrandtJensen, Codington Co.; Ron Christianson, Day Co.;

Dale Johnson, Grant Co.; Tom Martin, Marshall

Co.; Kent Duerre, Roberts Co.; Connie Vicuna,

Biologist; Janet Oertly, State Conservationist)

■ US EPA, Denver, CO

■ US Fish & Wildlife Service: Denver, CO; Arlington,

VA; Portland, OR; Albuquerque, NM; Anchorage, AK;

Juneau, AK; Fort Snelling, MN; Atlanta, GA; Hadley,

MA; Sacramento, CA; Shepherdstown, WV; Sherwood,

OR; Air Quality Branch, Lakewood, CO; Tewaukon

NWR, ND; Lost Trail NWR, MT; Medicine Lake NWR,

MT; Crescent Lake/North Platte NWR, NE;

Arrowwood NWR, ND; Sand Lake NWR, SD;

Alamosa/Monte Vista NWR, CO; Arapaho NWR, CO;

Ecological Services - Pierre, SD; Big Stone NWR, MN;

Morris WMD, MN; Madison WMD, SD; Huron WMD,

SD; Lacreek NWR, SD; Brookings WHO, SD; Lake

Andes NWR, SD

■ US Geological Survey (Rick Benson; Dr. Charles Berry,

SDSU Coop. Wildlife Research Unit; Doug Johnson,

Northern Prairie Science Center; Rick Schroeder,

Midcontinent Ecological Service Center)

Tribal Officials

■ Sisseton Wahpeton Sioux Tribe - Fish and Wildlife

Department, Alvah Quinn

State Officials

■ Governor William J. Janklow

■ Representatives (Tim Begalka; Art Fryslie; Gary

Hanson; Claire Konold; Jim Peterson; David Sigestad;

Jim Hundstad; Al Koistinen; Duane Sutton)

■ Senators (Don Brosz; H. Paul Dennert; Larry Diedrich;

Brock Greenfield; Paul Symens)

State Agencies

■ Department of Agriculture - Ron Moehring

■ Department of Environment and Natural Resources -

John Hatch, P.E.

■ Department of Game, Fish and Parks (John Cooper,

Secretary; Doug Alvine, Regional Supervisor,

Watertown; Ron Meester, Fisheries Manager, Webster;

Paul Coughlin, Senior Wetlands Biologist, Pierre; SD

Game, Fish and Parks Commissioners: Tim Kessler,

Chairman)

■ Department of Military & Veterans Affairs - Division of

Emergency Management; Gary Whitney

■ SD State Historical Society

■ Illinois Department of Natural Resources - Tom Nelson

City/County/Local Governments

■ 1st Dist. Assoc. of Local Govt. - Gregory Maag

■ Fort Township - John Hogland, Chairman

■ Grant Co. Commissioners

■ Marshall Co. Commissioners

■ Roberts Co. Commissioners 

■ Codington Co. Commissioners

■ Clark Co. Commissioners

■ Day Co. Commissioners

■ Watertown City - Mayor Brenda Barger

■ Waubay City - Mayor Kevin Jens

■ Webster City - Mayor Mike Grosek

Libraries

■ Webster Public Library

■ Britton Public Library

■ Watertown Public Library

■ Waubay Public Library

■ Grant County Public Library

■ Emil M. Larson Public Library

■ Sisseton Memorial Library

Organizations

■ Animal Protection Institute, Sacramento, CA

■ Chambers of Commerce - Milbank, Watertown,

Sisseton, Webster

■ Clark Co. Pro Pheasants - Fred Obemeier

■ Conservation Districts (Diane Bowers, Clark Co.; Sandy

Law, Codington Co.; Noel Anderson; Dennis Skadsen,

Project Coord.; Day Co.; Jan Berger, Grant Co.; Wanda

Franzen, Marshall Co.; June Helgeson, Roberts Co.)

■ Defenders of Wildlife - Noah Matson; Tom Uniack 

■ Ducks Unlimited, Inc. - Rick Warhurst, Bismarck

■ EDWDD, Jay Gilbertson

■ Farm Bureau of SD - Richard Kjerstad, President

■ Girl Scouts of America (Service Center, Marian Raml;

Webster Troop 4004, Marianna Finn)

■ Glacial Lakes and Prairies Tourism Assoc.

■ Institute for Policy Research - H. Paul Friesema

■ Izaak Walton League - James Madsen

■ Klein Family Farms, Inc. - Earl Monnens

■ KRA Corporation, F&W Reference Service

■ National Audubon Society - Gretchen Muller

■ National Farmers Organization - Dave Meyer, President

■ National Trappers Association - Scott Hartman

■ National Wildlife Refuge Assoc. - Brent Giezentanner

■ The Nature Conservancy - Pete Bauman; John Humke
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 141

■ Nobles County Env. Service - Judy Petersen 

■ North American Bluebird Society - John Ivanko and

Lisa Kivirist

■ Outdoor Women of SD - NE Chapter

■ Phillips Petroleum Co., Laws and Regulations

Department - B.D. “Diann” Beene

■ Prairie Restorations, Inc. - Ron Bower

■ SD BASS Federation - Phillip Risnes

■ SD Ornithologists’ Union

■ SD Wildlife Federation - Chris Hesla

■ The Wildlife Society, Central Mountain & Plains Sec.

■ Upper Big Sioux River Watershed Project - Mike

Williams

■ Whitetail Bowman Archery Club - Bob Jensen 

■ The Wilderness Society

■ Wildlife Management Institute - Bob Bryne (CARE);

Rob Manes

■ The Wildlife Society - SD Chapter; Paul Coughlin,

President

Newspapers

■ Aberdeen American News

■ Britton Journal 

■ Clark County Courier

■ Grant County Review

■ Langford Bugle

■ Sisseton Courier

■ South Shore Gazette

■ Reporter & Farmer, Webster

■ Watertown Public Opinion

■ Wilmot Enterprise

Schools/Universities

■ Augustana College - Peter Winham, Archeology Lab.

■ South Dakota State University - Extension Service

(Chuck Tollefson, Clark Co. Ext. Agent; Chuck

Langner, Codington Co. Ext. Agent; Gary Troester,

Day Co. Ext. Agent; Amy Kruse, Grant Co. Ext. Agent;

Lorne Tilberg, Marshall Co. Ext. Agent; Sandy Gregg,

Roberts Co. Ext. Agent; Leon Wrage)

■ South Shore School, Max Nawroth

Individuals

Jim Anderson Ron Loeschke

James Barnett Don Mahlen

Richard Barnett Jerry Marnette

Kurt Bassett Gary Marrone

Frank Bauer Bob Martenson

Frank Benoit Joy McGregor

Loren Berg Kim McWilliams

Art Berger John K. Miller

Gordon Bergquist Mac Miller

Neil Bien James O. Monson

Rory Binkerd Duane Neugebauer

Douglas and Elaine Block Rick Norris

Craig Brown William Obermeier

Dan Brown Lela Olson

Robert Brown Vernon Olson

Marvin Bury Dr. Jason Ostby

Kenneth Cameron Kermit Parks

Jeff Case Ben Parsons

Mark Conrad Vernon Pearson

Dr. M. S. Dorsett Ken Pigors

John Dorsett Tim Pravecek

Bruce Eldridge Thomas L. Raines

Maurice Erickson Mark Redlinger

Calvin Finnesand Ken Rock

Lylas Fisher Lester Rowland

Donald Foote Sam Rudolph

Byron E. Foreman Herbert Samson

Dennis Foster Allen Sass

Ms. Dorothy Foster Jerry Schlosser

Kevin Fridley Steven Schultz

Chuck Fromelt Larry Schwarze

Charles Fulker Robert Sommers

Charles Gauker Loy Stange

Joe George Duane Steege

Delton Gerber David Strang

Derek Greene Orman Street

Duaine Greenhagen William Street

Robert Gruba Lowell Summa

Harlan Hagen David Trautner

Harold Hansen Jerry Travis

Bruce Harris Tony Travis

Robert Hartinger Bob Urevig

Frank Heidelbauer David Wade

Clinton Hellevang Daniel M. Weber

Scott Helms Henry L. Wells

James Hendrickson Robert F. Witt

Dale Henry John Woodman

Orlin Jameson Dennis Zenk

Jo-Ann Jennier Fred Zenk

The Johnsons

Gary Jongeling

C.M. Keintz

Kim Kempton

Margaret King

Dean Kirkeby

Roger Knapp

LeRon Knebel

Alfred LaMee

Scott Larson

Loriann Lindner
142 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Appendix H. WPA

Management Priorities

Waubay Wetland Management District includes a diverse

group of 199 Waterfowl Production Areas spread over six

counties. Many of the WPAs were purchased in pieces from

different landowners. For the sake of the discussion in this

section, a WPA consists of one, or more, purchased tracts

which are managed together as a unit.

The WPAs range in size from 0.98 to 1674 acres. They vary

from all water to all uplands. Uplands vary from tame

grasses to native grasses being dominant. Most of the

WPAs are located on the Coteau Des Prairies, but there are

also units in the James Basin, and Minnesota River-Red

River Lowlands. Surrounding land uses range from

primarily cropland to dominated by rangeland. WPAs range

from being bordered by a United States Highway to being

inaccessible to the general public. Some WPAs have uplands

in good nesting condition and require only maintenance

management, while others require aggressive management

to change the current condition. There is no such thing as a

“typical” WPA and all of the above factors influence the

management of any individual WPA.

Many of the comments provided in the CCP public process

suggested that more management (grazing, burning,

haying) be done on WPAs (see Consultation and

Coordination with Others). These comments echoed an

annual sentiment of the staff, that there is so much more

that could be done. Due to current staff and budget, only

about 10 percent of WPAs are actively managed in any

year. Management is done in many cases on an

opportunistic basis. For example, where the previous

landowner has cattle adjoining the WPA.

It is obvious from bird use of these units that all migratory

birds do not view WPAs as equal. Therefore, it seemed

appropriate to divide WPAs into priority groups so that

more resources, time and money, could be spent on WPAs

that have the greatest potential of achieving the mission of

the WMD.

There are three factors that were considered in compiling

the priority list. Those factors were the Waterfowl Breeding

Pair Distributions Map, the size of the WPA and the upland

to wetland ratio.

The Waterfowl Breeding Pair Distributions map (Map 8)

shows where waterfowl breeding pairs are located. By

focusing resources (time and money) on areas with an

average of 25 duck pairs per square mile and above, the

greatest effect can be realized.

Many studies have concluded that large tracts of grasslands

are best for nesting birds, both waterfowl and passerines

(Burger et al. 1994; Duebbert and Kantrud 1974; Herkert

1994; Samson 1980: Vickery et al. 1994). The highest

priority was given to tracts of 160 acres or more. A medium

priority was given to tracts 60 - 159 acres. The lowest

priority was for tracts less then 80 acres.

The upland to wetland ratio is a management consideration

based on the economy of scale concept. Wetlands are critical

for waterfowl broods, but uplands are needed by most

species for nesting. There is little management that can be

done to wetlands, so the higher the upland to wetland ratio

is, the more management potential exists. The highest

priority was given to tracts with an upland to wetland ratio

of at least 1. A medium priority was assigned to tracts with

upland to wetland ratios of .75 - .99. A low priority was

given to tracts with an upland to wetland ratio of less then

.75.

Three groups of WPAs were developed. These are labeled

A, B and C, with A being the highest priority. Below is a

description of what specific criteria were used for each and

what the management implications are:

A: These areas were selected to represent the best nesting

units in the WMD. They must be a minimum of 160 acres

and have a minimum upland to wetland ratio of one. “A”

WPAs will be managed and monitored yearly. Sixty-one, or

31 percent, of the WPAs are in this group. Rest will be used

as a management tool as needed. If previous commitments

for grazing/haying have not been made, the tracts will be

put out for bid. Burning is another management tool that

may be used. These WPAs will be monitored to assure that

dense nesting cover is being maintained. Within the A

category there are some units that are good native grass

stands. These will be monitored to ensure there is no loss of

plant diversity or encroachment of tame or exotic

vegetation. Other WPAs in this category have poor nesting

cover. These units will be actively managed to alter their

current condition.

B: These areas were selected if they were a minimum of 80

acres and upland to wetland ratio of .75. There are 52 tracts,

or 26 percent of the WPAs, in this group. These WPAs will

be managed on an opportunistic basis, as time and money

permit.

C: These units will not be managed. There are 86 units in

this category. Weeds will be controlled and signs

maintained.

For 5 percent of the units, the category an individual WPA

should have been in was changed due to manager discretion.

Discretion was used when other conditions where known to

exist which were not included in the original evaluation.

Some units were very close to one of the cutoffs and due to

the presence of grassland easement or state lands adjoining

the unit it was elevated to the next level. Many of the

changes were units that were placed into the “C” category

for now due to current high water levels. These categories

are not static. They can and will be changed if conditions

change.

All counties have units within each of the categories. A

complete listing follows.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 143

PRIORITY LIST A

WPA Acres up/w et ratio T-Storm score County

Lamb (121,499) 320 1.1 50 Clark

Neal-Barton (180,452) 315.7 1.78 36 Clark

Geidd-Hagen etc. (299,375,306,469) 292.85 2.68 49.3 Clark

Markrud-Larkin (219,427) 280 1.3 43.3 Clark

Lacraft (329) 160 2.45 43 Clark

Anderson (101,a) 160 2.17 50 Clark

Bender (179) 160 1.49 47.2 Clark

Herker (471) 160 1.01 48.6 Clark

Huppler-Springer (66, 68) 777.81 2.08 29.4 Codington

Warner Lake (1,110, 133, 343, 383) 745.47 9.53 49.7 Codington

Roe E&A (107, 131, 107 b-c) 720 3.67 47.2 Codington

Horseshoe L. (Roe) (107a) 617.47 2.6 51.8 Codington

Overland-Korth (155) 390.95 4.17 48.6 Codington

Johnson (120) 297.97 2.13 36.3 Codington

Bursvold-Darling-Sandel (41,111, 158) 241.93 1.3 38.8 Codington

Thompson (12) 226.5 0.9 36 Codington

Bruflat (135) 190 1.64 36.7 Codington

Rasmussen-Moorhouse (36a,64) 185.2 1.56 36 Codington

Roe, E. (159,a) 177 3.56 50.9 Codington

Coplan (16, a) 160 1.92 36 Codington

Moe, T.D. (156) 160 1.79 25 Codington

Stangland-Augustana (25, 60) 635.2 1.82 64.4 Day

Kriech-Becht-Lanager (13, 26, 276, 296) 340 1.72 60.8 Day

Meuer-Orness (14, 19) 314.42 2.94 51.8 Day

E. Hanson-Thurow (59, 474) 280 3.5 50 Day

West Storley (56 a) 195.88 3.3 50 Day

N. Taylor-Helwig (291, 216) 180 1.36 50 Day

McCarlson-Johnson (15, 333) 179.46 1.59 50 Day

Zenk (319) 160.45 2.22 43 Day

Donat (22) 160 1.99 50 Day

S. Taylor (291 a) 160 1.66 50 Day

Hendrickson-U.S. (55, 1a) 160 1.25 43 Day

Hagen (290) 159 1.69 36 Day

O’Farrell-Reyelts (24, 148) 1674.1 5.37 67.5 Grant

Meyer Lake (149) 1325.44 1.85 59.6 Grant

Price-Kaufman (82, 85) 340 2.47 26.2 Grant

Meyer-Janssen (41, 42) 280 1.06 62.6 Grant

Berger-Eidet (73, 74) 209.17 1.33 36 Grant

VanHout (59) 160 7.81 25 Grant

Peterson-Solem (60, 61) 160 2.06 36 Grant

Jensen (274) 1100 2.27 68 Marshall

Lake Emma (22, 126, 143, 186, 231,etc.) 1069 3.36 70.7 Marshall

N. Red Iron Lake (76, 250, 272) 918.7 3.64 64.4 Marshall

Cottonwood Lk.(94, 150, 260) 851.71 2.75 55.4 Marshall

Ruckdashel-Hofland (11, 244) 804.91 4.05 68 Marshall

Lamee N. & S. (84) 762.89 4.9 60.8 Marshall

Peterson Memorial (33, 122) 640 3.74 67.1 Marshall

Deutsch (47, 2, 108, 220, 214) 612.83 1.68 54.44 Marshall

LCFJ (92, 134, 161, 249, 251) 519.93 3.97 51.8 Marshall

Abraham Lake (255, 257, 268) 466.8 5.55 49.5 Marshall

Ringer-Guy (217, 258) 419.34 3.91 51.8 Marshall

Rolstad (69, 269) 405.39 2.91 79.7 Marshall

Buss (227) 160.12 2.52 68 Marshall

Weeks (242, 109) 160 3.04 95 Marshall

Strand (93) 160 1.18 36 Marshall

Olson (10) 148.6 5.19 68 Marshall

Hellevang (143c) 147.25 2.71 50 Marshall

Wike (187, 362) 594.9 3.6 88.25 Roberts
144 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Berwald et al (84, 93, 166) 560 1.88 64.4 Roberts

Loberg et al (11, 282, 286) 282.6 2.45 50 Roberts

Hamm-Elton (44, 114) 173.85 1.28 44.4 Roberts

PRIORITY LIST B

WPA Acres up/w et ratio T-Storm score County

Geise (200) 240 0.87 49.3 Clark

Evans-Kelly (314,502) 160.11 0.52 36 Clark

Graves (326) 147.99 1.38 50 Clark

Kadinger (24,a) 146.07 3.36 50 Clark

Poppen (324) 120 2.78 36 Clark

Kuecker (252) 80 2.59 36 Clark

Tulowetzke (31) 80 1.39 36 Clark

Kramer (11) 80 1.35 50 Clark

Struckmann-Trumm (30, 67) 261.38 0.94 36 Codington

David (124) 209.07 1.01 43.7 Codington

Geiger-Stevens-Page (89, 91, 92) 144.21 1.46 36.7 Codington

Owen-Mills (162, 165) 139.37 1.77 35.45 Codington

Swan (132) 137.92 1.4 36 Codington

Peterson (69) 80 2.35 50 Codington

Neal (127) 80 1.96 36 Codington

Dolney (40) 133.72 1.85 50 Day

Hanse-Rumpca (18, 139) 98.6 0.68 49.3 Day

Holden et al. (292, 293, 294) 81 1.59 36 Day

Wagner-Stianson (43, 57) 80 1.34 50 Day

McKane (288) 79.79 1.4 36 Day

East Storley (56 b) 75 1.67 50 Day

Case-Anderson et al (43, 44, 48) 227.13 0.75 68 Grant

Mogart-Street et al (53, 54, 142) 131.7 1.84 32.7 Grant

Antroinen-Broich (69, 172) 119.6 2.9 49.3 Grant

Miller-Schumacher (72, 75) 108.43 2.26 20 Grant

Garvey-Loehrer (62, 84) 104.84 3.5 15 Grant

Green (155) 87.3 7.78 81.5 Grant

Stink Slough (120a, 260) 400.43 0.74 50 Marshall

Keintz E. & W. (29) 174 1.78 30.5 Marshall

Gerber (221) 154 3.32 50 Marshall

Little Ruckdashel (11a) 143.2 3.33 68.54 Marshall

Guy C. East (257b) 120 5.49 68 Marshall

Fagerland E. (136) 85 0.94 50 Marshall

Hilleson-Sanderson (13, 30) 82.66 0.84 68 Marshall

Syverson (130, 246) 80.69 1.68 50 Marshall

Little Hinman (94) 80.21 2.96 59 Marshall

Silver Lake (257a) 80 3.88 50 Marshall

Bahr (12) 80 3.81 68 Marshall

Horseshoe Lake (171, 212, 214) 60.82 2.38 68 Marshall

Fonder-Okeson (134, 285) 401.6 0.69 25 Roberts

Danielson-Fladland (163, 173) 280 0.65 50 Roberts

Stowe (129) 160 0.83 50 Roberts

Kutter-Bredvik (113a, 148) 144.38 1.33 50 Roberts

Broz (211) 130.49 2.07 49.3 Roberts

Rolstad-Pearson (133, 352) 130.4 1.24 55.4 Roberts

Kutter et al (113, 136, 138) 125.8 0.93 50 Roberts

S.D-Eggen E. (2, 196) 120.8 5.46 51.8 Roberts

Navratil (130) 120 0.93 50 Roberts

Cameron (121) 119.04 1.04 30.5 Roberts

Knebel et al (147, 149, 150, 158) 117.2 0.83 68 Roberts

Minder-Dickinson (10, 132) 103.08 0.82 50 Roberts

Johnson (140) 80 3.4 36 Roberts
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 145

PRIORITY LIST C

WPA Acres up/w et ratio T-Storm score County

Froke-Waldow-Ness (372,373,374) 567.51 0.4 54.68 Clark

Saboe (476) 280.8 0.71 57.2 Clark

Smith (477,478) 189 0.64 48.6 Clark

Milburn-Foster (311,339) 177.37 0.38 36 Clark

Seefeldt (370) 170.83 1.06 50 Clark

Reinhart (10) 157.49 0.46 36.7 Clark

Ash-Moe (146,240) 147.69 0.44 50 Clark

Lee (315) 121.85 0.8 43 Clark

Storbeck (340) 103.85 0.61 36 Clark

Austin (312) 86.17 0.96 36 Clark

U.S. 1 80 0 36 Clark

Kannegieter, R. (18) 73.18 0.2 36 Clark

Wells (103) 60 1.32 36 Clark

Kannegieter, D. (92) 57.7 0.43 36 Clark

Evenson (328) 50 1.06 36 Clark

McLain (232) 46.62 0.56 36 Clark

Christopherson (241) 40 1.05 50 Clark

Hunt-Jennings (308,309) 38.79 0.41 36 Clark

Orthaus (119) 199.78 0.38 38.8 Codington

McClung (80a) 156.42 0.34 36 Codington

Briggs (130) 80 0.04 36 Codington

Elmore-Wasland (10, 234) 77.76 0.18 66.2 Codington

Halse-Grygiel (15, 38) 76.65 0.7 25 Codington

Burnstad (17) 48.95 0.42 25 Codington

Hansen (82) 45.35 3.3 41.6 Codington

Moorhouse (36) 42.58 0.28 15 Codington

Drake (160) 20 0 15 Codington

U.S. (1) 3.01 0 36 Codington

U.S. (1a) 0.98 0 68 Codington

Hozerland-Hamman (12,23,24) 205.71 0.26 41.6 Day

Lundeen (284) 149.94 0.93 49.5 Day

Dulitz (310) 149.67 0.61 50 Day

Akerson-Mattson (175, 338) 145.98 0.47 52.2 Day

Gruba-Teigen-Kwas. (243, 263,277) 133.87 0.35 50 Day

Hanson-Johnson (11, 20) 124 0.59 36 Day

Cramer (298) 109.47 0.68 36 Day

Gonsoir (132) 89.76 0.51 50 Day

Schmig (176) 82.46 0.43 50 Day

Fishbeck (44) 80 0.73 50 Day

Thompson (282) 80 0.02 50 Day

U.S. (1d) 80 0.02 50 Day

Denholm-Nelson (10, 193) 79.4 0.45 50 Day

Opitz (342) 70.8 0.8 36 Day

Schmit (194) 64.03 0.59 36 Day

Hilt (17) 62.12 0.55 50 Day

White-Stavig (170, 186) 44.85 0.35 43 Day

Eidahl (68) 44.84 0.88 50 Day

Bristol Grazing (197) 42.8 0.46 50 Day

Hawkinson (16) 40.94 1.79 36 Day

U.S. (1b) 40 0.32 50 Day

U.S. (1c) 40 0.23 68 Day

Wika (428) 40 0.16 36 Day

Nicolay (58) 40 0 31.6 Day

Bailly (45) 37.52 0.89 28.9 Day

Hubsch (229) 31.67 0.49 50 Day

Peterson (207) 27.69 0.38 36 Day

H. Hanson (146) 13.75 0.27 68 Day

U.S. (Antelope Lake) (1) 8.75 0 50 Day
146 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Larson et al (63, 67, 68) 126.9 0.55 36 Grant

Streich (20) 79.24 0.62 17 Grant

Jensen (83) 71.84 3.24 15 Grant

Anderson (65) 65 1.2 25 Grant

Loehrer (84a) 48.08 1.55 25 Grant

Skoog (86) 46.01 1.54 15 Grant

Nelson (38) 34.06 0.62 68 Grant

Keeney (55) 34 0.64 15 Grant

Pew (10) 22.5 1.78 15 Grant

N. Ottertail (214c) 79.81 0.06 43 Marshall

Likness (92) 47.06 0.19 50 Marshall

S. Ottertail (214b) 40 0.03 50 Marshall

Osterman (119) 38.7 0.54 95 Marshall

Little Hauck (120) 16.99 0.11 50 Marshall

U.S. (1) 16.89 7.04 50 Marshall

Eickman (175) 78.5 2.27 36 Roberts

Carl (269) 75.4 2.22 36 Roberts

Pearson, M. (120) 75.2 0.11 25.6 Roberts

Remund (80, 351) 69.14 0.84 29.4 Roberts

Kastner (165) 65.52 1.98 50 Roberts

Pederson (181) 56.5 1.68 50 Roberts

Arndt (141, 142) 49.57 1.83 50 Roberts

Harsted-Elton (61, 127) 46.66 0.91 68 Roberts

Gleason (164) 44 1.4 50 Roberts

Meyer (167) 40.5 1.63 50 Roberts

Eggen W. (196) 40.11 2.31 68 Roberts

Eneboe (33) 34.6 1.02 36 Roberts

Stavig (122) 31.4 1.39 25 Roberts
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 147

Appendix I. Ecosystem Planning for the Mainstem Missouri

River (condensed for CCP)

ECOSYSTEM PLAN

MAINSTEM MISSOURI RIVER

NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA AND EAST MONTANA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MAINSTEM MISSOURI RIVER ECOSYSTEM

Ecosystem Planning for the Mainstem M issouri Watersheds,

including the Dakotas and Northeastern Montana

MAINSTEM MISSOURI RIVER ECOSYSTEM WITHIN REGION 6 (See Map 5)

WETLANDS

WETLANDS AND WATERSHEDS FOCUS AREA

MISSOURI RIVER

MISSOURI RIVER FOCUS AREA

NATIVE PRAIRIE GRASSLANDS

RIPARIAN AREAS

RIPARIAN FOCUS AREA
148 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Mainstem Missouri River Ecosystem

Eco syste m Pla nnin g for t he M ains tem M issou ri Wa tersh eds,

including the Dakotas and Northeastern Montana

Prairies, wetlands, rivers. The contrasts are obvious, but a common thread runs through them: these habitats and the fish and

wildlife that depend on them have undergone substantial change in the 200 years since Lewis and Clark ventured up the

Missouri. Wetlands and native prairies have been converted to agricultural crop production and cities and towns. The “mighty

Missouri” and many other rivers and streams have been dammed. The habitats that remain are increasingly more important

to the region’s fish and wildlife populations.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has adopted an ecosystem approach to conservation to fulfill its trust

responsibilities with greater efficiency and effectiveness. Through this holistic approach to resource conservation, the Service

can accomplish its mission to “conserve, protect, and enhance the Nation’s fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the

continuing benefit of the American people.”

An ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife conservation means protecting or restoring functions, structure, and species

composition of an ecosystem while providing for its sustainable socioeconomic use. Key to implementing this approach will be

recognizing that partnerships are an essential part of a diverse management team to accomplish ecosystem health.

The Service has adopted watersheds as the basic building blocks for implementing ecosystem conservation. The ecosystem

includes portions of the Missouri River and Hudson Bay watersheds and is called the Missouri River Mainstem Ecosystem.

The Mainstem Ecosystem Team’s Plan identified needs and set short and long-term goals and quantifiable objectives. The

Team, with input from current partners and field stations, identified four focus areas; wetlands, native prairies, the Missouri

River, and riparian areas. Priorities are based on significance in the ecosystem, species diversity, risk/threat to the entire

focus area, public benefits, international values and trust resources. Also considered was a feasibility ranking based on legal

mandates, opportunity for partnership, likelihood of success, cost effectiveness for activities, and significance of public

land/private reserves. 

This document is a first step to the implementation of an ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife conservation and calls for

conserving fish and wildlife by protecting and restoring natural ecosystems.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 149

WETLANDS

The glaciated prairies on North and South Dakota and northeastern Montana cover approximately 60 million acres. Once a

myriad of prairie pothole wetlands in a sea of native prairie, the area is now the “bread basket” of the country and intensively

farmed. Drainage, largely for agricultural purposes, has reduced 7.2 million acres of wetlands by over 40 percent, to 3.9

million acres. Native prairie, mostly mid-grass, has been reduced by 75 percent to 14.9 million acres. Much of the remainder is

overgrazed by livestock. 

The area is rich in wildlife. Prairie potholes are the lifeblood for waterfowl and other migratory water birds. As an example of

the importance of the prairie wetlands, ducks banded in North Dakota have been recovered in 46 states and 23 other

countries. Grassland nesting, neo-tropical birds have declined faster than woodland neotropicals or prairie nesting ducks.

Several endangered and threatened species and species of management concern, including the ferruginous hawk, black tern,

and Baird's sparrow, breed in the prairie and wetland habitats of this focus area.

Agriculture is the dominant economic activity and force on prairie wetlands and grasslands. No other activity in the focus

area affects habitats and wildlife

populations to the extent that agriculture

does. Similarly, USDA and the various

federal farm programs have more

influence on natural resources and wildlife than the Fish and Wildlife Service, all

the state wildlife agencies and all the

conservation organizations combined. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has been

involved in prairie and wetland resources

since the early 1900s. The Service has

sixty-nine National Wildlife Refuges

(380,000 acres) and nineteen Wetland

Management Districts in the focus area.

Since 1961, the Service’s Small Wetland

Acquisition Program has acquired 448,000

acres in fee-title and 1.9 million acres in

perpetual easement. Since the 1985 Food

Security Act, the Service has been

involved with the USDA, in almost all

wetland conversions on private land.

Similarly, Service activities through the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's

administration of the Section 10/404

programs and the Fish and Wildlife

Service Coordination Act have been

focused on wetland resources.

The Prairie Pothole Joint Venture,

including these three states, is a priority

area for the North American Waterfowl

Management Plan. As a result of the

Joint Venture, the Service, other federal

agencies, the state wildlife agencies, and

a number of private conservation

organizations, such as Ducks Unlimited,

The Nature Conservancy, National

Audubon Society, and the North Dakota

Natural Resources, have formed

excellent partnerships.
150 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

WETLANDS AND WA TERSHEDS FOCUS AREA

Visions: Diverse, wetland habitats and watersheds that provide an abundance and diversity of native flora and fauna in the

ecosystem for the benefit of the American public.

Goal 1: Increase recognition of wetland values by the various publics (communities, conservation organizations,

communication people, Congressional delegations and staff, and corporate entities) to develop a wetland

advocacy.

Objective A: Over the next 3 years, develop and implement an information and outreach plan in North and South Dakota

and northeastern Montana. (Work with EVS Branch)

Goal 2: Conserve, restore, and enhance wetlands and wetland habitats and functions for trust species and species of

concern.

Objective A: As a minimum, annually protect 15,000 acres of wetlands through fee and easement over the next 10 years

in the ecosystem. 

Objective B: Assist partners and other agencies in protecting, creating, restoring, managing, and enhancing 10,000 acres

of wetlands and associated uplands annually.

Goal 3: Protect the water supply and property interests of wetlands on Service lands and easements. (This goal will be

further defined with the Water Rights Division)

Objective A: File for and secure water rights on eligible Service properties and easements over the next 10 years.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 151

MISSOURI RIVER 

Prior to the early 1900s, the Missouri River was characterized by ever eroding banks, shifting side channels, heavily wooded

islands, abundant bottomlands, and myriad sandbars. The “Big Muddy’s” constantly changing nature supported one of North

America’s most diverse and extensive aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Today the Missouri River is vastly different from that

“untamed” floodplain system of even 50 years ago. Originating in the Rocky Mountains of south-central Montana, the River

flows 2,300 miles, traversing seven States and

passing through seven mainstem dams built

and maintained by the Federal Government.

Over 900 miles (nearly 60 percent) of the

former upper River passing through Montana,

North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska,

now lie under permanent multi-purpose

reservoirs. Construction and management of

these dams transformed a complex natural

riverine system and caused profound physical

and natural changes to the River.

As the Missouri River changed, so did the

wildlife communities that depended so completely upon it. Impoundments,

channelization, and subsequent control of

water discharges have significantly reduced

population levels and reproductive success of

some nature species. Currently, eight fish

species, 15 birds, six mammals, four reptiles,

six insects, four mollusks, and seven plants

indigenous to the system are listed as either

threatened or endangered or are under status

review for possible listing. One of the

Missouri River fauna groups most severely

impacted by the changes was the endemic fish

populations. Large river species, like the

sturgeon and paddlefish, have experienced

serious population declines and loss of

reproduction as a result of the changes to the

System.

Although the Missouri River ecosystem can

never be returned to its predevelopment

state, some of the ongoing destructive

processes can be modified and the overall

condition of the ecosystem improved. Actions

can be taken toward recovery of the river’s

biological integrity, while retaining

developmental purposes such as flood control,

recreation and water supply. A holistic plan of

action involving such diverse entities as the States, Tribes, Federal Agencies, and private interests will be required to

accomplish the needed rejuvenation of the Missouri River. This plan must involve a coordinated, system-based approach

which recognizes the needs of the Basin’s fish and wildlife resources, and the public benefits they impart, in addition to

facilitating developmental needs and values.
152 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

MISSOURI RIVER FOCUS AREA

Visions: A healthy Missouri River capable of self-sustaining fish and wildlife resources.

Goal 1: Reestablish some semblance of the natural form and function of the Missouri River and prevent further

degradation for priority riverine sections.

Objective A: Implement provisions of the Services Reasonable and Prudent Alternative described in the Missouri River

Biological Opinion(November 30,2000). 

1. Achieve a more ecologically beneficial hydro graph below Ft. Peck, Garrison, Ft. Randall, and Gavins Point

Dams by working with COE, States, and other stakeholders by 2003.

2. Work with the COE, States, and stakeholders to achieve compatible ecologically beneficial water quality

parameters including temperature, sediment transport, and turbidity by 2003.

3. 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 2001.

Objective B: Work with local zoning authorities and regulators to develop and implement policies that discourage

floodplain development and bank stabilization to maintain/restore river functions by 2003.

Objective C: Continue an environmental contaminants presence on the Missouri River that monitors conditions,

identifies issues and problem areas, and develops strategies for rehabilitation.

Objective D: Identify strategies and implement partnerships that maintain and restore riparian values, with emphasis on

cottonwood regeneration.

Objective E: Develop and implement a conservation strategy that protects riparian values at the confluence of the

Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers (2004).

Goal 2: Conserve endangered and threatened species and species of special concern in riverine and impounded reaches,

consistent with other Service objectives.

Objective A: Augment current pallid sturgeon populations in: 1) the Missouri River above Ft. Peck Reservoir, 2) the

Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers above Lake Sakakawea, and 3) below Gavins Point Dam through hatchery

production to develop a genetically sound natural population structure by 2011.

Objective B: Achieve a 3-year running average fledged success rate of 0.70 for 325 pairs of least terns, and 1.13 for 350

pairs of piping plovers on the Missouri River system by 2011.

Objective C: Develop management strategies plans for the sicklefin chub and the sturgeon chub by 2002, and seek

funding and implementation of plans by 2004 in order to prevent declines in their population status.

Objective D: 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 2002.

Objective E: Monitor threats and develop strategies to eliminate or minimize affects of invasive species on native aquatic

resources.

Objective F: Work with partners and the Upper Missouri/Yellowstone Team to relieve fish passage barriers on the

Yellowstone River (2005).

Goal 3: Strive for a fully informed public on Missouri River natural resource issues and activities.

Objective A: Promote restoration of river functions and values through proactive outreach.

Objective B: Seek support and partnerships for River activities through proactive outreach.

Goal 4: Fulfill commitments for mitigation of fishery resources brought about by construction of the mainstem dams.

Objective A: Through hatcheries, management, and conservation, support State fisheries objectives for the Missouri

River and its impoundments consistent with other Service objectives.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 153

NATIVE PRAIRIE GRASSLANDS

Prairie habitats in the Mainstem Missouri ecosystem consist of tall grass, mid-grass, and short grass prairies from the eastern

Dakotas to the west. Although the plant and wildlife species differ across the gradation from tall to short grass, the threats

and issues remain the same; conversion of prairie to other uses. Habitat losses have been the most severe in the tall grass,

and least in the western reaches of the Dakotas and northeastern Montana. 

The tallgrass prairie once spanned millions of acres along the eastern border of North and South Dakota. The tallgrass prairie

is characterized by big bluestem, switch grass, Indian grass, and prairie dropseed. In North Dakota this is found mainly in the

Agassiz Lake plain, but transitionally can be found along the State’s eastern border in a strip 2-3 counties wide. Similarly in

South Dakota the zone follows the eastern border at a similar width broadening to the Missouri River at the southern end of

the State. Most of the tallgrass habitat has been converted to agriculture. The remaining tall grass prairie sites are found in

small fragmented parcels scattered throughout and are crucial to maintaining and

restoring the ecosystem. These sites are

threatened by conversion to cropland;

invasion by exotics, noxious weeds, and

woody plants; pesticides; and heavy grazing

pressure.

The remaining tallgrass prairie sites

support a wide assemblage of plant and

animal species including many Federal and

State rare species. Sites in North Dakota

have the largest population of the western

prairie fringed orchid, a federally

threatened plant found in lowland swales

within the tallgrass community. Other

species of concern include the regal

fritillary, Dakota skipper and the powesheik

skipper, all butterflies which are species of

management concern. Eighteen state

classified rare plants occur in tallgrass

prairie of North Dakota. The tallgrass prairie also provides primary and secondary

breeding habitat for neotropical migrants in

decline such as the upland plover, bobolink,

common yellowthroat, grasshopper sparrow,

clay-colored sparrow, Baird’s sparrow, and

loggerhead shrike. Long-term survival of

these small, isolated prairies depends on

establishing prairie networks and

connecting these prairies and nearby

habitats to ward off extinction, and

integrating prairies with their surrounding

to reduce harm from improper management

on surrounding lands.

The native prairie west of the tallgrass area

in the two Dakotas consists primarily of

mixed grass prairie with some shortgrass

prairie in the far western portion of the two

Dakotas.

In the east river portions of the Dakotas, over half the historic native prairie has been converted to cropland, tame hayland,

or other uses. Statistics from the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) NRI data indicate the east river North

Dakota has lost about 403,000 acres of native range between 1982 and 1997. Similar statistics for South Dakota show a 519,000

acre loss of native range in east river South Dakota. Much of the remaining native prairie in private ownership is overused for

livestock. Native grasslands in public ownership are often under-managed and idled for too long without prescribed

treatments, and are invaded by introduced and exotic plant species. Nevertheless these native east river prairies are

important as cover for a wide variety of migratory birds, resident wildlife species, and species of management concern such as

the Dakota skipper, Baird’s sparrow, upland plover, and the ferruginous hawk. In addition, native prairie grasslands protect

the watersheds for prairie wetlands and streams and rivers in the east river country. Wetlands located in grasslands managed

for livestock are more secure from drainage than those located in cropland or more intensive agricultural situations.
154 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

The west river area of North and South Dakota, located west of the Missouri River has lost approximately 40 percent (60

percent for North Dakota and 30 percent for South Dakota) of the original 34 million acres of native prairie due to agricultural

conversion. These losses are compounded by overgrazing on much of the remaining acres. Some of the remaining prairie is in

public ownership managed by several federal agencies, primarily the U.S. Forest Service with about 1.6 million acres of

National Grasslands. Another 4.5 million acres in South Dakota and 1.5 million acres in North Dakota are under tribal

jurisdiction. NRCS NRI data show a 480,000 acre native prairie loss in west river South Dakota and a 184,000 acre loss in

North Dakota during the 1982-1997 period. The continual decline of prairie has resulted in habitat fragmentation of the native

prairie in the west river. Grassland conversion and overuse of the grasslands results in a loss of natural habitat diversity

through the decline in vegetative species and the establishment of introduced and exotic plants. West River native prairies

support a wide variety of migratory birds including high numbers of waterfowl in certain areas, endangered and threatened

species and species of management concern. A major species found west river is the black-tailed prairie dog and its colonies

which provide habitat for over 130 vertebrate species. Past and continued reduction of black-tailed prairie dogs from the

landscape jeopardizes a number of species, most notably the black-footed ferret, swift fox, and burrowing owl. Also included

in the west river area of both states are 2 million acres of “badlands”, two areas of highly eroded, rugged topography. The

South Dakota badlands are mostly under the management of the National Park Service in Badlands National Park; in North

Dakota the badlands are mostly within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 155

Visions: Protect, restore and maintain ecosystem native prairie and other grasslands to ensure its diversity and abundance of

indigenous flora and fauna.

Goal 1: Prevent degradation and conversion of native prairie grassland.

Objective A: Locate, categorize, evaluate and map native prairie within the ecosystem for baseline information by 2003.

Objective B: Protect native prairie by FWS easement on a minimum of 100,000 acres per year for the next 10 years.

Objective C: By the year 2003, develop and implement informational programs to promote awareness and advocacy for

native prairie. 

Objective D: Develop partnerships to protect 1,000,000 acres of native prairie by 2010. 

Objective E: Develop partnerships to reduce the extent and curtail the impact of invasive species in native prairie by

2010.

Objective F: Strive to work with partners to reduce fragmentation effects to flora and fauna in native prairie

communities.

Objective G: Identify contaminant issues affecting native prairie and the adverse impact each may be on native prairie

and associated wildlife species.

Objective H: Develop a plan, on how to prevent and/or reduce further contaminants from entering native prairie. 

Goal 2: Maintain and establish networks of native prairie and planted grasslands on public and private lands. 

Objective A: Promote and implement prescribed burning and rotational grazing on a minimum of 20 percent of private

lands per year to enhance and maintain healthy native prairie. 

Objective B: By the year 2003, develop informational materials on the importance of proper grazing management of

native prairie. 

Objective C: By the year 2002 identify the key areas in the ecosystem to restore perennial grasslands, maintain and/or

increase planted grassland with an emphasis on native species restoration. 

Objective D: Strive to treat a minimum of 20 percent of FWS administered grasslands annually using prescribed fire,

prescribed grazing, invasive species control or other recognized management practice.

Goal 3: Protect, restore and enhance habitat for trust species and species of special concern. 

Objective A: Identify declining grassland species of wildlife by the year 2003. 

Objective B: Develop information programs on why grassland species in decline are important, approaches to be taken to

reverse decline, and the public’s role in prairie conservation.

Objective C: Develop statewide partnerships to get people involved in species management. 

Objective D: Develop criteria and identify the most biologically significant grasslands by 2003. 

Objective E: Over the next 10 years, develop partnerships to enhance and manage native prairie including invasion by

nonnative species. 

Objective F: Develop management strategies to enhance species of concern on priority grasslands.
156 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

RIPARIAN AREAS

Riparian areas make up a very small portion of the habitat in the Ecosystem. However, riparian and riverine wetland

habitats are very important to fish and wildlife resources including migratory birds, threatened and endangered species,

native fish, rare and declining fisheries,

amphibians and many mammals. Many

vertebrates including species of nongame

and neotropical migratory birds, are

dependent on riparian and adjacent aquatic

zones for reproduction or for foraging

during reproduction. Riparian habitats

provide for much of the biodiversity in the

ecosystem. Many of the species currently

occurring in the ecosystem would be

eliminated without healthy riparian

habitats.

Riparian habitats are important even to the

species that mainly occur in the adjacent

upland areas. Many rare and declining

neotropical prairie grassland species need

to nest a short distance from water, and will

use riparian areas during juvenile dispersal

and as critical sites of migratory stopovers.

Many wildlife species use these zones as

migratory corridors. Riparian habitats are

also important for stabilizing riverbanks,

reducing sedimentation, providing woody

debris, and organic material for

invertebrates, thus enhancing fish habitat.

Many resident wildlife species use riparian

areas for winter survival. These species

leave the upland areas, using the riparian

areas for food and cover during the winter.

National Wildlife Refuges occur along the

Missouri, Souris, James, Des Lacs, and Red

River and their tributaries. These refuges

include sites of internationally significant

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture projects

critical to success of the North American

Waterfowl Management Plan. Riparian

wetlands in the Missouri River system are

nursery areas for forage fish vital to

survival of the Federally endangered pallid

sturgeon and least tern, and a variety of

candidate species.

Opportunities for partnerships will increase as people realize that pro-active, ecosystem-based management can head off

listing of endangered species in this wildlife-rich area that contains food, energy, and water supplies of global importance.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 157

RIPARIAN FOCUS AREA

Visions: Healthy riparian and floodplain ecosystems that provide an abundance and diversity of indigenous flora and fauna.

Goal 1: Reduce the conversion of riparian habitats and maintain, restore or enhance existing riparian habitats, quality

and functions on priority rivers and tributaries.

Objective A: Inventory and determine the quality of riparian habitats and associated wildlife populations within the

ecosystem by 2004 to provide baseline information. 

Objective B: Implement an informational program in the ecosystem by 2004 to promote a public appreciation and

understanding of the benefits and the threats to riparian habitats. 

Objective C: Support and assist in locating and control of invasive species in the ecosystem by 2006 to maintain or

improve the quality of the riparian habitat and protect National Wildlife Refuges and other important

habitats.

Objective D: Use existing programs and opportunities in the ecosystem by 2009 to improve critical riparian habitats.

Goal 2: Conserve and recover threatened and endangered species and species of management concern.

Objective A: Inventory threatened and endangered species and species of concern along riparian corridors in the

ecosystem by 2004 to provide baseline information. 

Objective B: Develop and implement strategies for conserving and recovering threatened and endangered species and

species of concern along riparian habitats in the ecosystem by 2004 and preclude the need to list any further

species.

Goal 3: Conserve, restore, and create habitat resources in watersheds to enhance the quality and quantity of water

flowing into rivers and streams.

Objective A: Use existing oversight, coordination and technical assistance by 2006 to promote sound management on

critical watersheds in the ecosystem. 

Objective B: Use existing programs and opportunities in the ecosystem by 2006 to conserve, enhance or restore

grasslands and wetlands to provide quality water runoff.
158

 Endangered 5 points * # of endangered species benefitted =

 Threatened 3 points * # of threatened species benefitted =

 Proposed 2 points * # of proposed species benefitted =

 Species of Mgt. Concern: 1 point * # of candidate species = 

 Appen dix A. M ainstem M issouri Eco system D ecision M atrix Criteria

1) Threatened an d endan gered species. 15 Points

The intent of this criteria is to give more weight to proposals demonstrating a direct benefit to the greatest number of

imperiled species, those species that are in greatest need of assistance, and proposals that move the species towards

reco very .

 Species Status

2) Migratory Birds. 15 Points Maximum

Provides habitat for raptors: 3 points

Provides habitat for passerines: 3 points

Provides habitat for d ucks, gee se, and sw ans: 3 points

Provides habitat for shorebirds and o ther wetland ob ligate species: 3 points

Provides habitat for 3 or more of the m igratory bird groups above: 3 points

3) Large, Intact Landscapes. 15 Points Maximum

 > 5000 acres: 5 points

 1000 - 5000 acres: 1 point

 < 1000 acres: 3 points

Land adjoining or expanding upon areas already protected (i.e. subject to state and/or federal resource): 

 3 points 

 Disturbance/Restoration Potential

 Little to no disturbance (pristine): 4 points

 Slight disturbance (easily restored): 3 points

 Moderate disturbance (moderate restoration required: 2 points

 Significant restoration required: 1 point

 Heavily disturbed (cannot be restored) 0 points

 Lands that create corridors linking priority habitats 3 points

4) Fisheries. 15 Points Maximum

High quality habitat present: 5 points

 Habitat capable of being restored: 4 points

 Presence of indigenous species: 3 points

 Absence of nonnative or invasive species: 3 points
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 159

5) Degree and Immediacy of Threats. 15 Points Maximum

 This criteria measures the immediacy as well as the potential degree and extent of threats facing a

particular resource.

Degree of Threat: Immediacy of Threat:

High degree of 8 points Immediate and imminent action pending: 7 points

Medium degree 5 points Moderate chan ce of imp ending action: 4 points

Low degree of 2 points Slight chance of impending action: 1 point

6) Good Opportunities. 10 Points Maximum

Ten or more partners: Yes / No

Identified as a “Focus Area” by NGO or other agency: Yes / No

At least a 3:1 non-FWS match available: Yes / No

Watersh ed grou p in place: Yes / No

Defined and measurable objectives: Yes / No

Multiple native species benefits: Yes / No

Excellent (6 of 6 criteria met): 10 poin ts

Very Good (5 of 6): 7 points

Good (4 of 6): 5 points

Fair (3 of 6): 3 points

Poor (2 or less): 1 point

7) Likelihood of Achieving Objective(s) as Defined in Mainstream Missouri Plan 10 Points Maximum

 Will meet most objective(s): 10 points

 Will meet most objective(s): 7 points

 Will meet some objective(s): 4 points

 Does not meet objective(s): 0 points

8) Cost/Benefits 5 Points Maximum

 (Units other than area may require different multipliers.)

 Less that $300 per acre: 5 points

 $300-$700 per acre: 3 points

 Greater than $700 per acre: 1 point

GRAND TOTAL (1 0 0 Points Maximum) = 
160 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Appendix J. Grassland Easement Evaluation Worksheet

GRASSLAND EASEMENT EVALUATION WORKSHEET

NAME: COUNTY:

ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

TELEPHONE:

TRACT SIZE: WETLAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT:

Ranking Factors

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) Factor Score

1. Grassland

Easement

Location

on wetland

easement

adjacent

to fee title

or wet.

ease.

Adjacent

to public

water

within 1

mile of fee

or ease.

-- x3

2. Grassland Quality

(% of total area)

(Choose the line with the highest point value)

Native Prairie >75 50-74 25-49 0-24 — x3

Tame

Grasses/DNC

--- --- 50-100 25-49 <25 x2

Tame

Grasses/Interior

--- --- --- 50-100 <50 x1

Cropland/Native --- — 50-100 25-49 <25 x1

Cropland/DNC — --- — 50-100 <50 x1

Cropland/Interior  disqualified for easement 

3. Distance from

perpetually

protected brood

water

or,

“thunderstorm

Map” siting

on the tract

(Red/Yellow)

100 - 96%

within 0.5

miles

81 - 95%

0.5 - 1.0

miles

61 - 80%

—

41 - 60%

—

21 - 40%

x3

4. Number of

Wetland

Basins/Square

Mile

or,

“Thunderstorm

Map” siting

50+

(Red/Yellow)

100 - 96%

30 -49

81 - 95%

15 - 29

61 - 80%

5 - 14

41 - 60%

1 - 4

21 - 40%

x3

5. Tract Size (acres) 640+ 480 - 639 320 - 479 240 - 319 160 - 239 x3

6. Soil Capability 85 - 100% of

upland is

highly

erodible soil

or Capability

Class IV+

70 - 84% 50 - 69% 20 - 49% <20% x2

7. Special Features (Bonus Points - One Point each)

 a. Low brush, woody cover, riparian habitat with benefits to waterfowl or non-game migratory birds x1

 b. Habitat with benefits to endangered species x1

 c. Easement will help control saline seeps, existing contaminant problems, etc. x1
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 161

 d. Landowner simultaneously signs grassland management agreement or easement is part of a

 partnership project.

x3

 e. Other (specify) x1

Total Score:

Threshold Score:

Evaluator: Recommended:

Date: Not Recommended:

Supervisor:
162 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Appendix K. Existing Partnerships

The following organizations, agencies and individuals have been instrumental in helping us to meet current objectives for

protecting or restoring habitat or improving and providing public use, education or interpretation.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Natural Resource Conservation Service

Farm Service Agency

APHIS

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks

South Dakota Conservation Commission

Soil and Water Conservation Districts: Grant, Day, Roberts, Marshall, Clark, Codington

Minnesota Area III Conservation Districts

Friends of Big Stone Lake

Ducks Unlimited, Inc.

Pheasants Forever

The Nature Conservancy

Glacial Lakes Outdoor School

Boy and Girl Scouts of America

North American Wetlands Conservation Council

Aberdeen Development corporation

East Dakota Water Development District

Watershed groups for Lake Farley, Big Stone Lake, Lake Kampeska, Lake Traverse

SD Chapter of The Wildlife Society

American Fisheries Society - Dakota Chapter

National Audubon Society

HT Enterprises, Inc.

SD Army National Guard

Izaak Walton League of America - Kampeska Chapter

Scheels All Sports

Dave Genz and The Ice Team

Lindy Little Joe, Inc.

Berkely

Hundreds of private landowners

Beth Ullenburg - Outdoor Recreation Planner, Sand Lake NWR

Bob Losco - Conservation Officer, South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks

Kari Sorenson - NE-SO-DAK 

Numerous other individuals who have helped over the years with various programs or projects
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 163

Appendix L. Compatibility

Determinations

The following activities were previously covered under

compatibility determinations evaluated in 1994 to

comply with a court order. During the process of the

Comprehensive Conservation Plan these activities have

been reevaluated and determined to comply with the

compatibility standards.

■ Upland Management - Waubay NWR Complex

■ Deer Hunting - Waubay NWR

■ Waterfowl, Upland Game and Deer Hunting -

Waubay WMD

■ Sport Fishing - Waubay WMD

■ Trapping of Furbearers - Waubay WMD

■ Education and Interpretation - Waubay NWR

■ Cross Country Skiing - Waubay NWR

■ Picnicking - Waubay NWR

An Environmental assessment was completed for

Management of Upland Habitat on Waubay NWR and

Waubay WMD. It was found to have no significant

impact.

Copies of these compatibility determinations and

Environmental Assessment are located at the Waubay

NWR Complex Headquarters.

As in the past, prior to new activities occurring or

permitted in the Complex a compatibility determination

and NEPA documentation is completed and concurrence

is obtained by the Regional Office.

When new activities or actions are proposed and found

to have significant impacts affecting the quality of the

human environment or there is disagreements on the

impacts, an Environmental Assessment or

Environmental Impact Statement is required and

includes public input on the decision process.

Compatibility Overview

Compatibility is a tool refuge managers use to ensure

that recreation and other uses do not interfere with

wildlife conservation - the primary focus of refuges. For

purposes of this document, uses are any recreational,

economic/commercial, pest/predator control, or other use

of the refuge by the public or a non-Service entity.

Compatibility is not new to the Refuge System and dates

back to 1918, as a concept. As policy, it has been used

since 1962. The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962

(Recreation Act) directed the Secretary of Interior to

allow only those public uses of refuge lands that were

“compatible with the primary purposes for which the

area was established.” This law also required that

adequate funds be available for administration and

protection of refuges before opening them to any public

uses. Legally, refuges are closed to all public uses until

officially opened through a compatibility determination. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration

Act of 1966 set a compatibility standard which refuge

managers used until new compatibility regulations,

required by the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge System Improvement

Act), were adopted. The Refuge System Improvement

Act maintains a compatibility standard but provides

more detail regarding the standard and the process, and

requires the process be promulgated in regulations. It

also requires that a use must be compatible with both

the mission of the System and the purposes of the

individual refuge, which helps to ensure consistency in

application across the System. The Act also requires that

the public have an opportunity to comment on use

evaluations.

This Act stipulates that the needs of wildlife must come

first and defines a compatible use as a use that “. . . in the

sound professional judgement of the Director, will not

materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment

of the mission of the [NWRS] or the purposes of the

refuge.” Sound professional judgement is defined as “. . .

a finding, determination, or decision, that is consistent

with principles of sound fish and wildlife management

and administration, available science and resources. . . .”

Compatibility for priority wildlife-dependent uses may

depend on the level or extent of a use.

In 1978, the compatibility standard was tested in court

when recreational uses at Ruby Lake NWR (water

skiing and motor boating) were found to be in violation

of the Refuge Recreation Act. The court determined that

compatibility is a biological standard and cannot be used

to balance or weigh economic, political, or recreational

interests against the primary purpose of the refuge. This

ruling stated that the existence of noncompatible uses on

a refuge in the past has no bearing on the compatibility

of present uses. In their summary of this case, Coggins

et al. (1987) conclude “neither poor administration of the

Refuge in the past nor prior interferences with its

primary purpose, nor past recreational, nor deterioration

of its wildlife resources since establishment, nor

administrative custom or tradition alters the statutory

standard.”

The Service recognizes that compatibility

determinations are complex. For this reason Refuge

Managers are required to consider “principles of sound

fish and wildlife management” and “available science” in

making these determinations. Evaluations of the

existing uses on Waubay Complex are based on the

professional judgement of refuge personnel including

observations of refuge uses and reviews of appropriate

scientific literature.
164 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

The compatibility determinations that follow are

consistent with the Compatibility Policy and Regulations

published in the Federal Register (FR 62484, FR 62458).

1. Use:

2 Refuge Name:

3. Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

4. Refuge Purposes:

5. NWRS Mission:

6. Description of Use:

7. Availability of Resources:

8 Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

9. Public Review and Comment:

10. Determination:

11. Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

12. Justification:

Items 2 through 5 are listed once in the beginning of this

document. Items 1 and 6 through 12 will be listed for

each determination. 

Compatibility determinations for the following uses are

included within this appendix:

■ Environmental Education and Interpretation

■ Wildlife Observation & Wildlife Photography

■ Fishing

■ Hunting

■ Trapping

■ Farming, Grazing and Haying

■ Research

Compatibility Determinations

Refuge Name:

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex)

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies):

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge:

Established on December 10, 1935

Waubay Wetland Management District:

Established on August 1, 1958

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge located in Day

County, South Dakota was established by Executive

Order 7245 “as a refuge and breeding ground for

migratory birds and other wildlife.”

Waubay Wetland Management District is part of the

Small Wetland Acquisition Program (SWAP) started in

the1950s to save wetlands from various threats,

particularly draining. The passage of Public Law 85-585

on August 1, 1958, amended the Migratory Bird Hunting

and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp Act) of 1934,

allowing for the acquisition of “Waterfowl Production

Areas” and “Easements for Waterfowl Management

Rights” (easement). The Wetland Loan Act (P.L. 87-383)

was passed on October 4, 1961 and allowed for the

advancement of the funds against future revenues from

Duck Stamp sales. As a result, Wetland Management

Districts (WMD) were created in 1962. 

Refuge Complex Purpose(s):

■ For lands acquired under Executive Order 7245,

dated Dec 10, 1935, the purpose of the acquisition is

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

birds and other wildlife . . . .” 

■ For WMD lands acquired under 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.

■ For 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 . . . 11 16

U.S.C. S 718 (Migratory Bird Hunting and

Conservation Stamp Act).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The National Wildlife Refuge System mission 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.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 165

Use: Environmental Education and

Interpretation

Description of Use: 

Environmental education consists of activities conducted

by Complex staff, volunteers, NeSoDak staff (a Service

Partner) and teachers. Interpretation occurs in less

formal activities with Complex staff and volunteers or

through exhibits, educational trunks, signs, and

brochures. Currently, environmental education and

interpretation activities are conducted at the Complex

office/visitor center. Programs and activities are also

held at various locations on the Complex Headquarters

Island and on Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA’s)

throughout the Wetland Management District (District).

Additional programs are conducted at schools and other

locations as personnel are available. The CCP calls for

establishing an environmental education center located

near the Complex office. This facility will permit school

groups to maximize their time at the Complex

Headquarters in environmental education activities

during a limited school day. The current outdoor

education site is equipped with facilities for school

groups to have lunch while participating in all day

events. The remainder of the Refuge serves as a

sanctuary for wildlife. Cross country skiing and

snowshoeing on established hiking trails will be allowed

during winter months. These uses occur year-round with

peak use in the spring and fall for environmental

education.

The CCP proposes to continue with the above uses and

add the following to improve environmental education

and interpretation opportunities and access for all

visitors.

■ Hire an Outdoor Recreation Planner

■ Construct a new Education Center

■ Construct a boardwalk and observation deck

■ Update and improve Complex Signs

■ Construct new entrance kiosk and update existing

kiosk panels

■ Establish a Coteau Birding Trail with sites located

on the Refuge and WPA’s

■ Update existing brochures to new Service standards

■ Pave headquarter/visitor center and trail head

parking lots with asphalt or concrete

Availability of Resources:

Currently all above activities are conducted using

available Complex staff. Funding is adequate to continue

with our current outreach activities. Additional funds

will be required to provide additional programs and

activities as outlined in the CCP. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use:

Anticipated impacts from environmental education and

interpretation are minor damage to vegetation, littering,

possible conflict with other users, and increased

maintenance activity. Minor disturbances to wildlife

were considered during planning. Location and time

limitations placed on environmental education and

interpretation activities assure that this activity has only

minor impacts on wildlife and does not detract from the

primary purposes of the Refuge.

Public Review and Comment:

This Compatibility Determination was distributed for

public review and comment as an appendix to the draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental

Assessment for Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

Complex.

Determination (check one below):

_____Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With the Following

Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Environmental education and interpretation will only

occur in designated areas or under the guidance of a

Complex staff member, volunteer, or trained teacher to

assure minimal disturbance to wildlife, minimal

vegetation damage, and minimal conflict between user

groups. Environmental education and interpretation

activities will be reviewed annually to ensure this

compatibility determination still applies.

Justification:

Based upon biological impacts described in the CCP and

Environmental Assessment, it is determined that

environmental education and interpretation within the

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex will not

materially interfere with or detract from the purposes

for which this Complex was established.

Secondly, environmental education and interpretation

are priority public uses listed in the National Wildlife

Refuge System Improvement Act. By facilitating

environmental education on the Complex, we will

increase knowledge and appreciation of fish, wildlife and

their habitats among program participants, which will

lead to increased public stewardship of wildlife and their

habitats at the Complex and elsewhere. Increased public

stewardship will support and complement the Service’s

actions in achieving the Complex’s purposes and the

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2017
166 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Use: Wildlife Observation and Wildlife

Photography

Description of Use:

Currently, wildlife observation and wildlife photography

occurs along the Complex Headquarters entrance road,

walking trails and the observation tower at the Complex

Headquarters. Wildlife observation and wildlife

photography also take place throughout the Wetland

Management District, mostly on Waterfowl Production

Areas. These activities occur throughout the year but

main interest is during the spring and fall migrations.

Access for wildlife observation and wildlife photography

is gained through hiking, bicycling, and by automobile.

Automobile and bicycling are only allowed on the

entrance road and public roads located along and

through WPA’s. Individuals using the established refuge

trails will be allowed to use cross country skis and

snowshoes for winter access. An outdoor education site

is available for visitors to rest and have a lunch at while

hiking the trails and enjoying area wildlife. 

The CCP proposes to continue with the above uses and

add the following to improve wildlife observation and

wildlife photography opportunities along with access for

all visitors.

■ Repair flooded refuge roads for an auto tour or

bicycle path (will only happen if flood waters recede)

■ Construct a new photography blind

■ Construct a boardwalk and observation deck

■ Update and improve Complex Signs

■ Establish a Coteau Birding Trail with sites located

on the Refuge and WPA’s

■ Update existing brochures to new Service standards

■ Pave with asphalt or concrete headquarter/visitor

center and trail head parking lots

Availability of Resources:

Based on a review of the Complex budget allocated for

this activity, there is adequate funding to ensure

compatibility and to administer and manage the use at

its current level. Additional funds will be required to

provide additional programs and activities as outlined in

the CCP. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use:

Anticipated impacts from visitors engaged in wildlife

observation and wildlife photography are minor damage

to vegetation, littering, increased maintenance activity,

potential conflicts with other visitors, and minor

disturbances to wildlife. Because visitors are limited to

the Complex Headquarters Island and on designated

trails, wildlife observation and wildlife photography has

only minor impacts on wildlife and does not detract from

the primary purposes of the Refuge. All other potential

impacts are considered minor.

Public Review and Comment:

This Compatibility Determination was distributed for

public review and comment as an appendix to the draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental

Assessment for Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

Complex.

Determination (Check one below):

_____Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With the Following

Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary To Ensure Compatibility:

Public access for wildlife observation and wildlife

photography will be limited to Refuge designated trails

to assure minimal disturbance to wildlife and minimal

conflict between user groups. Wildlife observation and

wildlife photography activities will be reviewed annually

to ensure this compatibility determination still applies.

Justification:

Based upon biological impacts described in the CCP and

Environmental Assessment, it is determined that

wildlife observation and wildlife photography within the

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex will not

materially interfere with or detract from the purposes

for which this Complex was established. 

Secondly, wildlife observation and wildlife photography

are priority public uses listed in the National Wildlife

Refuge System Improvement Act. By facilitating these

uses on the Complex, we will increase visitors’

knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife, which

will lead to increased public stewardship of wildlife and

their habitats at the Complex and elsewhere. Increased

public stewardship will support and complement the

Service’s actions in achieving the Refuge’s purposes and

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2017
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 167

Use: Fishing

Description of Use:

The Refuge was opened to ice fishing in 1998 as rising

water levels linked Hillebrand’s and Spring Lakes (the

main refuge lakes) and their associated peripheral

marshes, to Waubay Lake. Suddenly, a world-class

fishery for northern pike, walleye and yellow perch was

thrust into Refuge lakes. Fishing is allowed from the

close of Refuge rifle deer season (ice dependent) until

ice-out in the spring. No motorized vehicles (passenger

vehicles, snowmobiles, ATV’s etc.) will be allowed to

travel off existing trails and roads. The District WPA’s

are legally open to fishing as per their establishing

legislation and the Federal Code of Regulations.

Availability of Resources:

Based on a review of the Complex budget allocated for

this activity, there is adequate funding to ensure

compatibility and to administer and manage the use at

its current level. A RONS project for additional funds

will provide increased law enforcement presence.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Nearly all migratory birds and waterfowl have migrated

from the Complex by the end of deer rifle season

(December 1 or later). Remaining wildlife after this date

concentrate their use on upland habitats, not frozen

lakes. Harvests are regulated by South Dakota Game,

Fish and Parks to take only surplus specimens, thus

assuring viable, healthy populations within management

and habitat guidelines. Restrictions to the fishing

program assure that these activities have no adverse

impacts on other wildlife species and little adverse

impact on other public use programs. 

Public Review and Comment:

This Compatibility Determination was distributed for

public review and comment as an appendix to the draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental

Assessment for Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

Complex.

Determination (Check one below):

_____Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With the Following

Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife Refuge

System and Waubay Complex goals and objectives,

movement of vehicles will be restricted to existing roads

and trails to minimize disturbance to a wintering whitetailed deer herd. No ice-fishing prior to the end of rifle

deer season will be allowed to avoid conflicts between

deer hunters and ice-fisherman. Deer hunting was

permitted for many years before the establishment of a

fishing program. There are safety considerations to

permitting two groups, one using high powered rifles, to

utilize a relatively small area. Ice houses will be limited

to day-use-only. Disturbance to Complex wildlife should

be very minimal, with the above constraints.

Justification:

Based upon biological impacts described in the CCP and

Environmental Assessment, it is determined that ice

fishing within the Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

Complex will not materially interfere with or detract

from the purposes for which this Complex was

established.

Secondly, fishing is a priority public use listed in the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. By

facilitating this use on the Complex, we will increase

visitors’ knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife,

which will lead to increased public stewardship of

wildlife and their habitats at the Complex and in

elsewhere. Increased public stewardship will support

and complement the Service’s actions in achieving the

Refuge’s purposes and the mission of the National

Wildlife Refuge System.

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2017
168 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Use: Hunting

Description of Use:

Deer hunting may occur throughout the Refuge except

for Headquarters Island which is closed to all hunting.

There are currently three types of Refuge deer hunts,

they include archery, muzzleloader and rifle seasons.

Archery season is open to all properly licensed

participants and muzzleloader and rifle seasons are by

state permit only. Hunters are allowed to access island

hunting areas with watercraft using only oars or paddles

(no motorized watercraft are allowed, including electric

motors). Hunting seasons begin in September with

archery season and muzzleloader, and rifle seasons occur

during November and early December. Archery season

closes the end of December on the Refuge. The Wetland

Management District WPA’s 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 on WPA’s.

Availability of Resources:

Based on a review of the Complex budget allocated for

this activity, there is adequate funding to ensure

compatibility and to administer and manage the use at

its current level. A RONS project for additional funds

will provide increased law enforcement presence.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: 

Continuing this activity has shown no assessable

environmental impact to the Refuge, its habitats, or

wildlife species. With restrictions to hunting on

Headquarters Island little disturbance will occur

between hunting activities and all other allowable

Refuge uses. With the use of non-motorized watercraft

for island access, little disturbance will occur with

migrating waterfowl and other migratory birds.

Disturbance to wildlife is limited to occasional flushing of

non-target species and the harvest of individual

members of the species open to the hunting season in the

periphery areas only. Restrictions to the hunting

program assure that these activities have no adverse

impacts on other wildlife species and little adverse

impact to other public use programs. These activities are

compliant with the purpose of the Refuge and the

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission. Operating this

activity does not alter the Refuge’s ability to meet

habitat goals, provides for the safety of local citizens, and

supports several of the primary objectives of the Refuge. 

Public Review and Comment:

This Compatibility Determination was distributed for

public review and comment as an appendix to the draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental

Assessment for Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

Complex.

Determination (check one below):

______Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With the Following

Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife Refuge

System and Waubay Complex goals and objectives this

activity can only occur under the following stipulations:

■ No hunting will be permitted on Headquarters

Island to prevent conflicts between other permitted

activities and for safety of the visiting public. 

■ Only non-motorized watercraft (including electric

motors) will be permitted on Refuge waters for use

of transportation to and from Refuge Islands.

■ Annually review all hunting activities and

operations to ensure compliance with all applicable

laws, regulations and policies.

■ Annual population censuses will be completed to

ensure population reduction is necessary to maintain

deer numbers within the carrying capacity of the

habitat.

Justification:

Based upon biological impacts described in the CCP and

Environmental Assessment, it is determined that

hunting within the Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

Complex will not materially interfere with or detract

from the purposes for which this Complex was

established. In addition, deer hunting is necessary to

meet the Refuge’s habitat objectives and prevent

adverse impacts to other wildlife species.

Secondly, hunting is a priority public use listed in the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. By

facilitating this use on the Complex, we will increase

visitors’ knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife,

which will lead to increased public stewardship of

wildlife and their habitats at the Complex and

elsewhere. Increased public stewardship will support

and complement the Service’s actions in achieving the

Refuge’s purposes and the mission of the National

Wildlife Refuge System.

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2017
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 169

Use: Trapping

Description of Use:

Provide for recreational trapping on Waubay Complex

lands along with spring predator trapping to improve

upland nesting bird success on the Complex. The

Wetland Management District WPA’s are legally open to

trapping according to State regulations as per their

establishing legislation and the Federal Code of

Regulations.

Availability of resources:

Currently there is insufficient funding and staffing to

manage the recreational trapping and spring predator

trapping on the Complex. The Complex recreational

trapping program will be enhanced through additional

law enforcement staff. To administer a spring predator

trapping program additional biological staff for

monitoring of predator populations and upland bird

production will be required. Both positions are listed in

the RONS Appendix N.

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 increases nesting success of upland

nesting birds. There would be direct mortality 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. There

is the possibility of injury to nonmarket wildlife that are

caught in traps such as badgers, weasels, an occasional

rabbit, domestic dogs and feral cats.

Public Review and Comment:

This Compatibility Determination was distributed for

public review and comment as an appendix to the draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental

Assessment for Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

Complex.

Determination (check one below):

______Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With the Following

Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

■ Trapping will be conducted in a manner that will

remove only targeted species or species removed for

public health and safety concerns.

■ Recreational trapping will occur within regular

State seasons and will not conflict with other public

uses.

■ Trapping for predators outside of regular season

will be coordinated with the South Dakota Game,

Fish and Parks.

■ Detailed trapping records will be maintained for

refuge and staff trappers.

■ No trapping will take place in areas of high public

use areas, especially Headquarters Island unless

done for health and safety reasons.

■ No exposed bait will be placed near traps that might

attract eagles or other raptors.

■ Traps must be monitored at a minimum of every 24

hours.

■ Monitoring of nest success in areas targeted for

predator removal to determine effectiveness and

need for next year’s trapping (only when nest

success falls below 30 percent Mayfield will trapping

be conducted).

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 feasibly remove

enough animals to permanently impact these

populations.

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2017
170 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Use: Farming, Grazing and Haying

Description of Proposed Use:

Continue upland management activities such as farming,

grazing and haying that are conducted under permit by

private individuals. Currently, these economic uses are

used as management tools to manage habitat for wildlife.

Farming averages 100 acres each year in the Complex,

including Refuge fields and grassland restoration

activities on WPA’s. Cattle grazing is currently used as a

management tool throughout the Complex and averages

2,000 acres a year. Haying is used on the Refuge and

District to improve grassland conditions and control

invasive weed species with an average of 200 acres

hayed annually. 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.

Availability of Resources:

Current resources are stretched thin to maintain

existing programs. If additional staff support were

available, these programs could be expanded to utilize

these tools more effectively and monitoring could be

accomplished. Additional management and biological

staff are identified in the RONS Appendix N. These

positions will be necessary to fully accomplish the goals

of the CCP and improve the existing programs.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Current management affects less than 5 percent of the

upland habitat annually. This management is not evenly

distributed over the entire Complex, and the percentage

of upland receiving optimum management is considered

to be much less than 5 percent. General habitat

conditions on the Complex would gradually deteriorate

due to long periods of non-prescribed rest. While some

wildlife disturbance does occur with these activities, the

benefits to wildlife far out-weigh these disturbances. No

cultural resources would be impacted. No impact to

endangered species should occur; however, habitat

suitability for the Dakota skipper and regal fritillary

would continue to deteriorate without some form of

defoliation treatment.

Public Review and Comment:

This Compatibility Determination was distributed for

public review and comment as an appendix to the draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental

Assessment for Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

Complex.

Determination (check one below):

______Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With the Following

Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

■ General and special conditions are required for each

permit to ensure consistency with management

objectives.

■ Farming permittees are restricted to a list of

approved chemicals which are less detrimental to

wildlife, use of only the necessary amount to control

problem spots, and to report their use yearly. 

■ Farming permittees must leave a portion of the crop

for wildlife use.

■ Cattle grazing permittees are required to follow a

short-term rotational grazing system to provide

appropriate stimulation of grasses.

■ Grazing permittees must comply with State

Livestock Health Laws.

■ Haying will be restricted to after July 15 to avoid

disturbance to nesting birds.

■ Haying permittees are required to report and mow

noxious weeds in their areas.

Justification:

Without these uses there would be many adverse

reactions. 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 non-consumptive

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.

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2017
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 171

Use: Research

Description of Use:

The Waubay Complex receives periodic requests to

conduct scientific research. Priority would be given to

studies that support the Complex purposes, goals and

objectives. This would include, for example, studies that

contribute to the enhancement, protection, use,

preservation and management of native Complex

wildlife populations and their habitats, and would also

include cultural resources. Research applicants must

submit a proposal that would outline: 1) objectives of the

study; 2) justification for the study; 3) detailed

methodology and schedule; 4) potential impacts on

Complex wildlife and/or habitat, including disturbance

(short- and long-term), injury, or mortality; 5) personnel

required; 6) costs to the Complex, if any; and 7) end

products (i.e. reports, publications). Research proposals

would be reviewed by Complex staff, Regional Office

Branch of Refuge Biology and others, as appropriate.

Evaluation criteria will include, but not be limited to, the

following:

1) Research that will contribute to priority

management activities will have higher priority

than other requests.

2) Research that will conflict with higher priority

research, monitoring or management programs may

not be granted.

3) Research projects that can be done elsewhere offWaubay Complex lands, are less likely to be

approved.

4) Research which causes undue disturbance or is

intrusive, will likely not be granted. Level and type

of disturbance will be carefully weighed when

evaluating a request. 

5) Research evaluation will determine if any effort has

been made to minimize disturbance through study

design, including considering adjusting location,

timing, scope, number of permittees, study methods,

number of study sites, etc. 

6) If staffing or logistics make it impossible for the

Complex to monitor researcher activity this may be

reason to deny the request depending on the

circumstances.

7) The length of the project will be considered and

agreed upon before approval. Projects will not be

open ended, and at a minimum, will be reviewed

annually.

Availability of Resources:

Direct costs to administer research activities are

primarily in the form of staff time and transportation. It

is estimated that current staff is adequate to manage

small and short-term research projects. RONS projects

for additional biological and management staff will be

required to monitor complex and long-term research

activities. Proposals will only be accepted if funding and

personnel are available to adequately monitor all

research activities.

Anticipated Impacts of Use:

Minimal impact to Complex wildlife and habitats will be

expected with research studies. Some level of

disturbance is expected with all research activities since

most researchers will be entering areas that are

normally closed to the public and may be collecting

samples or handling wildlife. Special Use Permit

conditions will include special conditions to ensure that

impact to wildlife and habitats are kept to a minimum.

Public Review and Comment:

This Compatibility Determination was distributed for

public review and comment as an appendix to the draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental

Assessment for Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

Complex.

Determination:

Use is not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

# If the proposed research methods would impact or

potentially impact Complex resources (habitat or

wildlife), it must be demonstrated that the research

is necessary (i.e. critical to survival of a species, will

enhance restoration activities of native species, will

help in control of invasive species or provide valuable

information that will guide future Refuge or Service

activities), and the researcher must identify the

issues in advance of the impact.

# Highly intrusive or manipulative research is

generally not permitted in order to protect native

wildlife populations and habitats in which they live. 

# Research that doesn’t involve birds will be conducted

outside of the breeding season of avian species in all

possible circumstances.

# Project Leader can suspend/modify

conditions/terminate on-refuge research that is

already permitted and in progress, should

unacceptable impacts or issues arise or be noted.

Justification:

Research projects will contribute to the enhancement,

protection, use, preservation, and management of native

Complex wildlife populations and their habitats. In view

of the potential impacts associated research activities

can have on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s ability to

achieve Complex purposes, sufficient restrictions would

be placed on the researcher to ensure that disturbance is

kept to a minimum. This program as described is

determined to be compatible.

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2017
172 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Waubay Complex Compatibility Determinations Approval

Refuge Manager/

Project Leader

Approval:

(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence:

Refuge Supervisor:

(Signature) (Date)

Regional Chief,

National Wildlife

Refuge System:

(Signature) (Date)
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 173

Appendix M. Plans and

Organizations Affecting

Waubay Complex

North American Waterfowl Management Plan - an

international strategy that coordinates the efforts of

public and private conservation groups to protect,

restore and enhance wetland habitats for declining

waterfowl populations. Implementation occurs

regionally, within one of nine habitat joint ventures in

the U.S. Waubay Complex falls under the scope of the

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture, which works to promote

waterfowl conservation and the preservation of all

wetland and associated-upland species in the Prairie

Pothole Region of the U.S. and Canada.

The Nature Conservancy - the world’s leading private

international conservation group dedicated to preserving

the plants, animals, and natural communities that

represent the diversity of life on Earth. The Tallgrass

Prairie Ecoregional Plan works to ensure the long-term

survival of the remaining tallgrass prairie that occurs

within this ecoregion, which is considered to be less than

4 percent of its historical range. 

Partners in Flight - a cooperative effort among

individuals, government agencies, and nongovernmental

organizations to address the growing concerns about

declines in populations of many land bird species,

especially those not covered by existing conservation

initiatives. Efforts focus on improving monitoring and

inventory, research, management, and education

programs involving birds and their habitats.

Partners for Fish and Wildlife - Helps accomplish the

mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service by offering

technical and financial assistance to private landowners

to voluntarily restore wetlands and other fish and

wildlife habitats on their land. Emphasizes

reestablishment of native vegetation and ecological

communities for the benefit of wildlife in concert with

the needs and desires of private landowners. 

South Dakota Natural Heritage Program - a cooperative

project between South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks

and The Nature Conservancy to monitor and protect

rare and endangered species or unique features and

document potential threats to the continued survival of

such species or communities in the State of South

Dakota.

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network - a

joint program of Manomet Observatory and Wetlands

International that focuses on the study, management,

and protection of wetlands and grasslands essential for

migratory shorebirds.

Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area - a

grassland easement program developed by the USFWS

to preserve 190,000 acres of native tallgrass prairie in

eastern North and South Dakota.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service - has several programs aimed at

conserving tallgrass prairie rangeland and protecting

highly erodible soils while providing wildlife habitat. The

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

provides ranchers and farmers with information on

grazing systems, water development, and educational

programs. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

allows highly erodible croplands to be set-aside and

planted to a mixture of native grasses for 10 to 15 year

contracts. The Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program

(WHIP) provides expertise and funding for planting

native grasses. 

Ducks Unlimited - a private organization whose mission

is to fulfill the annual life cycle needs of North American

waterfowl by protecting, enhancing, restoring, and

managing important wetlands and associated uplands.

They are initializing a Revolving Land Acquisition

Program on the Prairie Coteau of northeastern South

Dakota that is aimed at restoration of waterfowl habitat

on large tracts.

Friends of Prairie - a group of private citizens focused on

raising public awareness and support of issues related to

the conservation and preservation of tallgrass prairie in

the Dakotas. 
174 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Appendix N. RONS List

RONS PROJECTS

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge 

and

Waubay Wetland Management District 

Priorit

y No. 

Links to 

CCP Goal

Project Description First

Year

Need

Recurring

Annual

Need

FTE

1 R1, R3, R4,

D1, D3, D4

Initiate environmental education

program - Education Specialist

$128,000 $63,000 1.0

2 R1, D1 Restore 500 acres of tallgrass

grasslands - Maintenance Worker

$164,000 $99,000 1.0

3 R1, D1 Improve noxious weed control on

500 acres of native prairie -

Maintenance Worker

$144,000 $79,000 1.0

4 R1, R2, R3,

R4, D1, D2,

D3, D4

Protect 20,000 acres of prairie

wetlands and grasslands -

Administrative Clerk

$118,000 $53,000 1.0

5 R1, R2, R3,

R4, D1, D2,

D3, D4

Protect 10,000 acres of threatened

grassland and wetland habitats -

Resource Specialist

$139,000 $74,000 1.0

6 R1, R2, R3,

R4, D1, D2,

D3, D4

Develop a GIS based habitat

mapping system for 250,000 acres

of Refuge System lands

$93,000

7 R3, R4, D3,

D4

Improve enforcement of Wetland

and Grassland Easements on

200,000 acres - Law Enforcement

Officer

$139,000 $74,000 1.0

8 R1, R2, R4,

D1, D2, D4

Survey bird and plant

communities - Biologist

$128,000 $63,000 1.0

9 R1, D1 Improve 2000 acres of grassland

on Waterfowl Production Areas -

Maintenance Worker

$152,000 $87,000 1.0

10 R1, R3, R4,

D1, D3, D4

Increase management intensity of

Refuge System lands - Manager

$76,000 $37,000 0.5

11 R1, R3, R4,

D1, D3, D4

Expand land management

activities - Manager

$166,000 $101,000 1.0

12 R1, R2, R4,

D1, D2, D4

Survey plant communities on 200

Waterfowl Production Areas -

Biotechnologist

$277,000 $77,000 1.0

Totals $1,724,000 $807,000 10.5
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 175

Appendix O. MMS List

MMS PROJECTS

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

and

Waubay Wetland Management District 

Priority

No.

Links to

CCP Goal

Project

Description

Estimated

Cost

1 R1, R2, R3,

R4, D1, D2,

D3, D4

Repair Office/Visitor Center heating and cooling $27,000

2 R1, R2, R3,

R4, D1, D2,

D3, D4

Replace WPA boundary fence $79,000

3 R1, R2, R3,

R4, D1, D2,

D3, D4

Replace WPA boundary signs $65,000

4 R1, R2, D1,

D2

Replace 1978 implement truck $55,000

5 R1, R2, R3,

R4, D1, D2,

D3, D4

Stabilize Office/Visitor Center lakeshore $105,000

6 R1, R2, D1,

D2

Replace 1979 farm tractor $96,000

7 R1, R2, D1,

D2

Replace 1979 tandem disc $25,000

8 R1, R2, R3,

R4, D1, D2,

D3, D4

Replace WPA boundary fence $79,000

9 R1, R2, R3,

R4, D1, D2,

D3, D4

Replace WPA boundary fence $65,000

10 R1, R2, D1,

D2

Replace 1980 skid loader $48,000

11 R1, R2, R3,

R4, D1, D2,

D3, D4

Replace WPA boundary fence $79,000

12 R1, R2, D1,

D2

Replace 1984 implement trailer $25,000

Total $748,000
176 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002

Appendix P. List of Preparers

Waubay NWR Staff:

Laura Hubers, Wildlife Biologist

Jarrod Lee, Refuge Operations Specialist

Doug Leschisin, Deputy Project Leader

Larry Martin, Project Leader

Connie Mueller, Refuge Operations Specialist

USFWS, Division of Planning, Denver, CO

Bridget McCann, Wildlife Biologist, Team Leader

Toni Griffin, Landscape Architect, Team Leader

Sean Fields, GIS Coordinator, Mapping

Barbara Shupe, Writer/Editor, Document Layout
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

44401 134A Street

Waubay, South Dakota 57273-5301

605 / 947 4521

email: waubay@fws.gov

http://waubay.fws.gov/

For Relay Service Connection

TTY/Voice: 711

U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

http://www.r6.fws.gov/larp

For Refuge Information

1 800 / 344 WILD

June 2002

Cover Photo USFWS

This goose, designed by J.N. “Ding”

Darling, has become the symbol of the

National Wildlife Refuge System.