Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 1

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lostwood

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive

Conservation Plan
2 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 3
4 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 5

Table of Contents

PREFACE ......................................................................................................................... 7

Four Seasons .............................................................................................................................................. 9

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.............................................................. 15

Purpose and Need for a Plan................................................................................................................ 15

National Wildlife Refuge System ........................................................................................................ 15

Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................... 17

Purpose and Regulatory Statutes ....................................................................................................... 17

Establishment and History................................................................................................................... 17

Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................. 18

Planning Issues and Opportunities.................................................................................................... 19

RESOURCE AND REFUGE DESCRIPTION .................................................... 21

Ecosystem Setting and Description ................................................................................................... 21

Acquisition................................................................................................................................................ 29

Environmental Assessment Summary .............................................................................................. 29

Defoliation and Rest--Importance and Methods, and Effects to Habitat and Wildlife ........ 34

REFUGE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................. 41

Mission ...................................................................................................................................................... 41

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ........................................................................................................ 41

Habitat Protection Strategy................................................................................................................. 50

PLAN IMPLEMENTATION..................................................................................... 51

Strategy for Project Funding and Personnel Requirements ....................................................... 51

Staffing Plan/Chart ................................................................................................................................ 52

Management Plans................................................................................................................................. 53

Partnership Opportunities.................................................................................................................... 53

Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 54

APPENDIX A. References and Bibliography ........................................................ 55

APPENDIX B. Glossary of Terms ............................................................................ 59

APPENDIX C. Compatibility Determination ........................................................ 61

APPENDIX D. Intra-Service Section 7 Evaluation .............................................. 67

APPENDIX E. Summary of Public Involvement ................................................. 71

APPENDIX F. Mailing List of Agencies and Individuals ................................... 73

APPENDIX G. Preparers and Acknowledgments ................................................ 75

APPENDIX H. Key Legislation/Policies ................................................................ 77

APPENDIX I. Reference Maps ................................................................................. 79

APPENDIX J. Executive Order Establishing Lostwood Refuge...................... 85

APPENDIX K. Plant Species..................................................................................... 89
6 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 7

Aerial view of Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge’s wetland

complexes, one of several prominent resources that makes this

Refuge so unique and valuable.

PREFACE

Often, government plans are mundane, discouraging

readers to become involved in the planning process. I

thought if I presented, in writing, how dynamic this prairie

is, it would encourage you to be involved in planning the

Over every hill lies another wetland or prairie meadow. In

between, from hilltop to slough edge, sprawls a most splendid

variety of prairie plants.

future of Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge (Lostwood

Refuge). With narration and a few pictures, I present a

glimpse of a year on this unique resource so the reader can

“experience” the four seasons on Lostwood.
8 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 9

Four Seasons

Spring . . .

Visualize, if you will: you and I standing on a prairie

hilltop one crisp early April dawn, looking west across an

open expanse of rolling hills covered with last year’s

plant growth, now a suite of dull tans. Across the hills

are patches of snowdrifts on east and south facing slopes,

formed by the winter’s prevailing, northwesterly winds.

Wetlands occur at the bottom of every hill with dense

stands of previous years’ vegetation still covered in a

crusted layer of deep, wind driven snow. Air flowing

across our faces is damp and chilly, yet a hint of soft,

moist warmth is there, a relief from the relentless, sharp

bite of the long, windy arctic blast that can last for six

long months. As the sun rises and morning light

improves, scattered pastel purples become evident

among the dull tan hilltops, the first floral display of the

new years’ pasque flowers.

About a half mile away a “woo-wooing” sound begins and

increases, a cackle erupts, then more, as male sharptailed grouse arrive on their dancing grounds to dance

relentlessly for their fair ladies. At first, this is the only

sound heard, except for the flutter and buzzes of small

flocks of longspurs and snow buntings, hurrying to catch

up with their earlier migrating fellows.

April progresses, and soon the smaller wetlands begin to

thaw. This is an exciting time -- SPRING MIGRATION! We walk across the soft soil, loosened by the

many thawing ice crystals of winter, and hear a new

sound: PINTAILS! whistling, courting, zigzagging,

through the softer air. Then mallards. At first, just a

pair, but smaller flocks arrive as the day progresses.

Hey, what’s that yellow speck on the dull tan suite.

Wonderful, the first meadowlark has arrived. Meltwater

begins to roar in areas where it shouldn’t. Snow, melting

in warm temperatures, gushes down hills into dry

coulees, turning them into a white-water stream for a

day or two. The wetlands fill, their ice rising and

softening. Wetland edges become open water. Between

these edges of spring and winter, diving ducks appear,

purring and gurgling songs to their accompanying ladies.

The large lakes have not been released from winter’s

grip, but the dark honeycomb cover promises that soon

winter’s hold will be relinquished.
10 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

Those hills, now with a hint of green showing, have so

much life, it is difficult to hear sharp-tails dancing, even

on still, early morns: giant Canada geese honk, mallards

quack, migrating sparrows’ whistle and chip, pipits’

skylark, meadowlarks’ flute, and the “noise” increases.

Spring tries hard to push winter away, driving the cold

north with strong, gusty southerly winds more gentle to

the face, but winter does not give up easily and returns

with strong, sharp-biting, northerly winds. Eventually

old-man winter loses, spring prevails, and new life

abounds.

Sounds multiply as more life arrives in May. The sky

resonates, evidence of something always moving: skeins

of snow, white-fronted, and smaller Canada geese and

ducks, flittering sparrows and warblers, kettling

sandhill cranes, darting yellowlegs, winnowing snipe,

and, dropping in from nowhere, clowning coots. Sprinting through in small flocks, just above the rolling terrain,

we hear small flocks of shorebirds. Some land along

exposed beaches to rest and feed, but most don’t stop;

the relentless urge of migration never lets them rest.

Harriers drift through; some stay, most float on by, the

males sometimes “sky-dancing” perhaps to impress

females along the way.

Flocks of ruddy ducks appear as rafts on opened lakes.

Western and eared grebes are heard there too.

May explodes with migrating and nesting birds, all here

at the same time. Then it happens again; the north wind

returns, stronger than ever, biting, driving a heavy, wet

snow. Food is covered. Early arrivals are caught; some

make it, some do not. But just as quick as winter

returned, spring rushes back.

More grass-loving sparrows arrive using melodious

songs to establish territories. Sprague’s pipits, territories well established, skylark for hours over ridges and

hilltops. Life is good. More early colors are displayed,

such as plains cymopterus, but these are not very bold,

perhaps too bashful to display brilliance so early. But

the green is persisting, as well as more colorful flowers:

cushion milk-vetch, golden-bean, early yellow locoweed,

prairie buttercup. Now wetlands are filled with water

and life: blackbirds, both yellow-headed and red-winged,

create continuous raucous; ducks battle on water and in

the air to retain territories. Soon, duck pairs are walking

around on uplands, searching for THE nest site, but

flush by our presence, complaining loudly and persistently while flying in tight circles, directly overhead. A

coyote yips and barks at us, unaccustomed to observing

humans after the long winter months.

A variety of “peeps” are along most lake shorelines,

feeding intensely before they continue their migration

northward. Suddenly this peaceful scene explodes and

out of nowhere a charcoal streak stoops through the

flushing shorebirds — PEREGRINE!

May gives way to June. We are now walking in a lush

growth of grasses and flowers. Birds are singing all

around us, some so loud, like the continuous, bubbling

flight song of the bobolink, that it prevents us from

hearing the more subtle song of the Le Conte’s sparrow.

Chestnut-collared longspur’s make their presence

known on grazed, rocky ridge tops with their pleasant,

rapid, buzzy warble. Upland sandpipers are wolfwhistling on previous years’ burns. Baird’s sparrows

abound; their melodious song,

combines with others to

produce an impromptu prairie

orchestra.

The last to arrive, sounding

like a rusty gate swinging in

the wind, is the sharp-tailed

sparrow. This completes the

prairie nesters’ arrival. Now

everyone is busy maintaining

territories, nesting, and taking

care of newly-hatched young.

We roam across the hills, not

far from a big saline lake that’s so salty it can be tasted

in the wind, when a marbled godwit explodes from a

short-vegetated hilltop, and relentlessly dives at our

heads to drive us from her nest. We walk away from this

site so as not to disturb her anymore, only to have a

subtle hooting sound approach. A Wilson’s phalarope is

afraid we will come too near his nest. So, we again move

away, this time closer to the white shoreline of the saline

lake only to have a distinct “peep-lo” sound draw closer.

This time it is a piping plover coming to express its

displeasure of our presence. Everywhere we turn,

something flushes, gives alarm, scolds, or sings proudly.

Life is so full, it is difficult to be conscious of the individual because the whole is so overwhelming.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 11

Summer . . .

Color abounds everywhere now. Brilliant red prairie

lilies line the wetland edges, and a deep, iridescent

purple of two-grooved milkvetch is found nearby in large,

round bunches. On the hill above us, sunny spots of

Gaillardia wave to-and-fro in the summer breeze.

Fleabanes’ hairlike ray petals bloom in pastel pinks.

Butterflies, some blue, some white, some orange, flutter

about. Sounds abound too, not only from birds, but from

insects, all contributing to a resounding prairie orchestra. So many things are happening, it is difficult to slow

down and “smell the flowers,” or to take time to watch

the evening hilltops reflect a golden green from the

warm, setting sun, contrasting with the dark green,

shadowed slopes. June rushes by; too beautiful and

astounding to absorb in just 30 days.

Soon, needlegrass seeds are maturing, reflecting the

sun’s rays in sparkling crystals as the gentle summer

breezes sway them to-and-fro. As the seeds mature,

entire hilltops turn to a waving sea of gold. Mingled in

this golden sea are a variety of pinks: purple coneflower,

purple prairie clover, spotted gayfeather. In richer soil

sites, warm-season grasses become showy, such as big

bluestem pushing up its dark green, stiff seed stalk

mixed with hints of deep purple. Prairie dropseed sends

up its wispy, delicate panicum of dotted seeds. Flowers

on these richer sites are very iridescent, particularly the

luminous purple of blazing star. Plant life abounds, of

many species, because several different plant communities meet here ranging from the tallgrass prairie of the

east to the arid prairie of the west. While we are so

absorbed in the luxurious plant community around us,

we suddenly become aware that the courting and

territorial sounds of June are waning. Now, more insect

sounds are heard, and bird sounds are softer, shorter

notes of parents feeding young and scolding us when we

press too close to their family affairs. Ducklings are now

getting quite large, looking more like their moms each

day.

July has slipped by, but how, where did it go? Time

moves so fast.

Tall, white billows appear on the west horizon. Very

pretty. They build into massive, towering giants as they

move closer. Western skies darken except for white

streaks flashing continuously. Blue skies overhead have

given way to rumbling and darkness, then flashes of bold

light from the atmosphere to the ground. Rain begins,

pours, water rushes everywhere. Something hard and

small hits the ground and bounces two feet back into the

air. HAIL! The air turns white with hail. Rain once

again, or is it a vertical river? On the west horizon, blue

sky! The storm passes

and sun shines through

millions of droplets, fields

of diamonds sprinkled

across the prairie.

Days are hot now. Winds,

recently soft and gentle

to the skin, bite again, but

now like sandpaper. The

hilltops turn to cream

color, but still are

sprinkled with color,

particularly blues and

yellows of asters and

yellows of goldenrods. In

rich soil sites, grasses

begin to turn pastel

pinks, purples, oranges,

reds, yellows while native

shrubs turn sharp reds,

oranges, and yellows.

Green still hangs in there, but it is scattered, mostly in

prairie cordgrass. Red dots, from prairie rose hips, are

scattered on hilltops. The once spectacular flowers are

replaced with pastel-colored seed heads that spatter the

sun’s rays.
12 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

Fall . . .

It is eerily silent on the hilltop! Where have all the birds

gone? Only sounds of grasshoppers and crickets prevail.

Ah, let’s move to the wetlands. But, what has happened?

Many are dry, but look, over there, there’s water! Water

birds abound--ducks, coots, grebes, soras, sharp-tailed

sparrows, blackbirds, dragonflies, midges--yes, bountiful

life is still present.

As this bountiful life dwindles, new life begins to appear--

migration is on. First are the tundra nesting shorebirds,

lingering along mudflats and shorelines to feed and drift

about. But all too soon, many of these move on, leaving

behind mostly waterfowl, those that reproduced here.

By the end of August, even most of these move north to

molt and feed, a process known as staging, leaving the

prairie quite silent. These waterfowl, and those produced further north, do not return for several weeks,

unless some sudden, mid-October storm pushes them by

us without even saying good-bye.

It’s September, and the rolling prairie hills reflect fall

colors in the grasses, forbs, and shrubs. It is a subtle

beauty only lasting for a few days, a contrast to the

arrogant fall colors of deciduous forests, a softness

pleasing to the eye: creams, pinks, and pastel oranges,

purples, and yellows.

New sounds overhead! A raucous, trumpeting rattle is

heard. We look up to see migrating sandhill cranes in

long, v-shaped strings, rising up and down on air currents, then suddenly catching an updraft, and rapidly

kettling to 5,000 feet. As the day progresses, some

cranes land and feed on grazed or burned areas, or settle

onto mudflats and shallow bays of large lakes to night

roost. This crane activity continues through fall,

sometimes in small, drifting flocks, sometimes in major

migration thrusts.

One day while walking across the hilltops in warm,

unusually calm weather, we notice dots of circling

movements overhead. On rising kettles, large groups of

Swainson’s hawks are on the move, drifting southward

effortlessly by the dozens. Late in the day, some drop

and begin hopping on the ground, hunting grasshoppers.

More sparing hawks, falcons, and accipiters move

through, along with the whistles and chips of migrating

sparrows and juncos, although not as musical as in the

spring. Soon most of the sandhills have passed through,

as have most raptor and songbird species.

We wait, wait for the gradual, but sometimes quite

sudden explosion of migrating waterfowl that signals

fall’s close. At first, it is just one “v” here, another over

there, of geese, mostly white-fronts. But, a few days

later, the raucous of snow goose flocks pierce the air.

Resident giant Canada geese, seem to dislike the commotion that accompanies large flocks of snow geese, leave

the preferred lakes to quieter, open-water wetlands.

Accompanying the mass of snow geese are the symbol of

the United States, bald eagles. These eagles continually

test the flocks for a goose not quite fit for the long trip

south. Golden eagles partake as well, but usually show

up later, just before freeze-up.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 13

Winter . . .

The air now is unsettled. Winds constantly shift from

gentle southerlies to harsh northerlies. Sometimes the

shifts are light, sometimes of hurricane force. Standing

on the same hilltop as we did in spring, we see dark gray

clouds being driven in, their tops and bottoms sheared by

sharp winds. The rolling darkness approaches; snow

falls. Ducks and geese linger, continue to feed in nearby

grain stubble fields. The storm passes. Warm, sunny

days return. These are quiet days, with soft winds, and a

few chip notes of passing warblers and sparrows that are

a little behind schedule. Ducks and geese continue to

field-feed and roost on large lakes. It’s the end of

October. We can feel it. They clearly feel it. They are

more restless than ever. You can see it in their flight

behavior. They search for a good field to feed in but are

not satisfied when they land. They lift, bounce around in

the increasing winds, land again. Feed a little, spook, and

lift again, and struggle into the howling wind to the next

field. Overhead, high overhead, pass skein after skein of

waterfowl, sometimes only visible with binoculars. We

see the major fall migration taking place; they are not

taking time to say good-bye this year. The birds on the

ground become even more restless. After feeding till

dark, they return to the lakes, fighting winds more than

40 mph. Temperatures plummet! Single digits! The

next morning we arise from our night’s sleep. Winds are

relentless. The LAKES, frozen, and, BIRDS, gone!

After three days of relentless, cold, piercing winds, a mild

winter day begins in light winds and double digit temperatures. Once in a while, a small flock of geese or ducks are

observed, but, otherwise, all is very quiet. A few juncos

and tree sparrows still chip here and there, but silence is

becoming the norm.

The last harriers drift by us. Rough-legged hawks

appear, hovering like sparrow hawks while hunting for

mice. Gray clouds are heavy in the northwest. Snow

arrives, falls, and builds. Winds pick up, driving the snow

into new locations and shapes. Even though December

and January are filled with lots of sunshine, it brings

little warmth to the snow, allowing winds to constantly

reshape it. It is silent, except for the wind!
14 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

It is a cold, still morn. Longspurs and snow buntings

appear in large, bouncing flocks as they roll across the

stark, prairie hills blanketed in white. A sound, like a

knife cutting through cold, still air, is heard-- a sharptailed grouse appears overhead, then another and

another, heading somewhere to feed before returning to

day-roost in the snow. Storms come and go, some so

severe that resident wildlife, like white-tailed deer and

great-horned owls, find it tough to get enough to eat.

Cold, wind, and snow takes its toll.

Warmth from the sun grows. We can feel it. The winds

do not bite as they did. The snow cover melts on the

surface, forming a crust thick enough on which to crosscountry ski--oh, what fun! It is too warm, it is 50o

F; the

snow is melting too fast, making the skiing poor, but oh,

how good the warmth feels to us. It is a mistake to feel

too warm--the gray northwest skies warn us of impending cold, wind, and snow. It dumps on us and blows it

into deep drifts, especially on east- and south-facing

hillsides. The storm passes. Flocks of snow buntings

and longspurs pass by, with sprinkles of horned larks

singing the first spring songs. March is here. Spring is

not far away. It has been a good winter, most resident

wildlife survived, and abundant snow is available to refill

wetlands and restore topsoil moisture that will produce

lush plant growth and lots of insects for nesting birds.

Life is good. NO, it is more than good. Life is unbelievably beautiful with its ever-changing seasons and bounty.

Such is one year, four seasons, on Lostwood National

Wildlife Refuge.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 15

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Purpose and Need for a Plan

“As the century nears its end and demand for food and

competition for land escalate, a most important issue

facing conservationists will be the preservation of a

mosaic of habitats in which can be preserved a representative cross-section of native species” (Samson and Knopf

1982).

Preserving such habitat mosaics provides beautiful,

natural areas, but without intimate involvement of the

United States citizen, many of these habitats may be lost

or inappropriately cared for due to lack of support. John

C. Sawhill, President and Chief Executive Officer of The

Nature Conservancy, wrote:

“By conserving and celebrating important natural areas,

we can provide the necessary platform of beautiful,

unspoiled places critical to building a more intimate

relationship between people and land . . . From that

intimacy will come the connectedness--the sense of

interdependence--with nature that so many of us crave.

Similarly, the more places we save, the greater the

opportunity to inspire wonder and commitment in

people. And ultimately, . . . that will decide the fate of

the natural world” (Sawhill 1996).

The Draft Comprehensive Conservation (Management)

Plan was written in accordance with a Refuge System

policy requiring “all lands of the National Wildlife

Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an

approved Comprehensive Management Plan that will

guide management decisions and set forth strategies for

achieving refuge unit purposes.” The National Wildlife

Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 (passed in October)

changes this from a policy to law, and calls the plans

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP).

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan has had public

comment, and we have incorporated those comments

someplace in this Plan. Hopefully public involvement

will not end here but will continue, further developing an

intimate relationship between the people and Lostwood

Refuge, a beautiful mixed-grass prairie nestled in

northwestern North Dakota. The Plan presents a

conservation direction for the mission and goals of the

Refuge System and Lostwood Refuge. Remember, this

Plan is just one step, part of a continuing Adaptive

Resource Management philosophy, a philosophy essential

to incorporate new directions and knowledge as they

develop to conserve and preserve Lostwood Refuge as a

unique natural resource.

Hopefully, through this continuing planning process,

appropriate revenue and staffing can be achieved for

Lostwood Refuge. The result will be a healthy, mixedgrass prairie, and a much needed, well-developed, public

use program including environmental education and

interpretation, hunting, wildlife observation and photography, and other compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities. The Refuge System is required to “. . .

ensure that the biological integrity and environmental

health of the Refuge System is maintained for the benefit

of present and future generations of Americans” (Executive Order 12996, March 25, 1996), which incorporates

managing a natural resource to maintain its health and

provide recreational opportunities for the public, all at

the same time. This is a challenging task, so the complexity involved in this Plan is evident. We need your

help. Please take time to review and become involved in

planning the future of one of our national treasures,

Lostwood Refuge.

National Wildlife Refuge System

Mission

The National Wildlife Refuge System is a diverse

collection of 512 refuges encompassing over 92 million

acres, spanning all states and several territories. The

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of

1997 gives the Refuge System’s mission:

“To administer a national network of lands and waters

for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources

and their habitats within the United States for the

benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

The Act establishes a Refuge System policy that “each

refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission of the

Refuge System, as well as the specific purposes for

which that refuge was established.” The Act establishes

a hierarchy among refuge activities: that first are

activities to meet refuge purposes and Refuge System

Mission; second is to facilitate compatible wildlife

dependent recreation. By default, other uses would be

the last priority.

The National Wildlife Refuge System differs from other

federally-owned lands, (i.e., National Forest Service,

Bureau of Land Management, or National Park Service)

in that wildlife conservation, not multiple-use activities, is

the fundamental mission. Wildlife and wildlife conservation come first over public use activities. The Act further

recognizes and encourages public use activities centering

around wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Even these

must be compatible with the mission of the Refuge

System and individual refuge purposes, but the Act

strongly encourages facilitation of these activities if

compatible. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses include

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,

and environmental education and interpretation.
16 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

The Refuge Improvement Act explicitly defines words to

guide the Refuge System. Some definitions are presented here to help the reader understand what specific

phrases mean.

“The term ‘compatible use’ means a wildlife-dependent

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

sound professional judgement of the Director, will not

materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment

of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of

the refuge.”

The terms ‘wildlife-dependent recreation’ and ‘wildlifedependent recreational use’ mean a use of a refuge

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and

photography, or environmental education and interpretation.”

“The term ‘sound professional judgment’ means a

finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with

principles of sound fish and wildlife management and

administration, available science and resources, and

adherence to the requirements of the Act and other

applicable laws.”

“The terms ‘purposes of the refuge’ and ‘purpose of each

refuge’ mean the purposes specified in or derived from

the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement,

public land order, donation document, or administrative

memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a

refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit.”

Goals and guiding principles of the National Wildlife

Refuge System (Refuge System) identified in the 1997

Executive Order, 12996, are:

Goals

A. To preserve, restore, and enhance, in their natural

ecosystem (when practicable), all species of animals and

plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming

endangered.

B. Perpetuate the migratory bird resource.

C. Preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna

and flora on refuge lands.

D. To provide an understanding and appreciation of fish

and wildlife ecology and man’s role in his environment,

and to provide refuge visitors with high quality, safe,

wholesome, and enjoyable activities compatible with the

purposes for which the refuge was established.

Guiding Principles

Public Use. The Refuge System provides important

opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities involving hunting, fishing, wildlife

observation and photography, and environmental

education and interpretation.

Habitat. Fish and wildlife will not prosper without highquality habitat, and without fish and wildlife, traditional

uses of refuges cannot be sustained. The Refuge System

will continue to conserve and enhance the quality and

diversity of fish and wildlife habitat within refuges.

Partnerships. America’s sportsmen and women were

the first partners who insisted on protecting valuable

wildlife habitat within wildlife refuges. Conservation

partnerships with other Federal agencies, State agencies, tribes, organizations, industry, and the general

public can make significant contributions to the growth

and management of the Refuge System.

Public Involvement. The public should be given a full

and open opportunity to participate in decisions regarding acquisition and management of our National Wildlife

Refuges.

Regulatory Statutes

Other legal mandates and policy guidelines of the Refuge

System that also affect Lostwood Refuge are:

“. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other

management purpose, for migratory birds.” (16 U.S.C. §

715d , Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“. . . the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in

order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to

help fulfill international obligations contained in various

migratory bird treaties and conventions . . .” (16 U.S.C. §

3901[b], 100 Stat. 3583, Emergency Wetlands Resources

Act of 1986)

“. . . review every roadless area of 5,000 contiguous acres

or more and every roadless island, regardless of size,

within the National Wildlife Refuge System . . . and

report to the President of the United States his recommendations as to the suitability or nonsuitability of each

such area or island for preservation of wilderness.” (The

Wilderness Act, Public Law 88-577)

“. . . the following lands are hereby designated as

wilderness and, therefore, as components of the national

wilderness preservation system: . . . certain lands in the

Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota, . . .”

(To Designate Certain Lands as Wilderness. January 3,

1975. Public Law 93-632)

“. . .the Federal land manager and the Federal official

charged with direct responsibility for management of

Class I areas shall have an affirmative responsibility to

protect all those air quality related values (including

visibility) of any such lands.” (Clean Air Act section

165(d)(2)(B))
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 17

Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge

Purpose and Regulatory Statutes

Lostwood Refuge is “. . . a refuge and breeding ground

for migratory birds and other wildlife . . .” (Executive

Order 7171-A, September 4, 1935). Located in northwestern North Dakota, it is primarily a breeding ground for

migratory birds during spring and summer.

In 1975, the 5,577-acre Lostwood Wilderness Area was

established within the boundaries of Lostwood Refuge

(P.L. 88-577). Its importance was described in the Final

EIS , “A unique example of the Coteau du Missouri of

the northern Great Plains would be set aside within our

Nation that constitutes the last sizeable tract of this

interesting formation.” The area is designated as Class I

and, therefore, receives the highest protection under the

Clean Air Act. In 1995, An interagency Wilderness

Strategic Plan was signed by the Directors of Bureau of

Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, and Chief of the U.S. Forest Service.

This Plan is designed “To secure the benefits of wilderness as called for in the Wilderness Act, . . . Management

actions are identified and grouped into five broad topics.

While some of these actions are more general than

others, and they all may not be equally important to each

of our agencies, our commitment to progress in every

one of these areas is unequivocal. America’s ‘enduring

resource of wilderness’ is too important for anything

less.” Those five topics are listed below.

1) Preservation of natural and biological values

2) Management of social values

3) Administrative policy and interagency coordination

4) Training of agency personnel

5) Public awareness and understanding

Lush prairie wetlands help create the unique diversity of

habitat on Lostwood Refuge that makes the area so attractive to

a variety of breeding migratory birds.

Establishment and History

In the late 1800’s, the area known today as Lostwood

Refuge was mixed-grass prairie mainly a wheatgrassneedlegrass community, with almost no trees and few

shrubs (Coupland 1950, 1961; Singh et al. 1983). It was a

wide open prairie with nothing to block the vista of

rolling, sodded horizon. Migratory birds from ducks to

sparrows were the most visible wildlife, but sharp-tailed

grouse, a hardy resident species, were common. Few

species of small mammals, and even fewer of amphibians

and reptiles were present, perhaps owing to the harsh,

prolonged winters of this northern climate. Invertebrates, adapted to frequent and periodic drought and

vegetation removal mainly by bison herds and fire, also

were abundant and active during the growing season.

Teeming abundance of migratory birds, spring through

fall, was the main appeal in establishing Lostwood as a

National Wildlife Refuge. Numerous wetlands, all types

and shapes formed by the Wisconsin glacier some 10,000

years ago, provided prime habitat for many species of

water-dependent birds. Within wetlands during wet

years, grebes, ducks, and giant Canada geese proliferated--abundance and variety of duck species present in

this area were main incentives in establishing Lostwood

Refuge. The habitat between wetlands and upland

grasslands provided breeding habitat for another group

of birds, species with restricted distribution such as

marbled godwit, piping plover, sharp-tailed sparrow.

Unique upland birds, some with restricted breeding

ranges, were common on the upland prairie: Baird’s

sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, clay-colored sparrow, chestnut-collared longspur, upland sandpiper. Using the

entire prairie ecosystem were other unique prairie birds,

the Swainson’s hawk and, with a more limited breeding

range, the ferruginous hawk and burrowing owl. The

Refuge System was also interested in the area’s fall

migrant use. Geese, swans, ducks, and sandhill cranes

annually stopped at Lostwood Refuge for a short rest

during their southward migration.

Murphy (1993) reviewed and summarized historical

accounts of early explorers and naturalists who traveled

through the area, and found that, in the early- and mid1800’s, the Coteau prairie of northwestern North Dakota

was covered with short grasses, or barren, wherever

recent fire and especially bison occurred which apparently were most places (i.e., Coues, Clandening, in

Murphy 1993). These observations supported a view that

the region was, historically, in a more arid, short grass

state (reviewed in Murphy 1993). But, early explorers’

and naturalists’ accounts also implied periodic deferment

or rest from heavy grazing and fire, during which

grasses would recover. Frequent mention was made by

these authors that woody vegetation needed for cooking

fires was scarce on the Missouri Coteau. Later records

from surveyors’ and biologists’ notes in the late 1800’s

and early 1900’s confirmed such observations, that

present-day Lostwood Refuge historically was grass

prairie. Aspen reached tree stage only after several

decades of fire suppression that accompanied settlement

by persons of European origin. Historical records and

indirect evidence from Lostwood Refuge reported in
18 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

Murphy (op. cit.) also corroborated a 5-10 year fire

frequency for the region, asserted by Wright and Bailey

(1982).

R. Kellogg (Smithsonian Inst., Archives Record Unit

7176) gave one of the best, concise historical descriptions

of the area in August 1915:

“ . . . This region is high prairie country. Numerous

lakes, marshes and meadows are scattered over the

country. The prairie is rolling and in some places very

hilly. The subsoil in a lot of places is from a foot to a foot

and a half of gravel. The only timber in this region was

formerly on the southeast corner of [Lower] Lostwood

Lake but this was cut off by the homesteaders and now

there is nothing left but small oak [sic] and poplar brush,

with a clump of willows here and there.”

As immigrant settlement of northwestern North Dakota

took place at the beginning of the twentieth century,

mixed-grass prairies were replaced by grain fields.

Wetlands were drained to enhance agricultural production. Even though drainage and other wetland-decimating factors have taken their toll elsewhere in the state,

prairie wetlands are still prominent on the Missouri

Coteau in northwestern North Dakota.

The Lostwood Refuge area was homesteaded mainly

during 1910-1930, with some native sod broken and

planted to small grain crops. When Lostwood Refuge

lands were first purchased in 1935, about 75 percent of

the designated Refuge area remained as unbroken

(native) mixed-grass prairie. In the absence of fire with

settlement, woody species rapidly expanded to dominate

Lostwood Refuge’s upland habitats, with snowberry

covering greater than 50 percent of uplands and most of

the Refuge changing from a mixed-grass prairie to aspen

parkland by the mid-1980’s (Murphy 1993). With this

significant change in plant community, so too did the

wildlife community dramatically change. Many grassland birds unique to this area disappeared from the

Lostwood Refuge or became very scarce.

Cultural Resources

Lostwood Refuge lies within a relatively un-researched

archaeological area. The nearest site that has been

excavated and studied is the Long Creek site near

Estevan, Saskatchewan, about 40 miles northwest of the

Lostwood Refuge (Wettlaufer and Mayer-Oakes 1960).

That site revealed occupation of the area as long ago as

5000 years ago. Because of the close proximity of

Lostwood Refuge to the Long Creek site, some of the

same cultures also may have occurred in the Lostwood

area. Historical records indicate that the last inhabitants of the area before Western European settlement

were the southern Assiniboian tribes (Denig 1961), who

now reside in Canada. At least 200 “tipi ring” sites are

known to exist on Lostwood Refuge where Native

Americans occupied the area either in permanent or

transient camps.

The Service’s Regional Archaeologist will be consulted

during the planning phase of any proposed project and

will determine the need for a cultural resource inventory

in consultation with the North Dakota Historic Preservation Office.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 19

Planning Issues and Opportunities

A planning issue is any unsettled matter that requires a

management decision; i.e., a Service initiative, an opportunity, a management problem, a potential threat to the

resources of the unit, a conflict in uses, a public concern,

or the presence of an undesirable resource condition.

Input on issues was sought from the public, Federal,

State and local agencies, private organizations, and

political entities through an Environmental Assessment

and associated public comment period, and the draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (previously called

Comprehensive Management Plan).

Scoping for planning issues began with the 1994 Environmental Assessment (EA) entitled “Management of

Upland Habitats on Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge.”

Scoping is a process Lostwood Refuge used whereby

Federal, State and local agencies, political entities, and

private organizations were sent copies and invited to

participate in the early planning of an EA to assist the

Service in identifying issues and alternative management

actions to be considered and evaluated in the EA.

Letters announcing the availability of the draft EA were

sent to all members of the Lostwood Communication

Council (a local group of citizens interested in Lostwood

Refuge’s management and other Service programs).

News releases announced availability of the draft EA for

review during a 30-day comment period (June 6- July 6,

1994) were published in local and regional newspapers.

Only one letter was received regarding the draft EA

from the public during or after the comment period.

That letter supported the preferred alternative, “Enhanced Management Alternative.”

Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other

statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and

wildlife resources, it was determined that actions within

the “Management of Upland Habitats on Lostwood

National Wildlife Refuge” EA were found to have no

significant negative environmental effects. A copy of the

“Finding of No Significant Impact” of the EA is in

Appendix C. A copy of the EA’s “Compatibility Determination” is in Appendix C.

Public involvement with Lostwood Refuge’s Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan was through news

releases, a public comment period, (August 25 to September 30, 1997), and a public meeting (September 17,

1997 in Stanley, North Dakota). The issues, concerns,

and opportunities presented here include comments

from interested citizens and Service personnel. It is only

after all issues, concerns, and opportunities are identified

and clearly understood that the planning process can

fully be utilized. Lostwood Refuge’s management

strategies, along with accompanying goals and objectives, will address these issues in some manner, unless

otherwise noted.

Land Acquisition

A common local concern was future acquisition within

the approved boundary established in the 1935 Executive

Order that created Lostwood Refuge. Opposition to

further acquisition existed because it was viewed as lost

opportunity for local farm and ranch operations and lost

tax revenues for local governments.

Hunting

Some citizens wanted more of Lostwood Refuge open to

upland game hunting during September - October.

Lostwood Refuge currently has a split upland game

season, one before the deer gun season begins, and one

after the deer gun season ends. About 4,600 acres are

open during the early season, and the entire Refuge

(except around Refuge headquarters) is open to upland

game hunting during the late season. The opportunity

exists to open other portions of the Refuge during the

first season through the compatibility determination

procedure.

Some local citizens were concerned that reduction in size

and number of aspen clumps may have negative effects

for white-tailed deer.

Class I Air Quality

Concerns were expressed about the potential conflict

that may arise between habitat renovation and maintenance through the use of prescribed burning and the

Clean Air Act requirements for Lostwood Refuge and

Class I area of the Lostwood Wilderness Area. The use

of prescribed burning must be carefully balanced against

requirements of the Clean Air Act to protect and

enhance air quality in the Refuge and Class I air quality

of the Lostwood Wilderness Area. When noncompliance

is identified, the Refuge will identify solutions and

comply with all requirements. The Interagency Wilderness Strategic Plan, completed by the Bureau of Land

Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service, identified that

without management of natural values of wilderness

areas, the underlying fabric of the National Wilderness

Preservation System is at risk. One of the identified

strategies is to restore fire to its natural role in the

ecosystem, allowing flexible spending of fire funding to

cover prescribed fire.

Wildlife-oriented Recreation

Some expressed appreciation of current horseback

riding opportunities on Lostwood Refuge.
20 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Almost no funds or permanent staffing are available to

accomplish the Refuge System’s goals for compatible

recreation and outreach. Potential conflict exists

between developing permanent public use facilities (i.e.,

interpretative trails) and Refuge management needs.

Limitations on fire and grazing would cause habitat

quality to decline for indigenous wildlife. Interpretative

facilities may show only degraded, mismanaged prairie.

Disability

Some expressed the Americans With Disabilities Act of

1992 needs inclusion in Goals and Objectives. The Refuge

System will fully comply with the Disability Act.

Wildlife and Habitat Management

Habitat needs conflict among some indigenous species.

For example, Dakota skipper (an endemic tallgrass

prairie species) may need long-term rest to complete a

successful life cycle, while Baird’s sparrow, a species of

concern in northern mixed-grass prairie, needs only 2-4

years of rest after a prescribed burn or grazing period

but declines significantly with any additional rest.

A potential conflict exists between introduction of certain

species identified in the Endangered Species goal, i.e.,

western burrowing owl, and with other species needs, i.e.,

vegetation structure needed by Baird’s sparrow,

Sprague’s pipit, and waterfowl.

If Lostwood Refuge must rely strongly on partnerships

to secure funds, a program that takes a tremendous

amount of time, the resource will be compromised

because less staff time is available to maintain “ . . . the

critical biological integrity and environmental health . . .”

of the Refuge, so strongly emphasized in Executive

Order 12996 and the Refuge Improvement Act.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 21

RESOURCE AND REFUGE DESCRIPTION

Ecosystem Setting and Description

The 26,904-acre Lostwood Refuge is in Burke and

Mountrail Counties in northwestern North Dakota, 23

miles south of Canada and 70 miles east of Montana (see

Maps 1 and 2). It lies within the 12- to 19-mile wide

Missouri Coteau, a physiographic region chiefly of

moderate (100-200 feet) relief, dead ice moraine deposited

by the Wisconsin glacier over a previously occurring

escarpment (Clayton 1967; Freers 1973; Bluemle 1977).

Its rolling topography (elevation 2,227-2,442 feet) is

interspersed with 5,381 acres of prairie wetlands (20

percent of Refuge area) of all types and sizes. Hummocky, knob-and-kettle topography typical of the

Missouri Coteau consists almost entirely of nonintegrated drainage; rainfall and snowmelt collect in wetland

basins via surface runoff and subsurface seepage

(LaBaugh 1986; Winter 1989). Presence of glacial till

(Coleharbor formation) is evidenced by erratic and thin,

gravelly, mostly loam soils. The far southern 5 mi2 of

Lostwood Refuge has numerous deep, brushy coulees

that drain into a 0.9-mi2 saline lake.

The climate at Lostwood Refuge is semiarid with normal

temperature extremes of -40oF in winter and 100oF in

summer. Mean annual precipitation is 16.6 inches, with

extremes of 9 to 29 inches. Some winters have almost no

snow, while others are severe with snowstorms from

October through May. May and June are normally the

wettest months, while July and August present violent

thunderstorms often accompanied with several inches of

rain or hail. Winds ranging from 5-20 mph are prevalent

through most seasons, and 30-40 mph winds are common,

particularly in spring and fall. All wetlands, except

major lakes, may be completely full one year and

completely dry 5-10 years later. These extreme conditions create a “boom and bust” scenario for the production of water-dependent species such as ducks. This wetto dry-cycle also prevents frequent disease outbreaks

(i.e., botulism) and provides for maximum wetland

fertility, and thus high water bird productivity, in wet

years (Kantrud et al. 1989). The growing season varies

from 90 to 100 days.

Lostwood Refuge’s plant diversity on moist soil sites includes

components of the tallgrass prairie.

Primary soils are Zahl-Williams and Zahl-Max loams,

characterized as thinly developed, well-drained, fine

loamy soil complexes, on 3-25 percent slopes. On hilltops

and upper slopes, Zahl loam makes up 60 percent of the

Zahl-Max complex; on lower slopes, Max loams comprise 25-50 percent of this complex. Spring surface

runoff can be rapid on steep slopes when sudden warm

temperatures melt snowdrifts. The hazard of wind and

water erosion is severe on cultivated areas during any

season.

When Refuge lands were first purchased in 1935, about

75 percent of uplands on the designated Refuge area

remained unbroken (native), mixed-grass prairie.

Although dominated by needle and wheat grasses, it

included a unique array of plant communities from dry

hilltops to slopes to moist sites (Appendix K for list of

dominant plant species). This prairie landscape

abounded with diverse, abundant native wildlife communities. Upland habitats were characterized by Baird’s

sparrow, Sprague’s pipit along with numerous other

grassland dependent birds. Wetland edge habitats

contained marbled godwit, piping plover, Nelson’s sharptailed sparrow, and others. Wetlands abounded with

ducks and other water-dependent species .

The last free-ranging bison in North Dakota occurred in

the early 1880’s (Hornaday 1889; Grinell 1970; Joyce and

Skold 1988). The last raging wildfires occurred in the

early 1900’s as persons of European descent homesteaded on the Missouri Coteau of northwestern North

Dakota in the early 1900’s, where Lostwood Refuge is

located (reviewed by Murphy 1993). Before settlement,

early explorers conveyed that no trees or shrubs were

anywhere (reviewed by Murphy 1993). However, suckers

and saplings of quaking aspen apparently were scattered

over the prairie, but were dwarfed by frequent fire and

herbivore grazing. Although no trees existed on

Lostwood Refuge before settlement (except for an elm

grove along a Refuge lake), by 1938, aspen tree clumps

totaled 275 and covered 100 acres; by 1969, 500 clumps

totaling 375 acres; and in 1985, 540 clumps (475 acres), or

about 13 clumps/mi2

 (Murphy 1993). The spread has

Lostwood Refuge’s plant diversity on dry soil sites includes

components of the mixed-grass prairie and short-grass of the

more arid west.
22 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

continued, except on areas with several prescribed

burns. Most clumps border wetlands, particularly

seasonal wetlands. Over time, these clumps spread

around the wetlands, then invade the wetland basin. By

1985, more than 300 wetlands were overtaken by aspen

on Lostwood Refuge (USFWS, unpubl. data).

Other woody expansion took place too, particularly on

uplands where a low-growing shrub, western snowberry,

gradually increased. Lack of reference to low brush in

historical accounts suggests the plant either was

inconspicuous or occurred infrequently before settlement. An estimate of 5 percent small shrub composition

comprised by snowberry and other low brush in pristine

mixed-grass prairie has been proffered based on relict

sites (summarized by Murphy 1993). Snowberry has

been found to proliferate under fire suppression and

cattle grazing (summarized in Murphy 1993). Land use

from the early 1900’s to mid-1970’s was primarily

livestock grazing and purposely excluded fire. Each

designated unit was grazed from annual season-long

grazing for 30-40 years to zero years (long-term rest or

idle treatment). Comparing the two extremes in treatment, little difference in plant composition resulted with

both having extensive invasion extremes in woody plants

and exotic grasses. Aerial photographs, taken in 1935,

reveal snowberry already covering 24 percent of the

upland native prairie, and by 1985, the extent of snowberry-dominated cover doubled. This trend parallels

that of aspen proliferation.

Not only are unburned native plant communities at

Lostwood Refuge becoming dominated by woody plants,

associated changes in the wildlife community are

showing. One of the most conspicuous of these changes

is within the raptor community, a group of species

sensitive to alterations in the food chain and habitat

structure (Newton 1979). Historically (ca. late 1800’s to

early 1900’s), Swainson’s and ferruginous hawks, true

grassland raptors, were dominant breeders, while greathorned owls were uncommon and red-tailed hawks

absent as breeding species on Lostwood Refuge (Murphy

1993). But with the advance of aspen trees, great-horned

owls and red-tailed hawks increased and pioneered,

respectively, and by the 1970s were dominant, large

raptors on the Refuge. Swainson’s hawks are now

uncommon, nesting only on the Refuge periphery, and at

most only one pair of ferruginous hawks nest on the

Refuge. The same transition of grassland to parkland,

with the raptor community changing from Swainson’s

and ferruginous hawks (true grassland raptors) to redtailed hawks and great horned owls (generalist raptors),

has been observed in southern Saskatchewan (Houston

and Bechard 1983, 1984) and Alberta (Schmutz 1984).

Another conspicuous change is within the grassland

passerine community, a group of species sensitive to

vegetation structure and composition. Madden (1996)

studied 10 upland passerine species on burned and

unburned areas of Lostwood Refuge. On unburned

areas, Baird’s sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, Le Conte’s

sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, and western meadowlark were

never detected on unburned areas, and bobolinks were

rarely detected. These species, however, were commonly found on areas treated with fire, as were two

grassland-generalist species (brown-headed cowbird and

savannah sparrow), and two shrub-associated species

(clay-colored sparrow and common yellowthroat).

On uplands currently dominated by western snowberry,

the shrub understory is either void of grass or has dense

mats of Kentucky bluegrass, a species that thrives in

relatively shaded, cool, moist microenvironments

particularly under a grazing regime (Kirsch and Kruse

1973; Pelton 1953; Bird 1971; Anderson and Bailey 1979).

But as western snowberry stands age, smooth brome

invades and within 5-10 years, dominates the site. Under

some of these conditions, native grasses and forbs are

still present but are significantly suppressed. If brome

has begun to invade a site by the time a first prescribed

burn is conducted, brome will dominate the site in less

than three years. The major vegetation problem swings

from dominance by woody plants to dominance by

smooth brome.

Refuge croplands include those farmed prior to Refuge

establishment in 1935 and not farmed afterwards (about

9 percent of uplands), and those farmed by the Service

until the mid-1950’s (15 percent of uplands). Croplands

farmed prior to 1935 generally were not seeded to

perennial cover and were subsequently invaded by a few

native grasses and forbs but more commonly exotic

grasses and extensive stands of woody plants. Croplands farmed by the Refuge staff, however, were mostly

seeded to exotic grasses and alfalfa. These areas, now

nearly all dominated by smooth brome, pose substantial

threat to the integrity of surrounding native grassland.

Such areas need to be restored to native grasses and

forbs.

Other conspicuous features of the current landscape are

spots of leafy spurge and caragana (see Map 3). In the

northern prairie, aspen typically pioneers and spreads

along wetland borders (Maini 1960). Leafy spurge, is a

very invasive noxious weed in many upland habitats if not

controlled (North Dakota Department of Agriculture

1993). First reported and treated on Lostwood in 1958,

spurge invaded about 300 acres by 1997, but through

control measures, less than a third of that has active

growing spurge today. Spurge’s typical growth pattern

on the Refuge is small dense clones in widely separated

spots (280 “spots”), usually about 10-20 yards wide. A

higher probability exists of spurge invading in trees than

other Refuge habitat types (28 percent of the spurge on 2

percent of the land), and the least probability in native

grassland (46 percent of the spurge on 70 percent of the

land), and no significant difference than expected on

croplands (24 percent of the spurge on 28 percent of the

land). Caragana, a tall, nonnative shrub planted by

homesteaders at 20 locations on the Refuge, has spread

and now occupies about 62 acres and increasing. Stands

become so shaded and dense that no other vegetation

grows in the understory.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 23

Map 1 Area
24 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 25

Map 2 - Vicinity
26 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 27

Map 3
28 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 29

Areas that were not disturbed by cultivation hold a

scattered pattern of Native American “tipi rings,” as

well as numerous bison “rub rocks.” An unexplored

wealth of information on how Native Americans used this

area lies among these hills and wetlands. More recent

human use is evidenced by a couple of intact foundations

from old sod houses.

Acquisition

Lostwood Refuge’s Executive Order boundary would

comprise 33,045 acres. The current Refuge acreage is

26,904 acres, all within the approved boundary. Map 4

shows the Refuge Boundary as established under the

1935 Executive Order 7171; a copy of that Order with the

legal descriptions it lists is in Appendix J. Any lands not

already acquired as set forth in the Executive Order of

September 4, 1935, will be considered individually if

presented to the Service for acquisition in the future. In

deciding which lands will be accepted for purchase,

economic aspects will be included as part of routine

planning process. The Service will only acquire lands

from willing sellers. Therefore, these lands will remain

in private ownership until acquisition opportunities arise.

Environmental Assessment Summary

Preferred Alternative

In the 1994 Environmental Assessment (EA) entitled

“Management of upland habitats on Lostwood National

Wildlife Refuge,” the preferred management alternative

of three, was “Enhanced Management.” This CCP tiers

off of that EA. To attain habitat conditions described in

this alternative, will take greater than 15 years, longer

than the 15-year span of the CCP. Below is the preferred

alternative description, as presented in the EA.

“Selection of this alternative would demand expanded

efforts to manage upland habitats on Lostwood Refuge.

Upland habitat monitoring and evaluation would be

emphasized and management planning would be implemented. Additional facility development on the Refuge

would allow increased use of management tools. Managers would be aware of the latest research and literature

pertaining to upland management and new methods and

practices would be implemented where appropriate.

Utility of upland management tools would increase.

Under this alternative, grasslands that have deteriorated

in the past would receive intensive management, if

needed. Management tools (rest excluded) may be

applied in consecutive or alternate years until plant vigor

and species diversity in native grasslands improve to

acceptable levels. This management strategy is commonly referred to as the restoration phase. When plant

vigor and diversity are acceptable, the maintenance

phase would be initiated. In this phase, the tool “rest”

would be used more frequently. Grasslands may only be

actively managed once every 4 or 5 years, resulting in 20-

25 percent of Refuge upland area being treated in a given

year. Plant vigor and species diversity would not be

allowed to deteriorate to the point that necessitates

restoration management to meet Refuge goals and

objectives.

Diversity and production of indigenous migratory birds

and other native wildlife would increase due to improved

habitat conditions (Wiens 1970; Kantrud 1981). Height

and density of herbaceous vegetation would increase

(Vogl 1967). Succession would increase until the upland

would be in a dynamic seral stage characteristic of native

grasslands (Ryan 1990). Over the long-term, noxious

weeds would decrease, and introduced, cool season

grasses would decrease in native grasslands. Plant

species diversity would increase. Little club moss would

be present. The water cycle, mineral cycle, and energy

flow would increase (Vogl 1974; Wright and Bailey 1982).

Opportunities for consumptive and non-consumptive

recreation would increase. The affect on the local

economy would be positive due to increased economic

opportunities from grazing and haying. Less noxious

weed control would be needed by neighbors. Income

derived through local purchases of materials, and income

derived indirectly from increased recreational use would

increase.

The public image of the Service would improve. The

ability of the Service to accomplish goals unrelated to

Refuges would improve. Private landowners would be

more willing to participate in cooperative wildlife enhancement activities on their lands. Wildlife habitat

would improve on private lands also. Neighbors would

see the benefits of upland management practices and

would likely implement them on their own land. The

Service’s acquisition program would be viewed with

much more favor.

If this alternative were adopted, the purposes and

objectives established for Lostwood Refuge would be

fully accomplished. Diversity and production of indigenous migratory birds and other native wildlife would

increase due to improved habitat conditions. This would

also likely occur on private lands because of the circumstances cited above. This alternative is compatible with

the purposes for which the Refuge was acquired.

This alternative involves a greater use of a combination of

upland management tools to achieve the desired results.

Even though the enhanced management alternative is

preferred, staff and budget constraints may prevent the

full implementation of this alternative. . . .”
30 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

Consequences

The importance of this alternative is unclear until one

studies how the whole grassland system functions

together. To provide high-quality habitat for maintenance and production of grassland migratory birds and

other wildlife, upland vegetation must be in a healthy and

vigorous state. This is accomplished through periodic

disturbance involving partial or total defoliation of the

vegetation, simulating two historical events, short,

intensive grazing by native herbivores and wildfires.

These defoliation events reduce buildup of residual

vegetation, and thus increase energy flow, water, and

nutrient cycling (Vogl 1974; Wright and Bailey 1982,

Bragg 1995, Bragg and Steuter 1996).

Management of Lostwood Refuge from the 1930’s to the

late 1970’s was based on the best management practices

known, focusing on light grazing by livestock through the

plant growing season, or leaving areas idle for up to

several decades (intentional rest). It is now known,

however, such management degrades northern mixedgrass prairie (Kirsch and Kruse 1973, Ryan 1990, Bragg

and Steuter 1996). Lack of fire, too much of the same

type of grazing, and, in some cases, over-rest have

resulted in overwhelming vegetation problems and loss

of endemic wildlife.

Without fire, woody plants have spread, including aspen

trees, usually surrounding wetlands, changing Lostwood

Refuge from a herbaceous grassland to aspen parkland.

Currently, unburned areas of the Refuge could be

considered aspen parkland (Murphy 1993), and in these

areas, the change may soon be irreversible. Grassland

and grassland wildlife values on Lostwood Refuge will

continue to diminish as documented by Refuge and

research staff on these areas. Grassland ecosystems in

North America are decreasing in quantity and quality,

including that of the Missouri Coteau in the northern

Great Plains. A critical need prevails to aggressively act

to reverse the trend toward parkland on Lostwood

Refuge.

Experimental prescribed burning began on Lostwood

Refuge in 1972 with two small areas (less than 20 acres

each), when objectives and guidelines were first written

for the Refuge , introducing the idea of returning fire to

the ecosystem. Prescribed burning was not tried again

until 1978. If woody and exotic vegetation are to be

reduced, frequent defoliation with fire is needed (Bailey

1988). Refuge uplands require intensive treatment for

10-20 years to get them back into the proper condition

after too many years of rest and lack of, or inappropriate,

defoliation. In 1978, a more intensive prescribed burning

program began. Sixteen percent of the Refuge received

several prescribed burns over the next eight years.

Simple evaluations were used to review initial wildlife and

vegetation responses and trends. When these evaluations (USFWS, unpubl. Refuge files) revealed trends in

the desired direction, management expanded, and

evaluation efforts were intensified. When results were

not desirable, the management approach was revised,

and reevaluated again to review trends. From information gathered between 1978-91, the 1972 goals were

refined in 1991. This process of prescribing and applying

a management technique, evaluating the outcome, the

adjusting management as needed, is known as Adaptive

Resource Management (ARM). Walters (1986) defines

ARM as an “ . . . approach [beginning] with the central

tenet that management involves a continual learning

process that cannot conveniently be separated into

functions like ‘research’ and [management] . . . .” He

suggests using management as a learning process, as a

tool for experimentation. Lostwood Refuge’s native

prairie resources were rapidly being diminished by

succession and alien species, and management began

using ARM to reverse the trend. The entire process is

one of building blocks, one of continual and improved

predictions, evaluations, and changes that over the longterm (20-50 years for Lostwood’s prairie) helps accomplish Lostwood Refuge’s mission, goals, and objectives.

Another of these building blocks is the 1998 CCP that

more explicitly defines Lostwood Refuge’s mission,

goals, and objectives. Setting clear, quantified objectives,

helps focus long-term management, which is essential to

successful natural resource conservation.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 31

Map 4
32 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 33

A dynamic ecological event took place in 1988 that likely

demonstrates fire’s role in preventing the establishment

of trees and other woody plants. That year, prairie soils

and vegetation were as dry as they have been since

perhaps the drought years of the mid-1930’s. Lightning

struck and ignited fire on the Lostwood Wilderness Area

in August, after no rain had fallen for a month, wetlands

had been dry for two years, and strong hot winds (30-40

mph) had prevailed throughout summer. Healthy aspen

trees, from saplings to mature trees (1.5 feet dbh and

larger), had little moisture in their trunks. The wildfire

burned through large aspen trees at ground level, and

those not burned through were heat-girdled (fire

destroyed the cambium layer in the lower trunk). Where

shrubs occurred, fire burned deep into the roots and

humus. Where only grasses and forbs occurred, however, fire swept across without burning beyond root

crowns and humus (USFWS, unpubl. Refuge files).

Likewise, areas dominated by grasses “greened up” in

September, but areas previously dominated by woody

plants remained black with exposed mineral soils and no

new growth. This fire suggests some historical mechanisms by which woody plants were suppressed and

grasses were favored in prairie.

By fall 1997, 65 percent of Refuge uplands had been

treated with at least one prescribed burn. Prior to 1993,

this program was accomplished with volunteer and few

trained, paid professionals. All prescribed burns were

controlled safely within planned burn boundaries.

During 1993-1997, additional staff were hired and trained

specifically for the fire program, and fire equipment and

facilities were improved. If this type of funding and

staffing continues, the prescribed burning program will

progress, except for evaluations. Funds and staff are

insufficient for proper evaluation and monitoring however. In addition to fire, prairies evolved with a significant grazing influence. From about 1940-1982, Refuge

grazing treatments did not simulate historical grazing

intensity and duration (large bison herds grazing an area

heavily in a few days). Grazing, without fire, tends to

increase Kentucky bluegrass, western snowberry, and

aspen, as previously described. Burning without grazing

will limit basal growth potential of native grasses, leaving

bare ground exposed for alien species to invade, and

apparently does little to reduce competitive ability of

smooth brome. By fall 1997, 26 percent of Refuge

uplands had been treated with at least one three-year 14-

day rotation grazing using livestock . Of this, 9 percent

of the uplands had received prescribed burns that

reduced the woody plants. Unfortunately, the grazing

program is somewhat limited as a tool, due to lack of

staff for proper planning, coordinating, monitoring of

grazing, and plant and wildlife evaluations.

Croplands dominated by smooth brome, Kentucky

bluegrass, quack grass, crested wheatgrass, and

snowberry need to be restored to native grasses and

forbs. This will reduce the potential for exotic species

invasion into native grassland, and will improve habitat

for endemic wildlife. Methods to accomplish this task

are continually being adopted under the ARM philosophy. Native forb and grass seed best suited for

Lostwood Refuge will be purchased, and some will be

harvested on-site. Once seeded, frequent defoliation is

essential to develop plant root systems so the seeded

native plants can function together as a grassland and

develop with management. This program lacks funds for

staffing, preparing seedbeds, purchasing and harvesting

seed, and initial intensive management.

Harvesting of upland hay is another tool for managing

upland and wetland habitats on Lostwood Refuge. It is a

nonselective (cuts everything at the same time) treatment that stimulates the Fast Nutrient cycle if applied

at appropriate times. It also removes excess litter. It is

a particularly important tool in managing newly planted

herbaceous native plants on croplands. It helps to

develop plant root systems, yet leaves behind stubble

that protects young plants from severe climatic events.

Funds for proper planning and evaluations are lacking.

Integrated Pest Management has been used to control

leafy spurge. If not controlled, it will gradually dominate many upland sites, an unfortunate common occurrence across parts of North Dakota and surrounding

states. Chemical applications, mechanical treatments

(mowing), and prescribed burning have contained spurge

on about 60-100 acres of 300 acres infested. Biological

control was started in 1995 when leafy spurge beetles

(host specific) became available in sufficient quantities at

North Dakota nursery sites. As beetles on Lostwood

become established and are transported to new spots,

chemical dependency will be eliminated except where

there are too few plants to support beetles. This

program lacks funds to purchase chemicals and to hire

personnel for sufficient treatments and evaluations.

Proposed public use, wetland habitat management,

cultural resources, and research activities are presented

in the Refuge Goals and Objectives section.
34 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

Defoliation and Rest--Importance and Methods, and Effects to Habitat and Wildlife

Not defoliating vegetation for one or more years is

defined as rest, another management tool. Some units of

the Refuge have not been or are rarely managed because

of various constraints. Rested habitat is important for

many species of migratory and resident birds and other

wildlife for reproduction, foraging, and roosting or escape

cover. Resting much more than five years, however, is

detrimental to the native herbaceous plant community.

Some native wildlife species also find too much rest

unattractive, as previously discussed. Periodic defoliation treatments are needed to maintain native grasslands

in their best ecological condition, and provide appropriate

habitat diversity for grassland wildlife.

Native prairie plants have evolved mechanisms that

allow them to survive and flourish with periodic flood,

drought, grazing, and fire (Ellison 1960; Stubbendieck

1988, Bragg 1995, Bragg and Steuter 1996). One of these

adaptations is “mutualism,” a type of symbiosis where

species coexist to the benefit of each other. Here, the

relationship is between a plant and a group of fungi called

mycorrhizal fungi (Stoddart et al. 1975). About 85-90

percent of all native plants have developed this relationship. Fungi grow in a narrow area along the edge of the

roots called the rhizosphere. This zone extends the root

system of native plants, increasing a plant’s ability to

absorb more moisture and nutrients than plants without

mycorrhizal fungi. The rhizosphere area is rich with soil

microbes that break down soil and old plant material into

forms that plants can use for growth (Barbour et al.

1980).

Periodic grazing and fire stimulate activity in the

rhizosphere and surrounding soil area, thereby fertilizing the plants (Wallace 1987; Bentivenga and Hetrick

1992). Plants without mycorrhiza cannot grow as well,

especially when grazed and burned. The whole system is

not fully understood, but it is known that two nutrient

cycles exist: a “Fast Nutrient cycle” is stimulated by

grazing and haying, and a “Slow Nutrient cycle” is

accelerated by fire.

Fire: Fire, whether set by humans or caused by lightning, has been a natural part of the prairie for thousands

of years (Sauer 1950; Higgins 1986, Bragg 1995, Bragg

and Steuter 1996). Fire causes the Slow Nutrient cycle

to release nutrients otherwise unavailable to growing

plants. Litter (dead plant material from previous years’

plant growth) contains nitrogen unavailable for plants

until the plant and litter is completely decomposed

(Bragg 1995). Accumulation of litter over several years

significantly reduces the amount of available nitrogen for

plants. Fire breaks down this litter, causing a flurry of

microbial activity that releases more nitrogen for plant

uptake than would been available without fire (Barbour et

al. 1980, Wright and Bailey 1982). This increase in

microbial activity occurs for up to three years after a

fire. Native plants in the northern Great Plains depend

on fire to keep nutrient cycles functioning normally.

Nutrient cycles are triggered with fire, and plants respond by

producing rich, succelent growth, as shown here in a xeric hill

site in late July after a mid-May burn.

Heavy layers of litter and excessive humus creates a

micro environment that is attractive to exotic grass

species (Ode et al. 1980). Fire removes litter and reduces

humus, producing a more arid soil environment (Bragg

and Steuter 1996), a condition unattractive to these exotic

species but attractive to most native herbaceous species

(Bragg 1995). Removing excessive litter with a prescribed burn under predetermined conditions, decreases

the risk of destructive wildfires (Bailey 1988). Fire

prevents grasslands from succeeding to shrubland

(Sauer 1950). It can also reduce dominance of mosses

(Bragg 1995), a desired fire effect on club moss, an

allopathic (prevents other plants from establishing)

species in the northern Great Plains. Fire can maintain

or change a physical vegetation structure to provide

desired habitat for indigenous wildlife (Bailey 1988). Fire

usually increases species diversity (Anderson and Bailey

1980, Bragg and Steuter 1996), including wetlands

(Bailey 1988). Fire produces conditions for native

seedling establishment for long-term plant diversity,

particularly forbs (Bragg and Steuter 1996).

Use of fire as a management tool began in 1965 (Higgins

et al. 1989) in the northern Great Plains. Grasslands are

burned primarily to manipulate vegetation, soil microbes, nutrient cycles, and to enhance the biological

productivity and diversity of specific organisms, or to

accomplish specific objectives (reduce Kentucky bluegrass). Specific objectives may be broad (prairie restoration and maintenance) or narrow (management for

endangered or rare species or reduction of a woody plant

species), but will contain two characteristics: it is

measurable and specifies what specifically will be done.

Where native prairie is not a major component of the

management area, nearly all prescribed fires are used

to: reduce vegetative litter, control noxious weeds,

reestablish native grasses through reseeding, or improve

the chemical kill on exotic plants prior to reseeding

native grasses and forbs. Where native prairie is a major

part of a management area, the primary reasons for

burning are to restore, improve, or enhance the prairie

habitat for wildlife.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 35

Management needed on Lostwood Refuge to return

indigenous plant and wildlife species involves three

phases. (1) Renovation; burning 3-5 times over 7-10

years. Currently 50 percent of Lostwood Refuge is in

this phase. (2) Renovation-maintenance; in a 7-year

period, graze 3 years, rest 2-3 years, and burn 1-2 times.

Currently 15 percent of the Refuge is in this phase. (3)

Maintenance; alternately burn and graze with 2-5 year

rest periods. Currently none of the Refuge is in the

maintenance phase. From 1978-97, an average of 3.8

burns and 2,410 acres per year were prescribe burned

(includes 2 wildfires in 1988 totaling 6,135 acres). From

1990-1997, an average of 3.5 burns and 3,160 acres per

year were prescribed burned. Prescribed burns 500

acres or larger usually begin at 1100 hr and end at 1700

hr, resulting in 6 hours per burn day when smoke is

emitted. This calculates about 23 hours each year smoke

is emitted, or about 0.3 percent of the hours in a year.

Cool-season grasses, per pound burned, emitted less

than wood burning stoves (Bragg 1995). Grasses, even

tall, warm-season grasses, produce far less than trees

(Bragg 1995). Water erosion following a prescribed burn

in northern mixed-grass prairies was found to be

negligible (Bragg 1995). Annual prescribed burn plans

are completed and approved, following standard procedures of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Fire affects wildlife mainly by modifying habitat (Wright

and Bailey 1982, Higgins et al. 1989). Fire reduces

vegetative biomass and litter and therefore favors early

over later successional stages (Barbour et al. 1980).

Succession following a fire defoliation event produces a

series of successional changes for different wildlife

species. For example, the year of a burn and into the

second year provides habitat conditions attractive to lark

buntings, chestnut-collared longspurs, and horned larks.

The second and third years provide increased vertical

cover but open understory that provides preferred

habitat for Baird’s and grasshopper sparrows. As more

litter accumulates in the third and fourth years,

Sprague’s pipits increase along with nesting cover for

waterfowl and resident bird species. In Saskatchewan,

Maher (1973) found one of the highest breeding bird

densities recorded in any treatment during his study

(burn, grazed, un-grazed) on burned grassland during

the second year following the burn. Burns also increase

local habitat diversity by creating a mosaic of habitats

and increasing habitat interspersion and edge (Biondini et

al. 1989; Steuter et al. 1990). Some direct mortality of

wildlife can result from fire (Wright and Bailey 1982,

Higgins et al. 1989). Most often this occurs in sedentary

species such as some reptiles or immobile life stages, as

in the egg or pupal stage of many insects. Although fire

can be detrimental to some ground nesting birds,

prescribed burns may be timed to avoid overlap with

nesting seasons. Some prescribed burns may have to be

done during the nesting season to impact plant species to

be encouraged or discouraged. Many species of birds,

however, are known to successfully re-nest following

such disturbances or initiate nests in recently burned

prairie (Kirsch and Kruse 1973; Kruse and Piehl 1986).

Grazing: Grazing stimulates the Fast Nutrient cycle

only during a portion of a plant’s growth period called

the “window period” (based on plant physiological

responses [Manske 1994, 1996], about June 1 to July 15

for cool-season grasses and about June 15 to July 31 for

warm-season grasses in northwestern North Dakota).

To understand this, a little further explanation may be

helpful. About 85 percent of nitrogen in prairie soil is

tied up as organic nitrogen, a nitrogen form not available

for plant growth. When mycorrhizal fungi-dependent

plants are grazed during the window period, microbial

activity helps convert organic nitrogen to mineral

nitrogen. When aptly grazed, the plant’s nitrogen is

removed (primarily in the aboveground leaves) and the

plant releases carbon in the form of simple sugar

released into the rhizosphere (Coyne et al. 1995). This

causes an increase in bacteria activity that in turn causes

protozoa and nematodes (soil microbes) to also increase

activity. They give off ammonia. Mycorrhizal fungi

absorb the ammonia and convert it to nitrate, which is a

mineral form of nitrogen, usable by plants. Nitrogen is

passed from the fungi to the plant. The defoliated plant

has been stimulated to activate axillary buds (new leaves

that can tiller the year grazed) and the nitrogen from the

rhizosphere provides the nutrients. This increases plant

growth (Barbour et al. 1980, Manske 1996). Native plants

in the northern Great Plains depend on grazing to retain

a normal nutrient cycle.

Plants can easily be overgrazed (i.e., repeated defoliation

of individual plants over weeks or months) during window

periods. Indeed, grasslands grow most vigorously with

short periods of grazing during the window period.

Historically, bison probably did not stay and repeatedly

graze a given area for very long (Larson 1940; Edwards

1978). Grazing should not exceed 14 days at the recommended rate of 2-3 acres/AUM (Animal Unit Month) for

this area (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1975).

Primary components of grazing are timing and intensity

(Stoddart et al. 1975). Timing refers to the time of year

and length of time the plants are exposed to grazing

animals (grazing period), including the number of

grazing periods. Intensity refers to the degree of

grazing pressure that plants and plant communities

experience. Intensity is a function of stocking density

and grazing period length, and is controlled by the

number of livestock in a given area (stocking rate) and is

measured in AUMs (Animal Unit Months)/acre. These

factors are managed to achieve a controlled grazing

program. For the purposes of management on Lostwood

Refuge, grazing and animal impact will be considered one

tool; both are means of removing herbage, i.e., defoliation.

While we recognize the difference between the two, one

cannot be used without the other (See Appendix B,

Glossary of Terms for definition of grazing and animal

impact.)
36 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

Grassland is the dominant upland habitat on Lostwood

Refuge. Native grasses and most native forbs in the

northern Great Plains evolved with and require periodic

partial or total defoliation followed by periods of rest to

maintain their vigor and preserve floral richness (reviewed above). Vegetative vigor and diversity are

paramount to achieve the landscape description for the

Refuge. Grazing is one of the primary tools available to

accomplish the goals and objectives, relying on livestock

provided by local livestock producers. A critical part of a

successful grazing program is informing cooperating

livestock producers of the goals and objectives of the

Refuge, and how their efforts contribute to successful

Refuge management.

Grazing on Lostwood Refuge will not be restricted to

warm or cool season growth periods. Grazing may take

place during slow and fast growth stages and during the

dormant period, depending on the specific habitat

objective. In most cases, grazing is intended to stimulate

the Fast Nutrient cycle that promotes growth (Coleman

et al. 1983). The period of time the plants and plant

communities are exposed to livestock will vary, though

will be minimized as much as possible. Usually the

grazing period will not exceed 14 consecutive days

(Manske 1994). Stocking rates will vary depending on

specific objectives.

Grazing affects grasslands and wildlife. Effects can be

good or bad, depending on the type of grazing and how it

is used. If used correctly in upland areas, grazing will

improve wildlife habitat for many species. Effects of

grazing on grasslands and wildlife have been heavily

researched, yet many questions remain unanswered. On

Lostwood Refuge, spring grazing reduced densities of

mallards, gadwalls, and blue-winged teal (Kruse and

Bowen, 1996); nest density of gadwalls increased after

grazing ended. Nest success, however, was uninfluenced

by grazing. Sedivec et al. (1990) concluded that cattle

grazing enhanced waterfowl nesting habitat in southcentral North Dakota when properly managed by

specialized grazing systems. Moderately grazed

grasslands in Iowa were more attractive to blue-winged

teal than un-grazed habitats (Burgess et al. 1965). Many

other studies have found grazing detrimental to duck

production (Kirsch 1969; Miller 1971; Gjersing 1975;

Mundinger 1976; Kirsch et al. 1978). In central Montana,

the greatest density of duck pairs occurred on grasslands that were un-grazed during the previous year

(Mundinger 1976). Results of studies are often confusing

and conflicting, due to different habitats, wildlife, and

grazing types used among studies (Kirsch et al. 1978,

Kirby et al. 1992).

Research on effects of grazing on other migratory birds

in the Prairie Pothole Region is less plentiful. Grazing

mainly affects habitats of rangeland birds by reducing

vegetation quantity and quality (Kirsch et al. 1978,

Strassman 1987). Specific effects of grazing on breeding

birds, however, are not uniform or easily defined because

of differences in grazing intensity and rangeland type.

Owens and Myres (1973), Kantrud (1981), and Messmer

(1985) found that grazing reduced or eliminated some

nongame birds, while not affecting or increasing populations of others; some species preferred grazed over idle

grasslands. Total bird density in North Dakota prairies

generally increases with increased grazing intensity

(Kantrud and Kologiski 1983), although species richness

generally decreases (Kantrud 1981; Kantrud and

Kologiski 1983). Upland nesting shorebirds such as

marbled godwit and willet prefer prairie of short vegetation, such as that disturbed by grazing (Ryan et al. 1984;

Ryan and Renken 1987). Upland sandpipers, however,

might not initiate nests when cattle are present in mixedgrass prairie (Bowen and Kruse 1993), and prefer lightly

grazed or idle areas (Higgins et al. 1969). Nest sites,

foraging habitats, or prey of several species of raptors at

Lostwood Refuge, especially ferruginous hawks and

burrowing owls, have been negatively affected by

increases in vegetation height and density under decades

of light grazing or rest (Murphy 1993). Ferruginous

hawks and burrowing owls seem to prefer heavily grazed

tracts in the northern Plains (Schmutz et al. 1980;

Konrad and Gilmer 1984; Haug and Oliphant 1990).

Kirsch et al. (1978) concluded that annual grazing

reduces production of most upland nesting birds,

although periodic treatments are needed to maintain

upland nesting habitats in their best ecological condition.

Effects of grazing on bird populations, positive or

negative, are greatly complicated by variation in climate,

topography, and soils across the northern Great Plains

(Kantrud and Kologiski 1983).

Rest: Rest can also be an important management tool.

The northern mixed-grass prairies historically were not

grazed season-long, or even parts of a year, year-afteryear. Some grassland wildlife species require freshly

burned areas during part of their lives, some require

grazed areas, and some need areas rested for several

years, providing accumulations of litter for nesting cover

(Kantrud 1981; Ryan 1990). Litter is also important to

building topsoil. However, rest for more than five years

decreases “beneficial” microbes in the soils that stimulate Fast and Slow Nutrient cycles (Coleman et al. 1983).

In addition, woody plants increase in areas only grazed

or rested, ultimately decreasing native grasses and forbs

(Bragg and Steuter 1996). In summary, litter builds

topsoils, but too much litter over too long of a period ties

up much of the nutrients. Fire, which historically

occurred at least every 5-10 years (reviewed above),

helps circulate these nutrients and maintain the grass/

forb composition.

For the purpose of upland management on Lostwood

Refuge, rest is defined as intentionally allowing upland

habitat to remain undisturbed for one year or longer.

Some units of the Refuge have not been or are rarely

managed because of various constraints. This unintentional lack of disturbance is not considered “rest.” Rest

will be used as a tool to meet objectives established for

the Refuge.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 37

Past management of Lostwood Refuge followed contemporary philosophies and practices thought to be best for

wildlife. With increased knowledge, however, management became more fine-tuned and techniques have

improved. Native wildlife in the northern Great Plains

need mosaics of grassland habitats to maintain their

diversity and abundance (Ryan 1990). Without one or

more of the historical treatments, the plant diversity

regresses and abundance of native grassland wildlife

suffers. Disturbances must be relatively short in

duration and vary from partial to total defoliation to

maintain natural patch dynamics (Hulbert 1969; Huber

and Steuter 1984; Bragg 1995). These disturbances also

provide varied vegetation height and density, successional stages, and amounts of residual cover required by

migratory birds (Madden 1996).

The importance of undisturbed cover for upland nesting

waterfowl is well documented (Keith 1961; Burgess et al.

1965; Duebbert 1969; Oetting and Cassel 1971; Page and

Cassel 1971; Duebbert and Kantrud 1974; Kirsch et al.

1978; Kaiser et al. 1979; Voorhees and Cassel 1980).

Research also indicates that long periods of rest may

reduce the attractiveness of cover to nesting waterfowl

(Voorhees and Cassel 1980, Higgins and Barker 1982,

Kemner 1989).

Importance of undisturbed cover for other migratory

birds varies among species. Passerine breeding densities

in North Dakota may be lower in undisturbed prairie

than in grazed and hayed areas, but species richness may

follow the opposite pattern (Kantrud 1981). Baird’s

sparrows, which nest at relatively high densities at

Lostwood Refuge, need mainly grass-forb, native prairie

vegetation of moderate height and density (Sousa and

McDonal 1983), such as that produced after a year of rest

from haying or burning. Northern harriers and shorteared owls nest mainly in undisturbed grasslands or

lightly grazed grasslands (Toland 1986; Kantrud and

Higgins 1992), but ferruginous hawks, Swainson’s hawks,

and burrowing owls need closely grazed prairies for

foraging or nesting (Wakeley 1978; Kantrud 1981;

Jasikoff 1982; Kantrud and Kologiski 1983; Sharp 1986;

Haug and Oliphant 1990). Kirsch et al. (1978) concluded

that annual cover removal is detrimental to the production of most upland nesting birds but acknowledged that

periodic treatment is needed. As reviewed elsewhere in

this document, periodic treatments are desired to

maintain native, upland nesting habitats in their best

ecological condition. Therefore, long periods of rest are

detrimental.

Rest will be used at Lostwood Refuge in a manner that

takes full advantage of its beneficial effects and minimizes potential detrimental effects. Primary components of rest are timing and duration. Rest will be used

to provide residual standing vegetation during fall,

winter, and spring for use by upland nesting waterfowl,

other migratory birds, and other wildlife as resting,

roosting, bedding, feeding, fawning, nesting, and escape

cover. Rest will not be overused in order to keep

succession, water and mineral cycles, energy flow, and

quality of cover at high levels in native prairie. The

length of rest will depend on the condition of the grassland. Those in poor condition may not improve with rest

unless other management tools are used to improve

condition prior to rest. Native grasslands in very good

condition can benefit for the first two to three years and

may sustain several more years of rest before deteriorating significantly. Due to the invasion of exotic, cool

season grasses in native grasslands on Lostwood Refuge,

habitat conditions quickly deteriorate if over-rested.

Conditions may deteriorate to the point that intensive

management is needed for recovery. Appropriate use of

rest ensures long-term health of native grasslands,

requiring less intensive use of other tools.
38 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

Haying: Haying stimulates the Fast Nutrient cycle if

applied during the window period, but in contrast to

grazing it is nonselective (haying cuts everything

uniformly while livestock graze selectively). The use of

haying as a grassland management tool on the Lostwood

Refuge relies on local livestock producers. No upland

management program using haying as a tool will be

successful if it does not meet needs of these producers,

i.e., grass cut too late for nutritional value. However,

haying activities will be complete by September 1 to

allow regrowth for winter cover and residual cover

needed by ground-nesting birds the following spring.

Other haying activities such as baling and removal of

bales will also be accomplished by September 1. Haying

will not normally be conducted more than once per year

on a given area. In most cases, haying will not be done

annually, but only periodically (every 4-7 years) to

maintain grassland vigor.

Studies of waterfowl production in tame grass plantings

have shown that nesting ducks prefer un-mowed over

mowed upland vegetation (Oetting and Cassel 1971;

Duebbert and Kantrud 1974; Kirsch et al. 1978; Voorhees

and Cassel 1980). This can be attributed to needs for

residual vegetation especially by early nesting ducks

(Gates 1965; Martz 1967; Luttschwager and Higgins

1991). Although ducks prefer un-mowed vegetation, they

can have relatively good production in early successional

growth the first year after haying (Oetting and Cassel

1971; Vorhees and Cassel 1980; Luttschwager and

Higgins 1991). Periodic haying of seeded nesting cover

has also been shown to be an effective means of managing

grassland to enhance duck production (Kemner 1989).

Higgins and Barker (1982) found that seeded nesting

cover reached peak growth in 3 to 5 years, and renovation

was needed to maintain stand height-density and vitality.

Timing of haying is critical; haying during nesting can

cause up to 100 percent destruction of active nests

(Labisky 1957).

Research on effects of haying on other migratory birds

and other grassland-dependent wildlife is more limited.

Higgins et al. (1969) found that intermittently mowed

cover was excellent nesting habitat for upland plovers.

Annual haying has been implicated as a major cause of

population declines of the bobolink (Bollinger et al. 1990).

Kirsch et al. (1978) concluded that annual haying is

detrimental to the production of most upland nesting

birds, although periodic treatments may be needed to

maintain upland nesting habitats in their best ecological

condition. Mowing of grasslands has been recommended

as a management tool for willets and marbled godwits in

the northern Great Plains (Ryan et al. 1984; Ryan and

Renken 1987). Early haying of meadows in Europe has

markedly altered nesting chronology and species

composition of nesting migratory birds (Beintema et al.

1985; Pfeifer and Brandl 1991). Among small rodents

common to the northern Great Plains, haying generally

causes declines in abundance of meadow voles but

increased abundance of deer mice (Eadie 1953; LoBue

and Darnell 1959; Lemen and Clausen 1984; McGowan

and Bookhout 1986; Kotler et al. 1988).

As reviewed above, the whole grassland system was kept

active and healthy by periodic grazing, fire impact, and

rest; without these treatments, native plants decline and

changes in the plant community occur. Without these

three treatments, nonnative plants to the Lostwood area

such as smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, quack

grass, and leafy spurge, were competitively favored and

increased. Returning fire and simulating bison using

livestock in shorter durations will return indigenous

flora and fauna but will take 10-20 years of intensive

management to see the long-term results.

Twelve different species of waterfowl nest on Lostwood Refuge.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 39

The following habitat conditions describe the landscape

that will best meet the needs of native, breeding migratory birds and will help achieve goals and objectives of

the Refuge.

Succession: A mosaic of native prairie communities will

be present with a predominance of habitats in seral, midsuccessional stages that approach a pristine condition

(i.e., Ryan 1990). Grasses and forbs will be mainly

perennial species native to northern mixed-grass prairie.

Composition of grasses will vary depending on soil type

and location on slopes, which affect soil moisture regimes. Plants will be of mixed ages. Western snowberry

will be maintained at less than 25 percent canopy

coverage. The goal is to have no more than 300 aspen

clumps with an average size of no more than 0.5 acres/

clump. Uplands previously farmed and now dominated

by smooth brome, quack grass, or Kentucky bluegrass

will be reseeded to native grasses and forbs, except

perhaps the Lostwood Wilderness Area where vehicle

access is, for the most part (i.e., emergencies), prohibited.

Water Cycle: In general, soils and soil surfaces will be

permeable, well aerated, and covered with plant litter in

most years. Soil organic content will also be high. Water

runoff from rain events will be low due to litter and well

established root systems in the soil (Bragg 1995). Even

in the year of a prescribed burn, slight, if any, reduction

in infiltration and percolation rates will occur, persisting

for only one or two years (Bragg 1995).

Mineral Cycle: An active mineral cycle will exist with

minimal runoff or erosion from precipitation. Surface

litter will decompose, preventing buildup of old matted

dead vegetation, yet preserving a surface mulch. Moderate to substantial amounts of residual standing vegetation will be present during the winter and early growing

season on most of the Refuge. Other areas recently

burned provide relatively snow-free areas for winter

feeding. This provides critical winter cover and feeding

habitat for resident wildlife and also residual and open

nesting habitat for the various grassland birds the

following spring. The healthy grass, forb, and shrub

component will promote deeper recycling of minerals

from subsurface to surface. Shallow-rooted, introduced

species, such as Kentucky bluegrass, will be discouraged

in native sod by increasing the competitive ability of

desirable species. This will prevent litter buildup,

hasten low mineral cycling, improve height-density of

residual vegetation, and improve vegetative species

diversity. High insect and microorganism activity will

exist at and below the soil surface.

Energy Flow: A moderately high energy flow will be

present as indicated by the high density of plants on the

ground surface through periodic defoliation from fire and

grazing events. A variety of both warm and cool season

grass and forb species will be present in the native

grasslands, resulting in a longer season of plant growth,

increased solar energy harvest, and more upright,

residual cover during periods of rest.
40 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 41

REFUGE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Lostwood Refuge is the only large block of federallyowned land in the pothole region of the northern Great

Plain’s mixed-grass prairie. It has a rich mix of prairie

and wetland resources found nowhere else in the Refuge

System. The decision to purchase this unique and

diverse area was based on two Federal biologist’s

observations recorded in the mid-1910’s. It is from these

early recordings that the following mission was established for Lostwood Refuge.

Mission

“To restore and preserve the indigenous biological

communities of the mid- to late-1800’s on a representative sample of the physiographic region known as the

Missouri Coteau of the northern Great Plains’ mixedgrass prairie.”

To meet this mission, management must be flexible,

changing and adapting with information obtained through

monitoring and research. It is essential to apply Adaptive Resource Management to Lostwood Refuge, and

recognize management as a continual learning process

with variation and change as essential ingredients. If

Lostwood Refuge is to progress and meet the goals and

objectives, then management activity tools must be

viewed as experimental. Research and management

must work as a team towards meeting these goals and

objectives.

Lostwood Refuge’s vista should embrace the native plant

and wildlife community. It should represent a simulation of what was first observed here at the turn of the 19th

century. It should be a wavy sea of native warm and cool

season grasses sprinkled with colorful floral displays

throughout the growing seasons. It should abound in

indigenous grassland and wetland birds and other

wildlife including sparrows, ducks, shorebirds, geese,

longspurs, grebes, pipits, grouse, deer, hawks, and much

more. It should be a place for people to enjoy through

wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, including

hunting, wildlife observation and photography, and

environmental education and interpretation. Herein we

present Lostwood Refuge’s goals, objectives for each

goal, and strategies on how to obtain each objective.

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Presented below are Lostwood Refuge’s seven goals and

respective objectives. Accompanying each objective are

associated strategies, which are ongoing and adaptive.

1) Endangered Species Goal: To preserve, restore,

and enhance indigenous flora and fauna that are

candidate, threatened, endangered, or species of

special interest.

Objective A. Maintain at least 9 breeding pairs of piping

plovers and increase, where possible, habitat to accommodate at least 16 additional breeding pairs, with a mean

fledging rate at least 1.2 young per breeding pair (Ryan

et al. 1993).

Strategies:

P Monitor reproductive success of pairs through

fledging to evaluate effects of management activities on

piping plovers.

P Maintain and improve shoreline habitat (i.e., prescribed burning, grazing, salt applications, gravel

addition).

P Protect beaches and nests from predators (i.e., by use

of barrier fences).

P Create new nesting beaches where appropriate.

Objective B. Provide protection and habitat for the

following migrant threatened and endangered species:

peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and whooping crane.

Strategies:

P Provide attractive shoreline habitats for shorebirds, a

staple prey for migrating peregrine falcons.

P Provide roosting sites during the fall for migrating

snow geese, a staple prey for migrating bald eagles.

P Provide exposed shorelines and grazed or burned

uplands for spring and fall migrating whooping cranes.
42 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

Objective C. Maintain and increase breeding populations

of endemic species and other unique northern mixedgrass species that are declining throughout much of

their range due to habitat loss, such as Baird’s sparrow,

Sprague’s pipit, marbled godwit, ferruginous hawk,

mealy primrose, and Dakota skipper.

Strategies:

P Monitor vegetation management to evaluate effects on

endemic species and other indigenous fauna.

P Provide a mix of plant successional stages, using

management tools such as fire, grazing, and rest to

maximize native biodiversity.

Objective D. Consider reintroduction of greater sandhill

crane, trumpeter swan, and western burrowing owl.

Strategies:

P Assess the potential of reintroducing these species.

2) Other Wildlife Goal: To develop and maintain

diversity and abundance of fauna indigenous to the

northern Missouri Coteau.

Objective A. Achieve an average annual duck production

of 14,000 (striving for an average of 7,500 breeding pairs

and Mayfield hatching success of at least 25 percent) and

an average of 70 giant Canada goose pairs.

Strategies:

P Monitor duck and goose breeding population size and

duck reproductive success to evaluate effects of management activities.

P Monitor coyote, fox, raccoon, skunk, and badger

populations to assess potential predation risk of local

ground-nesting birds.

P Maintain whole or part of 4 to 6 coyote territories on

the Refuge to keep red fox to less than or equal to 3

breeding territories; higher duck hatching success has

been shown in coyote versus fox territories (Sovada et al.

1995).

P Keep raccoon numbers to less than 6 individuals on the

Refuge by reducing den sites (i.e., hollow trees, rock

piles, old buildings adjacent to boundary), or removal of

an individual, as a last resort (raccoons are a major

predator on ducks [Johnson et al. 1989]).

P Produce habitat attractive to grassland dependent

raptors but not to red-tailed hawks and great-horned

owls, by minimizing the number and size of tree clumps

as described in the Wildland Goal, Objective B, through

periodic prescribed burning and grazing.

P Provide interspersed blocks of rested nesting cover

for upland nesting ducks.

P Provide, where possible, emergent cover for overwater nesting ducks.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 43

Objective B. Achieve an average number of occupied

nesting areas for ferruginous hawk of 3 to 5, for

Swainson’s hawk 5 to 10 with both of their productivity

greater than 1.6 young per occupied territory; for redtailed hawk less than 13, and for great-horned owl less

than 10.

Strategies:

P Monitor raptor nesting density and productivity to

evaluate the effects of management.

P Consider nesting platforms for ferruginous hawks

where Refuge lands adjoin privately-owned native

pastures that support abundant Richardson’s ground

squirrels and meet the hawk’s other biological needs.

P Provide grassland habitat attractive to ferruginous

and Swainson’s hawks and minimize competition from

red-tailed hawks and great-horned owls by reducing the

number and size of tree clumps as described in Wildland

Goal, Objective B.

Objective C. Achieve an average, annual breeding

densities (singing males/100 acres [based on point-counts

in an 82-yard radius]) for the following passerines:

chestnut-colored longspur, western meadowlark,

Sprague’s pipit, and Le Conte’s sparrow greater than 1

male; Baird’s sparrow and grasshopper sparrow greater

than 8 males; savannah sparrow greater than 10 males;

clay-colored sparrow from 4 to 15 males; and common

yellowthroat from 1 to 5 males.

Strategies:

P Monitor breeding passerine species abundance and

reproductive success.

P Provide different plant successional stages using

management tools, such as fire, grazing, and rest, that

will maximize indigenous biodiversity and abundance.

Objective D. Achieve minimum densities (pairs/100

acres) of 1 upland sandpiper, 1 marbled godwit, 1 willet,

and 2 Wilson’s phalarope (in areas with appropriate

adjacent wetlands) over a 5-year period average.

Strategies:

P Monitor abundance of upland-nesting shorebirds.

P Provide different plant successional stages using

management tools such as fire, grazing and rest, that

will maximize shorebird biodiversity and abundance .

Objective E. Achieve over a 5-year period an average

spring sharp-tailed grouse population (males attending

leks) of at least 600 males.

Strategies:

P Monitor spring grouse populations and nesting.

P Provide different plant successional stages using

management tools such as fire, grazing, and rest, that

will maximize abundance.

Objective F. Maintain diversity of other indigenous

vertebrate and invertebrate species in balance with other

goals and objectives of Lostwood Refuge.

Strategies:

P Establish a biological monitoring program using a

species or a group of species that can represent other

species for each habitat type.

P Inventory invertebrates in soils, wetlands, and plants

in different habitat types and successional stages.

P Develop, after inventories, strategies to effectively

maintain and increase indigenous species of concern.

P Plan management that incorporates the needs of

native communities for each management unit, and

accomplish Refuge management through an ecosystem

approach.

Objective G. Private lands within the original approved

boundary may be purchased from willing sellers to

provide additional habitat for migratory birds and other

wildlife.

Strategies:

P Provide an easy step for landowners to use when

interested in selling their land for inclusion into

Lostwood Refuge.
44 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

3) Wildlands Goal: To restore and maintain native

plant communities that occurred in the late 1800’s

(prior to homesteading by people of European descent)

in an ecological relationship with vertebrates and

invertebrates.

Objective A. Manage upland native flora to sustain the

following dominant associations, moist or mesic sites

porcupine grass, big bluestem, tufted hairgrass, prairie

dropseed, mat muhly, prairie cordgrass, blazing star,

prairie lily, two-grooved milkvetch; slopes or moderate

moisture sites with species such as green needlegrass,

western wheatgrass, prairie sandreed, rough fescue,

narrow-leafed poisonvetch, blanketflower, purple prairie

clover; dry or xeric sites with species such as blue

grama, bluebunch wheatgrass, plains muhly, spike oat,

Sandberg bluegrass, early bluegrass, needle-and-thread,

spotted gayfeather, purple coneflower, golden aster (for

list of scientific names, see Appendix K).

Strategies:

P Prescribe burn areas under renovation phase 3 to 5

times with 1 to 2 years rest between each burn; prescribe burn renovation-maintenance phase at least

twice and graze at least 3 years in a 10-year period; and

prescribe burn maintenance phase at least once every 6

years and graze 3 years out of 10 with less than 6 years

rest between treatments.

P Identify plant community types that represent

indigenous flora in soil types and topography using the

Federal Vegetation Classification and Information

Standards (Federal Geographic Data Committee,

Vegetation Subcommittee 1996).

P Develop techniques to monitor effects of management

practices on vegetation structure and litter depth.

P Determine what soil nutrient cycles, soil invertebrates

and other living soil organisms are needed, and how to

maintain these conditions, for native flora.

P Stimulate the Fast Nutrient cycle by grazing in a

short-duration rotation.

P Prescribe-burn during different burning periods to

attain specific objectives (i.e., reducing smooth brome

when at the 3-6 leaf stage, reducing woody plants during

mid-July to late August).

P When native grasses and forbs comprise less than 50

percent canopy cover, reseed old fields to native herbaceous varieties suited to this area and Refuge-harvested

seed, and monitor wildlife and plant responses.

Objective B. Maintain western snowberry and snowberry/silverberry at less than 25 percent canopy

coverage, and trees at less than or equal to 300 clumps of

quacking aspen with an average size 0.5 acres/clump.

Strategies:

P Prescribe burn to reduce small shrubs to reach the

fauna objectives.

P Prescribe burn and use of other tools (i.e., chemical

injections) for obtaining the aspen objective that accomplishes the fauna objectives.

P Use grazing to encourage indigenous grasses and

forbs that will reduce woody plants.

Objective C. Attempt to eradicate exotic species or at

least reduce their frequencies of occurrence, i.e., quack

grass less than 10 percent, smooth brome less than 10

percent, Kentucky bluegrass less than 10 percent, leafy

spurge less than 0.01 percent, caragana 0 percent,

Russian olive 0 percent, and less than 0.1 percent by

other exotic plants (i.e., sweet clover), with the combined

total of exotics less than 20 percent on native prairie and

reseeded natives.

Strategies:

P Prescribe burn to reduce undesirable exotics by

drying out the soils, eliminating deep (greater than 1⁄2

inch) humus layers, and exposing plant growing points to

the sun.

P Reseed greater than or equal to 4,000 acres of croplands (of which about 2,000 acres are in the Lostwood

Wilderness Area) to native grasses and forbs.

P Use grazing and mowing to reduce undesirable exotics

where applicable.

P Use herbicides where needed but keep to a minimum.

P Use biological controls (i.e., leafy spurge beetles)

wherever possible to obtain acceptable control of exotics.

P Use fire, herbicides, and mechanical methods (i.e.,

mowing) to eradicate caragana and Russian olive.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 45

Objective D. Manage the biotic integrity of the many

indigenous wetland communities.

Strategies:

P Inventory invertebrate populations for baseline

information, and develop a monitoring program to

periodically evaluate invertebrate populations that may

indicate wetland degradation from pollution (i.e., acid

deposition).

P Monitor wetland flora communities for baseline

information.

P Evaluate effects of defoliation and prolonged rest on

wetlands.

Objective E. Manage the Lostwood Wilderness Area’s

landscape to maintain wilderness values that incorporate

indigenous flora and fauna communities.

Strategies:

P Determine if permission can be gained to reseed about

2,000 acres of croplands to native grasses and forbs using

mechanical and chemical tools.

P Determine how grazing can be used without the use of

vehicles.

P Maintain the use of prescribed burning.

4) Environmental Quality Goal: Preserve and

enhance the pristine quality, wild character, and

beauty of a representative sample of the northern

Missouri Coteau for the benefit of present and future

generations of Americans.

Objective A. Protect and enhance air, water, and soil

resources.

Strategies:

P Monitor air, water, and soil resources based on

current air and water acts to ensure air and water

quality is achieved and maintained to assure biological

integrity and environmental health.

P Develop partnerships with appropriate parties (may

include petroleum and coal industries) that will ensure

the desired quality is maintained.

Objective B. Maintain the integrity of the Lostwood

Wilderness Area’s integral vista and Class I air quality

as required in the Clean Air Act, and native, grassland

landscape.

Strategies:

P Monitor the integral vista and air quality to determine

if changes occur and if standards (identified in the Clean

Air Act) are being met.

P Monitor management to evaluate effects on flora and

fauna.

P Restore native grasses and forbs on lands farmed

prior and during FWS ownership by reseeding natives,

prescribed burning, mowing (if applicable), grazing, and

leaving areas rest for up to six years.

P Renovate and maintain native grasslands using

prescribed burning, grazing, and rest.

P Restore drained wetlands.

P Eradicate caragana and Russian olive, increasing

exotic shrubs, through the use of fire, mechanics, and

herbicides.
46 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

5) Cultural Resource Goal: Preserve and interpret

the cultural resources of the Lostwood Refuge and

surrounding areas for the benefit of present and future

generations of Americans.

Objective A: Maintain archaeological resources and

develop interpretation of the native American habitation

of the Refuge.

Strategies:

P After each prescribed burn, search the area for “tipi

rings,” other native American habitation evidence, and

bison “rub rocks.”

P From the prescribed burned searches, have an

archaeologist evaluate and record each site, covering

about 1/3 of the Refuge every 5 years.

P Develop an interpretative program that explains the

use of the area by native Americans, through such means

as the kiosk, brochures, self-guided auto tour, and guided

tours.

Objective B: Maintain the archaeological resources and

develop interpretation of the early European settler

habitation of the Refuge.

Strategies:

P After each prescribed burn, search the area for sod

house foundations.

P From the prescribed burned searches, have an

archaeologist evaluate and record each site, covering

about 1/3 of the Refuge every 5 years.

P Develop an interpretative program that explains the

use of the area by early European settlers, through such

means as the kiosk, brochures, self-guided auto tour, and

guided tours.

6) Public Use Goal: Nurture an awareness and

appreciation of the northern mixed-grass prairie

Coteau’s wildlife, its ecosystem dynamics, and Refuge

management through public involvement, and permitted and compatible public use activities. Through an

awareness of Lostwood Refuge, the public will gain an

appreciation for the entire Refuge System as the

largest system of lands in the world dedicated to

wildlife conservation.

Objective A. Continue and expand where appropriate

public hunting of sharp-tailed grouse, gray partridge,

and white-tailed deer in conjunction with State laws.

(Lostwood Refuge is open to big game and upland game

hunting in accordance with State seasons and regulations.)

Strategies:

P Monitor current and potential recreational users to

document desired experiences or changes for each type

of hunting season.

P Maintain existing hunting seasons.

P Maintain a quality hunt, i.e., a hunting season that

permits hunters to hunt designated species but lacks

constant disturbance to that species, a disturbance that

prevents this species from resuming normal, daily

activities.

P Maintain hunting ethics, taught in most hunter

education courses (i.e., respect quarry and its habitat,

courteous towards other hunters, safety aspects),

through outreach, number of hunters, and enforcement

contact and presence.

P Keep hunting activities compatible with the Refuge

System goals and objectives.

P Determine if other portions of the Refuge can be

opened to the hunting of upland game.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 47

Objective B. Develop environmental education and

interpretation programs for local school’s teachers and

students, organized groups (i.e., 4-H, scouts), families,

and students of teaching majors (i.e., Minot State

University) using any area of Lostwood Refuge that

meets lesson plans and management needs.

Strategies:

P Monitor users to document desired experiences or

changes for each type of activity.

P Keep the environmental education and interpretation

programs dynamic, like the ecosystem the Refuge is

within, by using different sites throughout the year, and

not using the same sites year after year.

P Construct a learning facility that will provide needed

indoor space for education and interpretative programs.

P Develop a variety of Refuge-specific environmental

education curriculums, allowing teachers and instructors to conduct self-guided education programs, (i.e.,

birding, plant, wetland, invertebrate, archaeological,

ecological, vertebrate, land management, bio-monitoring,

etc.).

P Incorporate within the monthly newspaper articles

current Refuge environmental education activities.

P Develop environmental education partnerships with

local schools, universities (i.e., Minot State University’s

teaching curriculum), and organizations.

P Explore ways to make these opportunities available to

visitors with disabilities.

Objective C. Develop environmental education and

interpretation for Refuge visitors, including birders,

hunters, photographers, plant and invertebrate enthusiast, using any area of the Refuge that meets the lesson

plans and management needs.

Strategies:

P Monitor users to document desired experiences or

changes for each type of activity.

P Keep the environmental education and interpretation

programs dynamic, like the ecosystem the Refuge is

within, by using different sites throughout the year, and

not using the same sites year after year.

P Develop environmental education and interpretative

materials for the general public.

P Develop a variety of tours for the general public (i.e.,

birding, plant, wetland, invertebrate, archaeological,

ecological, vertebrate, land management, bio-monitoring,

resident and migratory species fall biology).

P Construct a learning facility for indoor interpretative

exhibits to orient visitors and help develop an understanding of the Refuge System and Lostwood Refuge and

its ecosystem (i.e., wetland and upland habitats displayed

with sounds, management and monitoring strategies,

hunting regulations, bird watching guides).

P Develop partnerships with instate and out-of-state

schools (i.e., intern programs) and organizations.

P Provide monthly news releases discussing items of

interest about the Refuge System and Lostwood Refuge.

P Explore ways to make these opportunities available to

visitors with disabilities.
48 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

Objective D. Maintain and improve opportunities for

wildlife observation and photography on Lostwood

Refuge.

Strategies:

P Monitor users to document desired experiences or

changes for each type of activity.

P Provide fun, family activities (i.e., bird watching,

exploring wetlands, looking for insects, discovering

plants, archaeological walks, riding horseback, crosscountry skiing, North Dakota State Game and Fish’s

youth deer hunt) that emphasize values of a healthy

ecosystem.

P Provide wildlife observation blinds, (i.e., sharp-tailed

grouse dancing grounds, wetlands) that are moveable for

the varying conditions from year-to-year.

P Present photography ethics to prevent harassment to

wildlife, and hints for capturing the beauty and dynamics

of grassland flora and fauna, including biology of particular species of interest at the time.

P Maintain a self-guided auto tour route and hiking trail,

and year-around hiking and winter snowshoeing and

cross-country skiing on the Refuge.

P Make available a portion of the Refuge during a

specified time for horseback riding, and give an annual

guided horseback tour (horses are not provided).

P Purchase posts for self-guided tours made of material

that does not burn.

P Develop special tours during special times of the year

(i.e., birding, flowers, grasses [cool and warm seasons],

migration, invertebrates).

P Explore ways to make these opportunities available to

visitors with disabilities.

7) Research Goal: Provide a learning platform that

will assist management and science to better understand the northern mixed-grass prairie ecosystem that

will contribute to conserving and enhancing the quality

and diversity of indigenous wildlife.

Objective A. Develop a unity between management and

learning institutions for the common welfare of science,

management, and the northern mixed-grass prairie

ecosystem.

Strategies:

P Develop intern programs with interested institutions,

incorporating a miniature study and applied management

opportunities, for the intern.

P Provide opportunities for students to use Lostwood

Refuge in pursuit of their education, provided it contributes to further knowledge of the northern mixed-grass

prairie.

P Develop a list of potential financial sources that may

help students find financial support for their study.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 49

8) Support System Goal: Interact with communities

and organizations to create mutually beneficial

partnerships that will accomplish the Refuge System’s

and the Lostwood Refuge’s mission and goals.

Objective A. Communicate with and engage communities, neighborhoods, and constituencies in the development and implementation of the Refuge Comprehensive

Conservation Plan (CCP).

Strategies:

P Develop a list of interested participants.

P Write news releases to local communities within a 100-

mile radius of Lostwood Refuge about the CCP.

P Provide an open forum for public comment, both

verbal and in writing.

P Develop a Friends Group for Lostwood Refuge.

Objective B. Maintain cooperative agreements with

appropriate rural fire departments and State fire

Marshall.

Strategies:

P Develop criteria for understanding each party’s

jurisdiction and restrictions.

P Share in educational/training opportunities.

P Communicate with each rural fire department each

year to discuss problems, equipment, burn plans, etc.

Objective C. Develop outreach and partnership programs that are educational and informative of the Refuge

System and Lostwood Refuge.

Strategies:

P Identify local civic groups, decisions makers, and

organizations interested in a direct line of communication

(i.e., news letters to each organization) with the Refuge.

P Provide a special program during the National Wildlife

Refuge week to reach as many people and organizations

as possible about Refuges being special places.

P Provide monthly news releases discussing items of

interest about wildlife, the Refuge System, and

Lostwood Refuge.

P Encourage conservation partnerships (i.e., sharing

expertise in resource management, providing facilities

and assistance in environmental education, attaining air

and water quality standards) with Federal and State

agencies, organizations, industry, education systems, and

the general public to expand compatible benefits for both

partners.

P Identify additional methods for outreach and partnerships to increase public knowledge and awareness of

wildlife needs, the Refuge System, and Lostwood

Refuge.
50 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

Habitat Protection Strategy

Several of the Guiding Principles in the 1996 Executive

Order express the importance of wildlife diversity in

high-quality habitat in several different ways.

P “Fish and wildlife will not prosper without highquality habitat, and without fish and wildlife, traditional

uses of refuges cannot be sustained. The Refuge System

will continue to conserve and enhance the quality and

diversity of fish and wildlife habitat within refuges . . . to

ensure that the biological integrity and environmental

health of the Refuge System is maintained for the benefit

of present and future generations of Americans . . . .”

Discussions about managing lands for wildlife often

emphasizes biospecies diversity. Unfortunately, the

approach often taken emphasizes “edge” species, species

common across United States, not species requiring

large, contiguous habitat units (Samson and Knopf 1982).

Samson and Knopf (1982) express:

P “If the ultimate goal of wildlife management is for the

optimal maintenance of the total resource, including

consumptive, non-consumptive, and esthetic values, the

conduct of management should emphasize the type of

ecological community mix that will provide assurance of

the system maintenance.”

Lostwood Refuge is in the northern Great Plains, a

subregion comprising all or most of the breeding

distribution for several species. The majority of these

species receive no emphasis or protection through the

Endangered Species Act, even though some have a more

restricted range than avian species included in the

Endangered Species Act, (i.e., piping plover). Madden

(1996) emphasizes the importance of managing this area

for species that require large, contiguous habitat.

P “Because the northern Great Plains support several

endemic passerines that exist nowhere else (i.e., Baird’s

sparrow, Sprague’s pipit), conservation of habitats used

by these species should be emphasized.”

Lostwood Refuge is the largest contiguous block of

northern mixed-grass prairie in the Prairie Pothole

Region under Federal ownership. In managing

Lostwood Refuge, we must be careful not to support “. . .

widespread species on the edge of their continental range

at the expense of regional endemics” (Knopf 1992), but

must maintain the open, mixed-grass community so it

can contribute to the whole species richness of the

natural world.

Because of Lostwood Refuge’s location in the Prairie

Pothole Region, it is an integral part of a broad coalition

of public and private programs that cooperate on

international, national, and regional bases to restore and

protect wildlife habitat. The Prairie Pothole Region of

the U.S. and Canada is North America’s premier

waterfowl breeding habitat area and the highest priority

of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan

(Waterfowl Plan). This Plan was enacted in 1986 among

Canada, the U.S., and Mexico to restore waterfowl

populations through protection, restoration, and enhancement of wetland and upland habitats. To carry out

on-the-ground activities and translate concepts of the

Waterfowl Plan, 12 Joint Ventures, including the Prairie

Pothole Joint Ventures were established in critical

habitat areas of the U.S. and Canada. Joint Ventures are

partnerships among Federal, State, and local governments, private landowners, conservation organizations,

and the business community to achieve the Waterfowl

Plan’s waterfowl goals. Because of the associated habitat

work, Joint Ventures benefit a broad range of wildlife,

including over 300 species of migratory birds.

The Prairie Pothole Joint Venture focuses on two

objectives: conserving habitat capable of supporting 6.8

million breeding ducks and an average fall flight of 9.5

million ducks; and stabilizing or increasing populations of

declining wildlife species that depend on wetland/

grassland complexes, with special emphasis on nongame

migratory birds. The Prairie Pothole Joint Venture

involves both private and public lands. National Wildlife

Refuges, such as Lostwood Refuge, are cornerstones for

the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture activities that include

wetland and grassland restorations, grassland management, and land acquisition and easements.

In addition to being North American Waterfowl Management Plan’s region of highest priority, the Western

Hemisphere Shorebird Network recognizes the Prairie

Pothole Region as critical breeding and staging habitats

for shorebirds. In January 1997, the U.S. portion of the

Prairie Pothole Region was again acknowledged for its

remarkable wildlife benefits and became the fourth

National Conservation Priority Area for the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve

Program.

Finding an upland sandpiper on a flowering xeric knoll, with

Baird’s sparrows and Sprague’s pipits singing and skylarking

around you, butterflies flittering about, and waterfowl slapping

the water with their bills as they feed in a nearby wetland,

conveys a species richness of not only plants, vertebrates and

invertebrates, but also a place of unique beauty, a place that

contributes to the richness of the natural world.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 51

PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Strategy for Project Funding and Personnel

Requirements

 Staffing is needed to conserve and enhance the quality

and diversity of indigenous wildlife habitats on Lostwood

Refuge. Without proper staffing to implement the

habitat management approaches, habitat conditions

deteriorate in less than 10 years, changing into a vegetative community that no longer attracts healthy populations of indigenous grassland wildlife.

Appropriate staffing is needed to monitor flora and fauna

responses to various management approaches to apply

Adaptive Resource Management strategies that are so

crucial for long-term success in reaching Lostwood

Refuge mission, goals, and objectives. Along with

monitoring, research is essential to carefully evaluate

management approaches in striving to accomplish

Refuge objectives. Refuge staffing is needed to coordinate with research to ensure a final, quality product is

obtained. Training and staff is needed for conducting

Geographic Information System (GIS) and Global

Positioning System (GPS) to take full advantage of

modern techniques that will help us frequently evaluate

vegetation management through remote sensing and

satellite imagery.

Refuge staffing used to conserve and enhance the habitat

and monitor responses, have little time and are not

properly trained to implement and conduct the wilderness program and the important public relation programs, including environmental education and interpretation, wildlife observation and photography, and other

wildlife-dependent recreational activities. If the Service

is to be successful in its mission and goals, specially

trained staff, with a combination training of public use

programs and grassland ecology, is essential. Part of

the Refuge staffing that assist both those that conserve

and enhance habitat and the public relation programs,

are the Refuge maintenance staff, essential staffing if

facilities and equipment are to be maintained in a timely

manner and meet safety standards. Without all of the

permanent staff, as shown in the following section, many

of the goals and objectives cannot be attained.

It is extremely important for the refuge manager to

keep an open line of communication with staff members,

having frequent discussions with all staff to ensure all

are working as a team, towards the Lostwood Refuge’s

goals and objectives. The resource manager must

communicate with the public use specialist if the public

use staff is going to be able to educate and inform the

public about the Refuge management and biological

monitoring results. The public use staff must communicate with the resource managers so managers are able to

adapt certain management that will help the public use

staff to meet their needs. Maintenance staff must

understand all staff needs and programs so they can

help resolve facility and equipment problems and help

wherever they can. Monitoring staff must understand

all programs because they must share their information

with all staff, and beyond their routine monitoring

efforts, they can help in the other programs where

needed.

Appropriate funding to pay salaries is essential, as

obvious. Equally important are funds to complete

routine maintenance and upkeep of facilities and equipment. But, along with this, funding to upgrade and

improve facilities and equipment is needed. If we are to

expand our knowledge in managing this natural resource, funds must be available to monitor, complete

research, apply specific management needs, etc. Without the financial support of the U.S. Government,

Lostwood Refuge cannot provide the habitat needed to

manage a northern mixed-grass prairie resource for

unique, indigenous wildlife. It cannot provide the

environmental education and interpretation, and wildlifedependent recreational activities. Also, it cannot maintain a unique resource for the benefit of present and

future generations.
52 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

Staffing Plan/Chart

CURRENT, PERMANENT POSITIONS AT THE

DES LACS COMPLEX

Project Leader (Des Lacs Complex)(GS-14)

Administrative Support Assistant

(Des Lacs Complex) (GS-6)

Office Automation Assistant

(Des Lacs Complex) (GS-4)

Fire Management Officer

(Des Lacs Complex) (GS-9/11)

Biologist

(Des Lacs Complex) (GS-9/11)

Refuge Operation Specialist

(Des Lacs Complex) (GS-12)

Maintenance Worker

(Des Lacs NWR) (WG-8)

Engine Equipment Operator

(Des Lacs NWR) (WG-10)

Refuge Operation Specialist

(Lostwood WMD) (GS-7/9)

Refuge Operation Specialist

(Crosby WMD)(GS-9/11)

Biological Science Technician (GS-7)

Biological Tech. Private Lands (GS-6)

Refuge Manager

(Lostwood NWR) (GS-9/11)

Maintenance Worker (WG-9)

Biological Technician (GS-5)

NEEDED STAFFING AT LOSTWOOD REFUGE TO

MEET GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Permanent Employees:

Refuge Manager (GS-11/12)

Assistant Refuge Manager/GIS (GS-9/11)

Biological Technician (GS-5/7)

Maintenance Worker (WG-9)

Maintenance Assistant (WG-6)

Outdoor Recreational Planner (GS-7/9)

Public Use Assistant

(Permanent Part Time [PPT])(GS-4/5/6)

Clerk (PPT)(GS-2/3/4)

Seasonal Employees: < 6 months

2 Biological Technicians GS-2/3/4/5

1 Public Use GS-2/3/4/5

POSITIONS CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED IN RONS

Complex Employees: (divide their time throughout the

Complex stations)

Biological Technician (works with piping plover, a

threatened species)

Biological Technician (works with the Integrated Pest

Management program)

GIS Specialist (works with satellite remote sensing and

GIS software and GPS)

Lostwood Refuge Employees: (majority of time spent on

Lostwood Refuge)

Clerk, PPT

Outdoor Recreational Planner

Biological Technician (this item, on the Unfunded

Operating Needs list, has been accomplished)
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 53

Management Plans

More recent plans, guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements that have guided

management of Lostwood Refuge are a 1971 “Master

Plan,” a 1991 “Operating Statement,” and a 1994 Environmental Assessment on “Management of Upland

Habitats on Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge.” The

Environmental Assessment for managing upland

habitats presented three alternatives: (1) no management, (2) no action, and (3) enhanced management (the

preferred alternative), and concluded that no significant

impact would exist on the human environment so no

Environmental Impact Statement was necessary. Other

NEPA requirements met include a 1972 Lostwood

Wilderness Area Environmental Impact Statement and

a 1984 prescribed burning Environmental Assessment.

Listed below are Management Plans completed (parenthesis indicates years completed) and those needing

completion shown in italic.

1. Occupational Safety and Health

* Guidance for Spill Prevention Control and Counter

measures (April 1996)

* Safety Plan (September 1991)

2. Wilderness Area Management

* Lostwood Wilderness Management Plan (April 1986)

3. Mineral Management

* Compatibility Plan for Petroleum Exploration and

Development (May 1985)

4. Habitat Management Practices

* Wetland Management Plan

West Rock Slough - Partnership project with Ducks

Unlimited

* Grassland and Range Management

Land Use Plan (December 1957)

Grassland Management

* Integrated Pest Management

Five-year Pesticide Plan (March 1995)

5. Fire Management

Fire Management Plan (April 1984, March 1995)

Wildfire Management (1984)

National Preparedness Plan (1995)

Annual Prescribed Burning Plans (completed annually)

6. Public Use Management

Hunting (March 1985)

Sign Plan (1987)

Visitor Services and Outreach

Interpretation

Environmental Education

7. Population Management

Wildlife Inventories (1984)

Reintroduction of Selected Species

Partnership Opportunities

Many people --scientist, birders, ranchers, outdoor

enthusiasts, horseback riders-- have a great deal of

interest in Lostwood Refuge’s management and indigenous species. The American Birding Association (ABA)

has twice held a major conference in this area for

observing unique bird species and learning about

grassland management. Numerous Canadian, Federal,

and State governments and other organizations have

requested tours and to share management ideas about

this resource.

Lostwood Refuge has had several partnerships in recent

years: the ABA, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), and currently the Refuge has a funding

partnership with The Nature Conservancy for monitoring piping plovers. ABA has expressed interest in

funding future grassland passerine studies in the future.

The Nature Conservancy has provided financial support

for piping plover studies and management. Ducks

Unlimited designed and funded a dam on a Refuge

natural drainage that created needed waterfowl brood

habitat.

Other potential funding partnerships for natural resources and environmental education that need exploring

are: World Wildlife Funds, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, North Dakota Wetlands Trust, Boise Interagency

Fire Center, Wildlife Forever, Mutual of Omaha’s

Wildlife Heritage Center, The Conservation Fund, Coors

Brewing Company, Ducks Unlimited, Mutual of Omaha,

Intermodal Surface Transportation Act (develop a

Refuge public use road), National Environmental

Education and Training Foundation, Toshiba America

Foundation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s

Environmental Education Grants, Fish and Wildlife

Service Challenge Cost Share Program, and Biological

Resources Division of USGS.

A program called Partners in Flight, launched by the

NFWF, strives to “. . . improve our understanding of

Neotropical migrants, identify species most at risk, and

develop and carry out cooperative plans to protect their

habitat.” The Refuge staff can develop partnerships with

Partners in Flight for assistance in accomplishing

specific monitoring objectives. Potential partnerships,

identified in a Partners in Flight publication, are:

Colorado Bird Observatory, Cornell Laboratory of

Ornithology, Defenders of Wildlife, Long Point Bird

Observatory, Manomet Observatory for Conservation

Sciences, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife

Federation, and Point Reyes Bird Observatory (Citizen’s

Guide to Migratory Bird Conservation, 1995).
54 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

Partnerships require extensive Refuge time to coordinate and develop. Without appropriate staffing, time

spent in finding and developing partnerships is time lost

to improve and maintain habitat. The end result is the

habitat on the land degrades. More staffing is needed if

we are to get out of this “rut” so we can expand our

partnerships and accomplish more with the time and

funds available.

More people need to be exposed to the Refuge System

through Outreach. The Refuge has and will continue to

complete partnerships with: livestock operators; rural

fire departments (Powers Lake, Bowbells, and Stanley);

Interagency Fire Teams; Universities and Colleges

(University of Stevens Point, University of Missouri,

North Dakota State University, University of North

Dakota, Montana State University, University of Montana, Minot State University, and South Dakota State

University); National Biological Service; ABA; The

Nature Conservancy; NFWF; and other refuges (i.e.,

such projects as the recovery of the piping plover). New

partnerships can be formed with other resource interested organizations, local civic groups for environmental

education and interpretation (i.e., 4-H, scouts), community schools (four local), Federal and State governments,

and other civic organizations and events (i.e., Goose Fest).

Monitoring and Evaluation

Throughout this Plan, the importance of monitoring and

evaluating effects of management on flora and fauna are

critical in measuring progress towards attaining goals

and objectives. This requires permanent and seasonal

staffing, and help from volunteers if we are to correctly

apply ARM procedures. Also, it requires personnel to

become knowledgeable and use the new, broadening

fields of GIS and GPS. These new tools will help make

flora assessments much broader and complete for longterm vegetation monitoring with fewer observation

errors.

To determine if we are achieving our objectives, monitoring of species groups for each type of defoliation event

(i.e., grazing, prescribed burning, mowing) and rest (no

defoliation) in specific habitat types (native grasslands,

reseeded natives, old cropland, and wetlands) is needed.

Species groups include passerines, waterfowl, raptors,

microtines, canids, and key species of invertebrates.

Monitoring techniques have been developed for many of

the species groups, although improvement is needed;

however, not all species groups in all defoliation events

have been monitored. Limited staffing and volunteers

have slowed development and implementation of monitoring and evaluation programs.

Vegetation changes slowly over several years. To

achieve the flora objectives, monitoring each type of

defoliation event (i.e., grazing, prescribed burning,

mowing) and rest (no defoliation) in native grasslands,

reseeded natives, old cropland, and wetlands about every

3-5 years is needed. The desire is to use satellite imagery

and ground-truthing through GIS programs and GPS;

however, if this is not available, a laborious, time-consuming task of plant transects must be undertaken by a

botanist. Plant community types need to be identified

for similar soil types and topography.

Piping plover, the only U.S. Threatened or Endangered

species that reproduces on the Refuge, needs improved

shoreline habitat, protection from predators, and

individual birds should be monitored until they depart.

Other species in the Endangered Species program, bald

eagles, peregrine falcon, and whooping cranes, are

present only during migration, but individuals need to be

periodically monitored when present.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 55

APPENDIX A

References and Bibliography

Anderson, H.G., and A.W. Bailey. 1980. Effects of annual

burning on grassland in the Aspen Parkland of eastcentral Alberta. Can. J. Bot. 58(8):985-996.

Anderson, M. L., and A. W. Bailey. 1979. Effect of fire on

a Symphoricarpos occidentalis shrub community in

central Alberta. Can. J. Bot. 57:2819-2823.

Bailey, A.W. 1988. Understanding fire ecology for range

management. In Vegetation science applications for

rangeland analysis and management, P.T. Tueller,

editor. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,

Boston, London.

Barbour, M. G., J. H. Burk, and W. D. Pitts. 1980.

Terrestrial plant ecology. Benjamin/Cummings

Publ. Co., Inc., Menlo Park, Calif. 604pp.

Beintema, A. J., H. R. J. Beintema, and G. J. D. M.

Muskens. 1985. A shift in the timing of breeding in

meadow birds. Ardea 73:83-89.

Bentivenga, S. P., and B. A. D. Hetrick. 1992. The effect

of prairie management practices on mycorrhizal

symbiosis. Mycologia 84:522-527.

Bird, R. D. 1971. Ecology of the aspen parkland of

western Canada in relation to land use. Can. Dep.

Agric. Contrib. No. 27. 155pp.

Biondini, M.E., A.A. Steuter, C.E. Grygiel. 1989. Seasonal

fire effects on the diversity patterns, spatial distri

bution and community structure of forbs in the

northern mixed grass prairie, USA. Vegetation 85,

21-31.

Bluemle, J. P. 1977. The face of North Dakota: the

geologic story. North Dakota Geol. Surv. Educ. Ser.

11. 73pp.

Bollinger, E. K., P. B. Bollinger, and T. A. Gavin. 1990.

Effects of hay-cropping on eastern populations of the

bobolink. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:142-150.

Bowen, B. S., and A. D. Kruse. 1993. Effects of grazing on

nesting by upland sandpipers in southcentral North

Dakota. J. Wildl. Manage. 57:291-301.

Bragg, T.B. 1995. Climate, soils and fire: The physical

environment of North American grasslands. In The

Changing Prairie, K. Keeler and A. Joern, editors.

Oxford University Press, NY.

_____ and A.A. Steuter. 1996. Prairie ecology--The

mixed prairie. In Prairie Conservation, F.B.

Samson, and F.L. Knopf, editors. Island Press, CA.

Burgess, H. H., H. H. Prince, and D. L. Trauger. 1965.

Blue-winged teal nesting success as related to land

use. J. wildl. Manage. 29:89-95.

Clayton, L. 1967. Stagnant-glacier features of the

Missouri Coteau in North Dakota. North Dakota

Geol. Surv. Misc. Ser. 30:24-46.

Coleman, D. C., C. P. P. Reid, and C. V. Cole. 1983.

Biological strategies of nutrient cycling insoil

systems. Pages 1-55 in A. MacFadyen and E. D.

Foral, eds. Advances in ecological research, vol. 13.

Academic Press.

Coupland, R. T. 1950. Ecology of mixed prairie in Canada.

Ecol. Monogr. 20:271-315.

_____ 1961. A reconsideration of grassland classification

in the northern Great Plains of North America. J.

Ecol. 49:135-167.

Coyne, P.L., M.J. Trlica, and C.E. Owensby. 1995.

Carbon and nitrogen dynamics in rangeplants.

Pages 59-167. in D.J. Bedunah and R.E. Sosebee

(eds). Wildland plants: physiological ecology and

developmental morphology. Soc. for Range Manage.

Denver.

Denig, E. T. 1961. Five Indian tribes of the upper

Missouri. Univ. Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

Duebbert, H. F. 1969. High nest density and hatching

success of ducks on South Dakota CAP land. Trans.

North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 34:218-228.

_____ and H. A. Kantrud. 1974. Upland duck nesting

related to land use and predator reduction. J. Wildl.

Manage. 38:257-265.

Eadie, W. R. 1953. Response of Microtus to vegetative

cover. J. Mammal. 34:263-264.

Edwards, T. 1978. Buffalo and prairie ecology. Proc.

Midwest Prairie Conf. 5:110-112.

Ellison, L. 1960. The influence of grazing on plant

succession of rangelands. Bot. Rev. 26:1-78.

Freers, T. F. 1973. Geology of Burke County, North

Dakota. North Dakota Geol. Surv. Bull. 55. 32pp.

Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation

Subcommittee. 1996. FGDC Vegetation Classifica

tion and Information Standards. USGS MS 590

National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive,

Reston, VA 22092. 27pp.

Freers, T. F. 1973. Geology of Burke County, North

Dakota. North Dakota Geol. Surv. Bull. 55 32 pp.
56 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

Gates, J. M. 1965. Duck nesting and production on

Wisconsin farmlands. J. Wildl. Manage. 29:515-523.

Gjersing, F. M. 1975. Waterfowl production in relation to

rest-rotation grazing. J. Range Manage. 28:37-42.

Grinell, G. B. 1970. Last of the buffalo. Arno Press, New

York.

Haug, E. A., and L. W. Oliphant. 1990. Movements,

activity patterns, and habitat use of burrowing owls

in Saskatchewan. J. Wildl. Manage. 54:27-35.

Higgins, K. F. 1986. Interpretation and compendium of

historical fire accounts in the northern Great Plains.

U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Resour. Publ. 161. 39pp.

_____ and W. T. Barker. 1982. Changes in vegetation

structure in seeded nesting cover in the prairie

pothole region. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep.

Wildl. 242. 26pp.

_____, H. F. Duebbert, and R. B. Oetting. 1969. Nesting

of the upland plover on the Missouri Coteau. Prairie

Nat. 1:45-48.

_____, A. D. Kruse, and J. L. Piehl. 1989. Prescribed

burning guidelines in the northern Great Plains.

South Dakota State Univ. Ext. Circ. No. 760. 36pp.

Hornaday, W. T. 1889. The extermination of the Ameri

can bison, Vol. 2. Annu. Rep. Smithsonian Inst.

(1887), Washington, D.C.

Houston, C. S., and M. J. Bechard. 1983. Trees and the

red-tailed hawk in southern Saskatchewan. Blue Jay

41:99-109.

_____, and M. J. Bechard. 1984. Decline of the ferruginous hawk in Saskatchewan. Am. Birds 38:166-170.

Huber, G. E., and A. A. Steuter. 1984. Vegetation profile

and grassland bird response to spring burning.

Prairie Nat. 16:55-61.

Hulbert, L. C. 1969. Fire and litter effects in undisturbed

bluestem prairie in Kansas. Ecology 50:874-877.

Jasikoff, T. M. 1982. Habitat suitability index models:

ferruginous hawk. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep.

FWS/OBS-82/10.10. 18pp.

Joyce, L. A., and M. D. Skold. 1988. Implications of

changes in the regional ecology of the Great Plains.

U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-158:115-127.

Johnson, D.H., A.B Sargeant, R.J. Greenwood. 1989.

Importance of individual species of predators on

nesting success of ducks in the Canadian Prairie

Pothole Region. Can. J. Zool. 67, 291-297.

Kaiser, P. H., S. S. Berlinger, and L. H. Fredrickson.

1979. Response of blue-winged teal to range management on waterfowl production areas in southeastern

South Dakota. J. Range Manage. 32:295-298.

Kantrud, H. A. 1981. Grazing intensity effects on the

breeding avifauna of North Dakota native grass

lands. Can. Field-Nat. 95:404-417.

_____, and K. F. Higgins. 1992. Nest and nest site

characteristics of some ground-nesting, nonpasserine birds of northern grasslands. Prairie Nat.

24:67-84.

_____, and R. L. Kologiski. 1983. Avian associations of

the northern Great Plains grassland. J. Biogeogr.

10:331-350.

_____, G. L. Krapu, and G. A. Swanson. 1989. Prairie

basin wetlands of the Dakotas: a community profile.

U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85. 111pp.

Keith, L.B. 1961. A study of waterfowl ecology on small

impoundments in southeastern Albert. Wildl.

Monogr. 6, 1-88.

Kellogg, R. 1915. North Dakota: Lostwood, Mountrail

County. Unpubl. U.S. Biol. Surv. Notes, Smithsonian

Inst. Archives, Record Unit 7176, Washington, D.C.

Kemner, D. P. 1989. Response by upland nesting birds to

three rejuvenation treatments applied to two types

of seeded nesting cover in eastern South Dakota.

M.S. Thesis. S. Dakota State Univ., Brookings.

Kirby, R.E., J.K. Ringleman, D.R. Anderson, R.S. Sojda.

1992. Grazing on National Wildlife Refuges: do the

needs outweigh the problems? Trans. North Am.

Wildl. Nat. Resourc. Conf. 57, 611-626.

Kirsch, L. M. 1969. Waterfowl production in relation to

grazing. J. Wildl. Manage. 33:821-828.

_____, and A. D. Kruse. 1973. Prairie fires and wildlife.

Proc. Tall Timbers Fire Ecol. Conf. 12:289-303.

_____, H. F. Duebbert, and A. D. Kruse. 1978. Grazing

and haying effects on habitats of upland nesting

birds. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf.

43:486-497.

Knopf, F. L. 1992. Faunal mixing, faunal integrity, and

the biopolitical template for diversity conservation.

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and

Natural Resources Conference 57:330-342.

Konrad, P. M., and D. S. Gilmer. 1984. Observations on

the nesting ecology of burrowing owls in central

North Dakota. Prairie Nat. 16:129-130.

Kotler, B. P., M. S. Gaines, and B. J. Danielson. 1988. The

effects of vegetative cover on the community

structure of prairie rodents. Acta Theriol. 33:379-

392.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 57

Kruse, A. D., and B. Bowen. 1996. Effects of grazing and

burning on densities and habitats of nesting ducks in

North Dakota. J. Wildl. Manage. 60:233-246.

_____, and J.L. Piehl. 1986. The impact of prescribed

burning on ground nesting birds. Proc. North Am.

Prairie Conf. 9, 153-156.

LaBaugh, J. W. 1986. Wetland ecosystem studies from a

hydrologic perspective. Am. Water Resour. Asso.

Bull. 22. 10pp.

Labisky, R. F. 1957. Relation of hay harvesting system to

duck nesting under a refuge-permittee system. J.

Wildl. Manage. 21:194-200.

Larson, F. 1940. The role of bison in maintaining the

short grass plains. Ecology 21:113-121.

Lemen, C. A., and M. K. Clausen. 1984. The effects of

mowing on the rodent community of a native

tallgrass prairie in eastern Nebraska. Prairie Nat.

16:5-10.

LoBue, J., and R. M. Darnell. 1959. Effect of habitat

disturbance on a small mammal population. J.

Mammal. 40:425-437.

Luttschwager, K. A., and K. F. Higgins. 1991. Some

sociological and ecological effects of the Conservation Reserve Program in the Northern Great Plains.

U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-203:58-62.

Madden, E. M. 1996. Passerine communities and birdhabitat relationships on prescribe-burned, mixedgrass prairie in North Dakota. Master Dissertation.

Montana State University, Bozeman.

Maher, W.J. 1973. Birds. I. Population dynamics. Tech.

Rep. 34, Can. Comm. Internat. Biol. Program, Univ.

Saskatchewan, Saskatoon. 56 pp.

Maini, J.S. 1960. Invasion of grassland by Populus

tremuloides in the Northern Great Plains. Ph.D.

Thesis, Univ. Saskatchewan, Saskatoon. 231pp.

Manske, L. L. 1994. Ecological management of grasslands defoliation. Pages 130-136. in Taha, R.K., Z.

Abouguendia, and P.R. Horton eds. Managing

Canadian rangelands for sustainability and profit

ability. Grazing and Pasture Tech. Program, Regina,

Saskatchewan.

_____. 1996. Adaptive tolerance mechanisms in grass

plants. Pages 97-99. in Z. Abouguendia, ed. Total

Ranch Management in the Northern Great Plains.

Grazing and Pasture Tech. Program, Saskatchewan

Agriculture and Food. Regina, Saskatchewan.

Martz, G. F. 1967. Effects of nesting cover removal on

breeding puddle ducks. J. Wildl. Manage. 31:236-247.

McGowan, K. J., and T. A. Bookhout. 1986. Small mammal populations on Ohio (USA) strip mined lands

reclaimed with herbaceous vegetation under old and

new reclamation laws. Ohio J. Sci. 86:29-32.

Messmer, T. A. 1985. Effects of specialized grazing

systems on upland nesting birds. M.S. Thesis. North

Dakota State Univ., Fargo.

Miller, H. W. 1971. Relationships of duck nesting success

to land use in North and South Dakota. Trans.

Congr. Int. Union Game Biol. 10:133-140.

Mundinger, J. G. 1976. Waterfowl response to restrotation grazing. J. Wildl. Manage. 40:60-68.

Murphy, R. K. 1993. History, nesting biology, and

predation ecology of raptors in the Missouri Coteau

of northwestern North Dakota. Ph.D. Dissertation.

Montana State University, Bozeman.

Newton, I. 1979. Population ecology of raptors. Buteo

Books, Vermillion, South Dakota. 399pp.

North Dakota Department of Agriculture. 1993. North

Dakota’s noxious weed law. North Dakota Dep.

Agric. 22pp.

Ode, D.J, et al. 1980. The seasonal contribution of C3

and C4 plant species to primary production in a

mixed prairie. Ecology. 61:1304-11.

Oetting, R. B., and J. F. Cassel. 1971. Waterfowl nesting

on interstate highway right-of-way in North Dakota.

J. Wildl. Manage. 35:774-781.

Owens, R. A., and M. T. Myers. 1973. Effects of agriculture upon populations of native passerine birds of an

Alberta fescue grassland. Can. J. Zool. 51:697-713

Page, R. D., and J. F. Cassel. 1971. Waterfowl nesting on

a railroad right-of-way in North Dakota. J. Wildl.

Manage. 35:544-549.

Pelton, J. 1953. Studies on the life history of

Symphoricarpos occidentalis Hook. in Minnesota.

Ecol. Monogr. 23:17-39.

Pfeifer, R., and R. Brandl. 1991. The timing of meadow

mowing and its influence on birds. Ornithologischer

Anzeiger 30:159-171.

Ryan, M. R. 1990. A dynamic approach to the conservation of the prairie ecosystem in the Midwest. Pages

91-106 in J. M. Sweeney, ed. Management of dynamic ecosystems. North Cent. Sect., The

Wildl. Soc., West Lafayette, Ind.

_____, and R. B. Renken. 1987. Habitat use by breeding

willets in the Northern Great Plains. Wilson Bull.

99:175-189.
58 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

_____, R. B. Renken, and J. J. Dinsmore. 1984. Marbled

godwit habitat selection in the northern prairie

region. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:1206-1218.

_____, B. G. Root, and P. M. Mayer. 1993. Status of

piping plovers in the Great Plains of North America:

a demographic simulation model. Conserv. Biol.

7:581-585.

Samson, F. B., and F. L. Knopf. 1982. In search of a

diversity ethic for wildlife management. Trans.

North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resourc. Conf. 47:421-431.

Sauer, C. O. 1950. Grassland climax, fire, and man. J.

Range Manage. 3:16-21.

Sawhill, J. C. 1996. Intimate landscapes, transcendent

issues. The Nature Conservancy. September/

October, p.5.

Schmutz, J. K. 1984. Ferruginous and Swainson’s hawk

abundance and distribution in relation to land use in

southeastern Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:1180-

1187.

_____, S. M. Schmutz, and D. A. Boag. 1980. Coexistence

of three species of hawks (Buteo spp.) in the prairieparkland ecotone. Can. J. Zool. 58:1075-1079.

Sedivec, K. K., T. A. Messmer, W. T. Barker, K. F.

Higgins, and D. R. Hertel. 1990. Nesting success of

upland nesting waterfowl and sharp-tailed grouse in

specialized grazing systems in southcentral North

Dakota. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-194:71-

92.

Sharp, B. 1986. Management guidelines for the

Swainson’s hawk. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Region 1,

Portland, Oregon. unpubl. rep.

Singh, J. S., W. K. Lauenroth, R. K. Heitschmidt, and J.

L. Dodd. 1983. Structural and functional attributes

of the vegetation of northern mixed prairie of North

America. Bot. Rev. 49:117-149.

Sousa, P. J., and W. N. McDonal. 1983. Habitat suitability models: Baird’s sparrow. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.

FWS/OBS 82/10.44:12pp.

Sovada, M. A., A. B. Sargeant, and F. W. Grier. 1995.

Differential effects of coyotes and red foxes on duck

nest success. J. Wildl. Manage. 59:1-9.

Steuter, A.A., C.E. Grygiel, M.E. Biondini. 1990. A

synthesis approach to management planning and the

conceptual development and implementation. Nat.

Areas. J. 10, 61-68.

Strassman, B.I. 1987. Effects of cattle grazing and

haying on wildlife conservation at National Wildlife

Refuges in the USA. Environ. Manage. 11(1), 35-44.

Stoddart, L. A., A. D. Smith, and T. W. Box. 1975. Range

management, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Stubbendieck, J. 1988. Historical development of native

vegetation on the Great Plains. U.S. For. Serv. Gen.

Tech. Rep. RM-158:21-28.

Toland, B. R. 1986. Nesting ecology of northern harriers

in southwest Missouri. Trans. Mo. Acad. Sci. 20:49-

57.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994. Management of

upland habitat on Lostwood National Wildlife

Refuge. Unpublished Environmental Assessment,

Denver, CO.

U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Field technical

guide: Coteau vegetation zone. U.S. Dep. Agric., Soil

Conserv. Serv., North Dakota. 14pp.

Vogl, R. J. 1967. Controlled burning for wildlife in

Wisconsin. Proc. Tall Timbers Fire Ecol. Conf. 6:47-

96.

_____ 1974. Effects of fire on grasslands. Pages 139-194

in T. T. Kozlowski and C. E. Ahlgren, eds. Fire and

ecosystems. Academic Press, New York.

Voorhees, L. D., and J. F. Cassel. 1980. Highway right-ofway: mowing versus succession as related to duck

nesting. J. Wildl. Manage. 44:155-163.

Wakeley, J. S. 1978. Factors affecting the use of hunting

sites by ferruginous hawks. Condor 80:316-326.

Wallace, L. L. 1987. Effects of clipping and soil compaction on growth, morphology and mycorrhizal

colonization of Schizachyrium scoparium, a C4

bunchgrass. Oecologia 72:423-428.

Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable

resources. MacMillan Publishing Company, New

York. 374 pp.

Wettlaufer, B. N., and W. J. Mayer-Oakes. 1960. The

Long Creek site. Sask. Mus. Nat. Hist. Anthropol.

Ser. No. 2

Wiens, J. A. 1970. Habitat heterogeneity and the structure of avian communities in grasslands. Bull. Ecol.

Soc. Am. Suppl. 51:29. abstract only.

Winter, T. C. 1989. Hydrologic studies of wetlands in the

northern prairie. Pages 16-54 in A. G. van der Valk,

ed. Northern prairie wetlands. Iowa State Univ.

Press, Ames, Iowa.

Wright, H. A., and A. W. Bailey. 1982. Fire ecology. J.

Wiley and Sons, New York.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 59

APPENDIX B

Glossary of Terms

Animal Impact. This is the sum total of all the 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.

Cool Season Grasses. These grasses have a C3 photosynthetic process (Barbour et al. 1980). Optimum growth of

cool season grasses is approximately 500 to 77° F (Coyne

et al. 1995). On Lostwood Refuge, their primary growth

periods are spring (May-June) and fall (September).

Examples of native, cool season grasses are green

needlegrass, western wheatgrass, and needle-andthread.

Cool Season Exotic Grasses. These are cool season

grasses that are not native to North America. They also

may be referred to as introduced or tame grasses, and

examples include smooth brome, quackgrass, intermediate wheatgrass, and tall wheatgrass. Kentucky bluegrass is included in this group, however, it was likely

native in North America but probably not in northwestern North Dakota.

Defoliation. Removal of live and residual vegetation by

various management methods, i.e., grazing, mowing,

burning.

Deteriorated (poor condition). As applied to grasslands

in this CCP, refers to a condition of less-than-potential

total biotic productivity as a result of environmental

conditions not natural to the site. Deteriorated grasslands typically have low species diversity (plant and

animal), poor plant vigor, large quantities of matted

litter, and significant proportions of undesirable plant

species.

Endemic. Native to or restricted to a particular area or

region.

Grazing. Feeding on grasses and other herbage by

domestic livestock.

Grassland Succession. The process of change and

development in the entire grassland community. See

also high succession.

Haying. Mechanical harvest of grasses and other

herbage for livestock feed.

High Succession (or high successional stage). Relatively

complex, stable communities composed of populations of

many different species of plants, animals, birds, insects,

and microorganisms. Usually highly stable in that

populations of member species tend to replace themselves over time and are resilient to perturbations. See

also succession, below.

High Grassland Succession. Complex grassland

communities composed of populations of a great many

different species of plants, animals, birds, insects, and

microorganisms. Usually highly stable and not prone to

high fluctuations in numbers of individual populations.

See also succession.

Indigenous. Occurring or living historically in a geographic area. Synonymous with native species.

Indigenous Migratory Birds. Migratory birds occurring

or living historically on Lostwood Refuge. “Synonymous

with native, migratory bird species.”

Litter. Residual vegetation that has lodged and become

matted.

Low Succession. Simple communities composed of

populations of only a few species. Usually highly

unstable and vulnerable to fluctuations. See also

succession.

Low Grassland Succession. Simple grassland communities composed of populations of only a few species.

Usually highly unstable and vulnerable to fluctuations.

See also succession.

Maintenance. Grassland management phase where the

habitat is alternately burned and grazed with 2-5 year

rest periods.

Mowing. Mechanical cutting of grasses and herbage

without the removal of the cut grasses and herbage.

Outreach. A program developed by the Fish and Wildlife

Service to help the public become aware of the Service

and perhaps create understanding and support.

Prescribed Burning. Controlled application of fire to

wildland fuels in either their natural or modified state,

under such conditions, as to allow the fire to be confined

to a predetermined area while producing the intensity of

heat and rate of spread required to achieve planned

management objectives.

Renovation. Grassland management phase involving

burning three times over 5-7 years to reduce woody

plants, and restore native plants to the grassland.

Renovation-Maintenance. Grassland management phase

involving a combination of the following tools; 3 years of

grazing, rest for 2-3 years, and spring burn 1-2 times

over approximately 7 years depending on conditions.
60 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

Residual Vegetation. Upright dead vegetation remaining

from previous years of growth. Residual vegetation is

different from litter in that it has not lodged.

Stocking Density. The relationship between number of

animals and area of land at any instant of time, expressed

in this document as animal-units per acre (AU/ac).

Stocking rate. The number of specific kinds and classes

of animals grazing a unit of land for a specified time

period, expressed in this document as animal unit

months per acre (AUM/ac).

Succession. The orderly and predictable process of

change and development in a biotic community, involving

interactions among abiotic factors, microorganisms,

plants, and animals. Procession is from simple communities composed of few species to diverse communities

with complex interactions. Stability, the inherent

resilience of populations within the community to change,

generally increases as succession proceeds forward

(Odum 1971) although exceptions do exist (Odum 1969).

A tendency towards balanced production:respiration

ratios also exists. Succession may potentially reach a

“climax” community type for a given geographic area;

the climax is composed of populations of species that

tend to replace themselves, instead of continuing to

change to a community of different composition. The

concept of succession in northern Great Plains grasslands under pristine i.e., pre-settlement conditions (i.e.,

in the 1800’s) is less clear than traditional examples such

as oak-hickory forest as a climax type of the eastern U.S.

In the northern Great Plains, a climax type or “high

succession” state is one characterized by repeated,

catastrophic disturbances especially fire, bison grazing,

and drought. Even though the grassland community

historically was frequently altered by such events, it was

composed of populations of characteristic plant and

animal species that were dynamic in a given place over

several years, but apparently were relatively stable over

decades or centuries. Thus, in this document, “high

succession” conveys close proximity to the pristine

condition (even though this is not clearly defined), and

thus a high degree of ecological integrity.

Warm Season Grasses. These grasses have a C4 photosynthetic process (Barbour et al. 1980). Optimum

growth of warm season grasses is 860 to 105° F (Coyne et

al. 1995). On Lostwood Refuge, their primary growth

period is in summer (late June-August). Examples may

include switchgrass, big bluestem, little bluestem, and

plains muhly.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 61

APPENDIX C

Compatibility Determination

Compatibility Determinations prepared for the 1994

Environmental Assessment entitled “Management of

Upland Habitats on Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge”

follow.

All other uses have current compatibility determinations

that are filed at Lostwood Refuge and are available for

public inspection. All compatibility determinations will

be reviewed and updated as appropriate.
62 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 63
64 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 65
66 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 67

APPENDIX D

Intra-Service Section 7 Evaluation
68 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 69
70 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 71

APPENDIX E

Summary of Public Involvement

The manager of Lostwood Refuge periodically discussed

management practices with Federal, State, and local

agencies. Various management practices are discussed

with Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)

specialists for their professional input. The refuge

manager is often consulted by other managers of state

and Federal lands regarding habitat management

practices, especially use of prescribed fire in managing

native prairie and in reseeding native prairie grasses.

The refuge manager has presented the results of

Lostwood Refuge’s successful leafy spurge control

program to several groups over the past decade and has

kept the County Weed Supervisors informed of the

program. The Lostwood Communication Council

consists of nine interested local individuals from Burke

and Mountrail Counties. Meetings have been held three

to six times per year to discuss management and plans

for the Refuge, and answer local concerns over Refuge

management. Local sportsmen’s club meetings are

attended as opportunities arise, and policies and management practices are explained.

The North Dakota Department of Health has been

consulted over several years regarding the prescribed

burning program. Of primary concern has been smoke

management from prescribed fires. Lostwood Refuge

also has worked cooperatively with the Health Department on studies of air quality.

A Waterfowl Planning Meeting for the Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge Complex including Des Lacs and

Lostwood Refuges and Lostwood and Crosby Wetland

Management Districts was held in Crosby, North

Dakota in September 1992. The MAAPE process (MultiAgency Approach to Planning and Evaluation) was a

planning effort directed to improve management practices on the Complex. Representatives from Federal and

state conservation agencies and private conservation

organizations attended this planning meeting and

provided input.

Copies of the 1994 Environmental Assessment, entitled

“Management of Upland Habitats on Lostwood National

Wildlife Refuge,” were mailed to all agencies and persons

who had expressed interest in the management of the

Refuge. Letters announcing the availability of the EA

were sent to all members of the Lostwood Communication Council. News releases announcing the availability

of the draft EA were published in local and regional

newspapers. Only one comment (a letter of support) was

received from the public during or after the 30-day

comment period. A Notice of Decision was mailed to all

persons who expressed an interest in receiving the

Service’s decision.

The Draft Comprehensive Management Plan was

available for public review and comment from August 25

to September 30, 1997. In addition to the plan being sent

to 115 people on the mailing list, news releases were

provided to local and regional papers announcing the

public review period and an open house was held on

September 17, 1997, in Stanley, North Dakota. Approximately ten people attended the open house. The Service

received 20 letters. Most respondents were supportive

of the Plan. General comments were provided in the

following categories:

Air quality clarification - 2

Against additional acquisition - 2

Comments concerning acquisition and mgmt of existing

lands - 2

More upland game bird hunting if it won’t affect wintering waterfowl - 1

Burn more - 1

Public comments/concerns have been addressed in the

final Comprehensive Conservation Plan, except for those

below:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National

Wildlife Refuge System will comply with the Clean Air

Act. In the Draft CMP, the authors did not include the

number of burns and acres burned each year that may

address some of the comments. From 1978-97, Lostwood

Refuge averaged 3.8 prescribed burns and 2,410 acres

per year from 1978-97 (range 1 [2 acres]-7 [2,466 acres]

burns per year). From 1990-97, Lostwood Refuge

averaged 3.5 prescribed burns and 3,160 acres per year

from 1990-97 (range 1 [116 acres] to 6 [8,116 acres,

includes wilderness burns]).

The Service is trying to take a holistic approach in

management of the Wilderness Area, for without

grazing, fire and rest, we will not be able to preserve the

natural and biological values of the wilderness area. The

air and water quality of this system is all part of the

holistic approach.

The 1997-98 CCP for Lostwood Refuge has no significant

change from the EA, even though the CCP is more

comprehensively addressing wetland management,

cultural resources, public use, and research. Wetland

management is part of upland management because the

many closed-system wetlands are interspersed in the

uplands. Objectives for Lostwood Refuge were first

addressed and published in a 1971 “Master Plan.” These

were further developed and expanded in the Goals and

Objectives in the Operating Statement approved in

September 1991. The Draft CMP further developed and

expanded these goals and objectives, and have no

significant change to the long-term policy, mission, and

management of the Refuge because of the EA.
72 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 73

APPENDIX F

Mailing List of Agencies and Individuals

FEDERAL OFFICIALS

* U.S. Senator Kent Conrad

Gail Bergstad, State Representative, Minot, ND

* U.S. Senator Bryon L. Dorgan

Bob Valeu, State Coordinator, Bismarck, ND

* U.S. Representative Earl Pomeroy

Gail Skaley, State Director, Bismarck, ND

FEDERAL AGENCIES

* USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Lincoln, NE

* USGS/Biological Resources Div., Jamestown, ND

* USGS/Biological Resources Div., Ft. Collins, CO

* USDI/Bureau of Land Management, Billings, MT

* USDI/Bureau of Reclamation, Billings, MT

* USDI/Bureau of Indian Affairs, Billings, MT

* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, MN;

Williston, ND

* Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, CO

* USDI/National Park Service, Theodore Roosevelt

National Park, Medora, ND

* USDI/Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO;

Bismarck, ND; Anchorage, AK; Portland, OR;

Albuquerque, NM; Fort Snelling, MN; Atlanta, GA;

Hadley, MA; Washington, D.C.

* USDI/Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services

Office, Bismarck, ND

* USDI/Fish and Wildlife Service, Minot Wetlands

Acquisition Office, Minot, ND

* Air Quality Branch, Lakewood, CO

STATE OFFICIALS

* Governor Edward T. Schafer, Bismarck, ND

* Senator John Andrist, Crosby, ND

* Senator Meyer Kinnoin, Palermo, ND

* Representative Glen Froseth, Kenmare, ND

* Representative Ronald Nichols, Palermo, ND

* Representative Robert Skarphol, Tioga, ND

* Representative Torgie Torgenson, Ray, ND

* Representative John Warner, Ryder, ND

STATE AGENCIES

* North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Bismarck, ND

* Missouri River Natural Resources Committee,

Bismarck, ND

* State Engineer, Bismarck, ND

* State Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismarck,

ND

CITY/COUNTY/LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

* Mayor, City of Kenmare

* City Council, City of Kenmare

* Mayor, City of Stanley

* City Council, City of Stanley

* Burke County Commissioner, Bowbells, ND

* Burke County Commissioner, Powers Lake, ND

* Burke County Commissioner, Columbus, ND

* Cass County Land Department, Baukus, MN

* Mountrail County Commissioner, Stanley, ND

* Mountrail County Commissioner, Stanley, ND

NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES

* Three Affiliated Tribe Business Council, New Town,

ND

FIRE DEPARTMENTS

* Kenmare Fire Department, Kenmare, ND

* Bowbells Fire Department, Bowbells, ND

* Stanley Fire Department, Stanley, ND

* Powers Lake Fire Department, Powers Lake, ND

ORGANIZATIONS/BUSINESS/CIVIC GROUPS

* Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement

(CARE), Washington, D.C.

* National Wildlife Refuge Association, Denver, CO

* American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO

* The Wildlife Society, North Dakota Chapter,

Bismarck, ND

* American Fisheries Society, Dakota Chapter, Pierre,

SD

* North Dakota Wildlife Federation, Bismarck, ND

* Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Bismarck, ND

* Defenders of Wildlife, Missoula, MT

* Sierra Club Northern Plains Field Office, Sheridan,

WY

* The Nature Conservancy, Helena, MT

* Environmental Defense Fund, Boulder, CO

* Prairie Wetlands Resource Center, Bismarck, ND

* Pheasants Forever, Inc., Huron, SD

* Native American Fish and Wildlife Society,

Broomfield, CO

* Great Plains Partnership, Western Governors

Association, Denver, CO

* Central Flyway Council, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

* Dickinson Research Center, Dickinson, ND

* Lostwood Farms, Ltd., Stanley, ND

* Bluestem Company, Bismarck, ND

* Canadian Wildlife Society, Edmonton, Alberta,

Canada
74 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

NEWSPAPERS

* The Kenmare News, Kenmare, ND

* Mountrail County Promoter, Stanley, ND

* Burke County Tribune, Bowbells, ND

* Williston Daily Herald, Williston, ND

* Minot Daily News, Minot, ND

UNIVERSITIES/COLLEGES/SCHOOLS

* South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD

* University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND

* University of Minnesota, Crookston, MN

* Minot State University, Minot, ND

* University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

* University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO

* Department of Biology, Montana State University,

Bozeman, MT

* MT Coop. Wildlife, University of Montana, Missoula,

MT

* Powers Lake Public School

INDIVIDUALS

Anderson, Keith and Sharon

Biwer, Neal and Cherlyn

Berkey, Gordon

Cornatzer, Dr. William

Dailey, Paulette

Edwards, Lee and Diane

Graff, Becky

Green, Dr. Mike

Higgins, Ken

Kallberg, Grant

Kallberg, Keith

Kruse, Arnold

Lindberg, Clinton

Lindberg, Dennis

Lucy, Agnes

Lucy, Jack

Madden, Beth

Martin, Ron

Paul, Gary and Marsha

Smith, Clayton

Stewart, John and Betty

Tinjum, Larry

Vaage, Lowell and Corraine

Van Berkom, Steve

Walks, Sharon

Wilde, Jon
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 75

APPENDIX G

Preparers and Acknowledgments

Karen Smith: Preface, Introduction and Background,

Plan Implementation, Subsection: Habitat Protection

Strategy

Robert Murphy, Dan Severson, Karen Smith: Resource

and Refuge Description, Refuge Goals and Objectives,

Subsections: Purpose and Regulatory Statutes, Establishment and History, Ecological Setting and Description, Environment Assessment, Mission, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Editing was completed by Robert Murphy

Mapping completed by Jaymee Fojtik, USFWS, Denver,

CO

Desktop publishing completed by Barbara Shupe and

Melvie Uhland, USFWS, Denver, CO
76 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 77

APPENDIX H

Key Legislation/Policies

In implementing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan,

the Service will comply with the following Federal Laws

and Executive Orders.

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.

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

non-Federal to the hunting of migratory birds.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes

procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gift of

areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation

Commission.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act

(1934): Authorized the opening of part of a refuge to

waterfowl hunting.

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy and broadened

the authority for acquisition and development of refuges.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958): Allows the

Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into agreements with

private landowners for wildlife management purposes.

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.

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.

Wilderness Act of 1964: Required the Secretary of the

Interior to review roadless areas of 5,000 acres or more

and all roadless islands within the National Wildlife

Refuge System, and to recommend areas for inclusion in

the National Wilderness Preservation System. Final

decisions on wilderness are made by Congress.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act

(1966): 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.

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.

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally

owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to be

accessible to persons with disabilities.

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.

Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires all Federal

agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of

endangered and threatened species.

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.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974):

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological

data in Federal construction projects.

Clean Air Act: Establishes requirements to prevent

significant deterioration of air quality, and in particular,

to preserve air quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, and national seashores.

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the

Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major wetland

modifications.

Executive Order 11988 (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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.
78 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

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.

Americans With Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits

discrimination in public accommodations and services.

Executive Order 12996 Management and General

Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System

(1996): Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public

uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It also

presents four principles to guide management of the

Refuge System.

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996):

Directs Federal land management agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial 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.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of

1997: Clearly defines a unifying mission for the Refuge

System; establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness

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

observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation); establishes a formal process for

determining compatibility; establishes the responsibilities of the Secretary of 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.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 79

APPENDIX I

Reference Maps
80 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 81

Map 5
82 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 83

Map 6.
84 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 85

APPENDIX J

Executive Order Establishing Lostwood Refuge
86 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 87
88 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 89

APPENDIX K

Plant Species

Appendix list of dominant spp present on Lostwood

Refuge.

Xeric sites: needle-and-thread (Stipa comata), plains

muhly (Muhlenbergia cuspidata), blue grama (Bouteloua

gracillis), and prairie junegrass (Koeleria pyramidata).

Slope sites: western wheatgrass (Agronpyron smithii),

rough fescue (Festuca scabrella), green needlegrass

(Stipa viridula), Pennsylvania sedge (Carex

pennsylvanica), early bluegrass (Poa cusickii).

Mesic sites: big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi), prairie

cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), mat muhly

(Muhlenbergia richardsonis), and prairie dropseed

(Sporobolus heterolepis).

Native forbs composition will include purple coneflower

(Echinacea angustifolia), blanketflower (Gaillardia

aristata), wild onion (Allium spp.), Canada anemone

(Anemone canadensis), smallflower aster (Aster

falactus), smooth blue aster (A. laevis), milkvetches

(Astragalus spp.), fleabanes (Erigeron spp.), Liatrises

(Liatris spp.), and northern bedstraw (Galium boreale).
90 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998

Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge

8315 Highway 8

Kenmare, ND 58746

701/848 2722

r6rw_lst@fws.gov

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

For Refuge Information

1 800/344 WILD

December 1998

Blazing Star, Karen A. Smith,USFWS