Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 1

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Tewaukon 

National Wildlife Refuge
 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 
2 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Tewaukon
 

National Wildlife Refuge
 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 

September 2000 

Prepared by
 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge
 

9754 143 1/2 Avenue Southeast
 

Cayuga, ND 58013-9764
 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 3 
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge
 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval
 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
 

4 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Table of Contents
 

Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
 

Introduction and Background 

Background ........................................................................................................................................................................... 14
 

Purpose and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan ............................................................................................ 14
 

Description of Planning Process 

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act .................................................................................................................... 19
 

Tewaukon Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process ................................................................................. 19
 

Compatibility Determinations ............................................................................................................................................ 19
 

Involving the Public ............................................................................................................................................................. 20
 

Issues Raised During the Planning Process..................................................................................................................... 20
 

Putting It All Together ........................................................................................................................................................ 21
 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission and Goals ............................................................................................ 22
 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals .................................................................................... 22
 

Complex and Resource Descriptions ....................................................................................................................... 23
 

Tewaukon Complex History ................................................................................................................................................ 23
 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge ........................................................................................................................... 24
 

Tewaukon Wetland Management District ................................................................................................................. 25
 

Tewaukon Complex Easement Refuges ..................................................................................................................... 25
 

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting .......................................................................................................................................... 26
 

Historical Resources, Cultural Values, and Uses ............................................................................................................. 29
 

Land Use and Wildlife Species Changes ........................................................................................................................... 30
 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 5 
Management by Unit 

Special Management Units ................................................................................................................................................. 33
 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................................................................................. 34
 

Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................................... 34
 

Vision ........................................................................................................................................................................... 34
 

Habitat Management (Goal R1) ......................................................................................................................................... 39
 

Grasslands ...................................................................................................................................................................... 39
 

Native Prairie ......................................................................................................................................................... 39
 

Native Prairie Management ......................................................................................................................... 42
 

Tallgrass Prairie Management Approach ................................................................................................... 43
 

Introduced/Planted Cover .................................................................................................................................... 47
 

Dense Nesting Cover ..................................................................................................................................... 47
 

Other Grasslands ............................................................................................................................................ 48
 

Wetlands ......................................................................................................................................................................... 49
 

Managed Wetlands................................................................................................................................................. 50
 

Water Rights ................................................................................................................................................... 51
 

Water Quality .................................................................................................................................................. 52
 

Non-Managed Wetlands ........................................................................................................................................ 53
 

Native Woodlands .......................................................................................................................................................... 54
 

Nonnative Plant Management On the Complex ....................................................................................................... 54
 

Prescribed Burning and Wildfires .............................................................................................................................. 56
 

Wildlife (Goal R2) ................................................................................................................................................................. 57
 

Waterfowl (Ducks, Geese, and Swans) ....................................................................................................................... 57
 

Waterfowl Nesting ................................................................................................................................................. 57
 

Planted Foods ......................................................................................................................................................... 59
 

Migratory Birds ............................................................................................................................................................ 60
 

Shorebirds ............................................................................................................................................................... 60
 

Wading Birds .......................................................................................................................................................... 60
 

Raptors .................................................................................................................................................................... 60
 

Woodland Migratory Birds ................................................................................................................................... 63
 

Grassland Migratory Birds .................................................................................................................................. 63
 

Migratory Bird Disease Outbreaks ..................................................................................................................... 64
 

Native Resident Wildlife .............................................................................................................................................. 64
 

Mammals ................................................................................................................................................................. 64
 

Birds ........................................................................................................................................................................ 65
 

Upland Game Birds ........................................................................................................................................ 65
 

Reptiles and Amphibians ...................................................................................................................................... 65
 

Fish .......................................................................................................................................................................... 66
 

Nonnative Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................................ 66
 

Wildlife Disturbance ..................................................................................................................................................... 68
 

Wildlife Disturbance Closure Background ........................................................................................................ 69
 

Migratory Bird Habitat ........................................................................................................................................ 70
 

Nesting Birds and Other Breeding Wildlife ...................................................................................................... 71
 

Wintering Wildlife Habitat ................................................................................................................................... 72
 

Endangered Species (Goal R3) ........................................................................................................................................... 73
 

Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern .............................................................................................. 73
 

Other Rare Species ....................................................................................................................................................... 73
 

Public Use and Recreation (Goal R4) ................................................................................................................................ 74
 

Fishing ........................................................................................................................................................................... 74
 

Hunting ........................................................................................................................................................................... 76
 

Trapping ......................................................................................................................................................................... 85
 

Wildlife Observation and Photography ...................................................................................................................... 85
 

Interpretation ................................................................................................................................................................ 85
 

Environmental Education ............................................................................................................................................ 86
 

Public Outreach ............................................................................................................................................................. 86
 

Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................................................... 87
 

Partners (Goal R5) ................................................................................................................................................................ 88
 

Volunteer Program ........................................................................................................................................................ 89
 

6 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Tewaukon Wetland Management District 

Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................................... 90
 

Vision ........................................................................................................................................................................... 90
 

Description of the District ........................................................................................................................................... 91
 

Waterfowl Production Areas ................................................................................................................................ 91
 

Wetland Easements ............................................................................................................................................... 91
 

Grassland Easements ............................................................................................................................................ 91
 

ND FmHA Conservation Easements ................................................................................................................. 91
 

Waterfowl Production Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 92
 

Habitat Management (Goal D1) .......................................................................................................................... 97
 

Grasslands ....................................................................................................................................................... 97
 

Native Prairie.................................................................................................................................................. 97
 

Enhancing Native Prairie ...................................................................................................................... 98
 

Protecting Native Prairie ...................................................................................................................... 99
 

Introduced/Planted Cover ........................................................................................................................... 100
 

Dense Nesting Cover ............................................................................................................................ 100
 

Planted Cover ........................................................................................................................................ 100
 

Wetlands......................................................................................................................................................... 101
 

Water Rights .......................................................................................................................................... 101
 

Protecting Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 101
 

Protecting Fens ..................................................................................................................................... 102
 

Riparian Zones ...................................................................................................................................... 102
 

Nonnative Plant Management .................................................................................................................... 103
 

Prescribed Burning and Wildfires ............................................................................................................. 103
 

Wildlife (Goal D2) ................................................................................................................................................ 103
 

Waterfowl ....................................................................................................................................................... 103
 

Migratory Birds ............................................................................................................................................ 103
 

Migratory Bird Disease Outbreaks .................................................................................................... 104
 

Native Resident Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 105
 

Mammals ................................................................................................................................................ 105
 

Upland Game Birds .............................................................................................................................. 105
 

Reptiles and Amphibians ..................................................................................................................... 105
 

Fish ......................................................................................................................................................... 106
 

Nonnative Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................ 106
 

Endangered Species (Goal D3) ................................................................................................................... 107
 

Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern ...................................................................... 109
 

Other Rare Species ............................................................................................................................... 109
 

North Dakota State Listed Rare Species .......................................................................................... 111
 

Public Use and Recreation (Goal D4) ............................................................................................................... 113
 

Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing ................................................................................................. ................ 113
 

Interpretation/Environmental Education ......................................................................................... ....... 113
 

Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................................. 114
 

Partners ................................................................................................................................................................. 115
 

Tewaukon Easement Refuges ....................................................................................................................................... 116
 

Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................. 116
 

Habitat Management .................................................................................................................................................. 116
 

Kraft Slough ................................................................................................................................................................. 117
 

Implementation and Monitoring 

Personnel ............................................................................................................................................................................. 118
 

Funding Needed to Implement This Plan ....................................................................................................................... 119
 

Step-Down Management Plans ........................................................................................................................................ 119
 

Partners ............................................................................................................................................................................... 119
 

Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................... 120
 

Plan Amendment and Revision ........................................................................................................................................ 121
 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Preparers ............................................................................................................... 121
 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 7 
Appendices:
 

Appendix A. Tewaukon NWR Complex Wildlife Species Lists ........................................................................................ 122
 

Appendix B. Plant Species Mentioned in CCP ...................................................................................... ............................. 126
 

Appendix C. ND State Rare and Unique Plant Species.............................................................................. ...................... 127
 

Appendix D. Tewaukon Complex Water Rights.................................................................................................................. 128
 

Appendix E. Key Legislation/Policies ............................................................................................ ...................................... 129
 

Appendix F. Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Action Memorandum ......................................... 133
 

Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations ........................................................................................................................ 135
 

Appendix H. ND/SD Draft Ecosystem Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................... 143
 

Appendix I. Partnerships ........................................................................................................ .............................................. 148
 

Appendix J. RONS and MMS Projects .............................................................................................................................. 150
 

Appendix K. Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................................... 152
 

Appendix L. Waterfowl Production Area Priority Tables ................................................................................................ 160
 

Appendix M. Section 7 Consultation ..................................................................................................................................... 163
 

Appendix N. Mailing List ....................................................................................................................................................... 166
 

Appendix O. Glossary ............................................................................................................................................................. 170
 

Appendix P. Summary of Public Involvement ................................................................................................................... 180
 

8 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Summary
 

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

agency with the responsibility for conserving, protecting, and enhancing 

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

of more than 500 national wildlife refuges. The National Wildlife Refuge 

System which encompasses more than 92 million acres of public land and 

water, and provides habitat for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, 

fish, and insects. 

The Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex) includes the 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and the Tewaukon Wetland 

Management District (WMD). The Refuge is composed of the Tewaukon 

and Sprague Lake Units (8,363 acres) and two easement refuges (Storm 

Lake and Wild Rice). The WMD includes 14,000 acres of Waterfowl 

Production Areas (WPAs), 35,000 acres of wetland easements and over 

10,000 acres of grassland easements in Ransom, Richland, and Sargent 

Counties, North Dakota. The lands were acquired for the primary purpose 

of supporting migratory birds and other wildlife. The Complex is located 

on the gently rolling glacial till plain of the Prairie Pothole Region and the 

Red River of the North Valley (original bed of glacial Lake Agassiz). Birds 

from both the Central and Mississippi Flyways use Complex habitat. Over 

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

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

fall migrations. Many other reptile, amphibian, mammal, and invertebrate 

wildlife species live on Tewaukon Complex lands. 

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

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

habitat for several species associated with wetlands including leopard 

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

prairie remnants provide some of the last remaining habitat for nesting 

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

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

species and breeding habitat for ground nesting birds and other grassland 

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

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

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

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

Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCP) were mandated by the National 

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

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

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

cultural values; 4) significant fish, wildlife and plant problems; and 5) the 

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

describe compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities and 

administrative and visitor facilities. 

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

management; better understanding of Complex management actions for 

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

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

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the specific purposes 

for which the Complex was established. 

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

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

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

Given that new information, guidance and technology frequently change 

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

the 15-year period. Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 9 
The Environmental Assessment considered three management alternatives 

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

evaluated for environmental consequences in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The CCP is the preferred alternative. 

Vision:	 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex will be preserved, 

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

ecosystem capable of supporting migratory birds and other 

native wildlife and plants for the benefit of present and future 

generations. The Complex will provide an environment where a 

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

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

provide a place where people can learn about wildlife and their 

habitats and enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation. 

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

goals that are supported by a series of objectives and implementation 

strategies. Those goals include: 

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

flora, other grasslands and wetlands within the tallgrass prairie 

wetland ecosystem. 

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

abundance of migratory birds and other native wildlife with 

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

Endangered Species: 

Contribute to the preservation and restoration of endangered, 

threatened, rare, and unique flora and fauna that occur, or have 

historically occurred, in the area of the Complex. 

Public Use/Recreation and Environmental Education: 

Provide recreational and educational opportunities for persons 

of all abilities to learn about and enjoy the tallgrass prairie 

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

history of the Complex in a safe and compatible manner. 

Partnerships: 

Promote partnerships to preserve, restore, and enhance a 

diverse, healthy, and productive prairie/wetland ecosystem in 

which the Tewaukon Complex plays a key role. 

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

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

Prairie Project, North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grant, and 

the Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Project): 

10 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Habitat: 

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

with grassland easements, cooperative agreements or fee title 

acquisition (approximately 60,000 acres). 

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

Complex lands by reducing nonnative plants and increasing the 

abundance and the number of native plant species. 

■	 Management of the vegetative structure and species composition on 

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

nesting birds. 

■	 Restoration of 1,000 acres of old dense nesting cover (DNC), invasive 

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

on Complex lands. 

■	 Enhancement of 38 managed Refuge wetlands to mimic natural 

drawdown cycles and reduce nonnative wetland plants. Improve the 

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

wetlands and adding vegetative buffer strips. 

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

cooperative agreements. 

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

agricultural practices on surrounding uplands, grazing systems, 

repairing water management structures, and placing waterfowl 

nesting structures on private land. 

■	 Restoration and creation of wetlands on private land. 

Wildlife: 

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

priority Waterfowl Production Areas. 

■	 Maintenance of 135 acres of cropland on the Refuge as food for migratory 

birds and resident wildlife. 

■	 Reduction of detrimental nonnative wildlife (carp, feral dogs and cats, 

house sparrows) on the Complex through habitat management and 

direct removal. 

■	 Minimize wildlife disturbance by the public by limiting access at certain 

times of the year and by activity. 

Cultural Resources: 

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

Provide additional interpretation and protection of these cultural resources. 

Public Use/Recreation and Environmental Education: 

■	 Maintain a recreational fishing program in Lake Tewaukon and Sprague 

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

open water migratory bird rest areas. 

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

and pheasants on the Refuge and wildlife observation and photography 

with limited access. 

■	 Expand the Refuge visitor center, including exhibits. Expand the hours 

the visitor center is open to the public. 

■	 Improvement of the Complex outreach program through new 

brochures, a website, displays, and signs. 

■	 Continue to provide environmental education programs and activities. 

Partnerships: 

■	 Continue to work with existing partners on habitat management, 

enhancement, and protection programs; recreational programs; and 

environmental education activities. 

■	 Create opportunities for new partnerships to assist in implementing 

the CCP. 

■	 Foster a volunteer program on the Complex. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 11 
12 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 13 
Introduction and Background
 

Background 

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

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

the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge (Tewaukon and Sprague Lake 

Units), the Storm Lake Easement Refuge, the Wild Rice Easement Refuge, 

and the Tewaukon Wetland Management District (see Map 2). The Refuge 

is 8,363 acres in size and is located in Sargent County. On June 26, 1945, 

Public Land Order 286 established the area known as the Tewaukon NWR 

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

The Tewaukon Wetland Management District (WMD) was established in 

1960 as a management unit for migratory birds. The Wetland Management 

District encompasses tracts in Sargent, Ransom, and Richland Counties. 

The District is comprised of Waterfowl Production Areas (fee title), 

wetland easements, and grassland easements in Ransom, Richland, and 

Sargent counties. The Tewaukon Complex staff administers over 14,000 

acres of WPAs, over 35,000 acres protected by wetland easements, and over 10,000 

acres of grassland easements. 

The Complex provides important habitat for migrating and breeding waterfowl, 

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

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

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

valuable area for recreation including hunting, fishing, and wildlife 

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

these factors make the Tewaukon Complex a national treasure. 

Purpose and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

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

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

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

Refuges. This National Wildlife Refuge System encompasses more than 92 

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

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

Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) were mandated by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The Refuge Improvement 

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

be managed in accordance with an approved Comprehensive Conservation 

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

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

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

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

also identify and describe opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses and administrative and visitor facilities. 

The CCP describes long-term Complex management actions and purposes 

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

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

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

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

needed for Complex purposes to be achieved. Funding and personnel 

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

described in the CCP will accomplish Complex purposes and contribute to 

the mission of the Refuge System and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

14 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 7 
16 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 9 
18 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Description of Planning Process
 

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act 

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

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

the Federal Government that significantly affects the quality of the human 

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

and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action 

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

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

was prepared to accompany the Draft CCP. The proposed action (preferred 

alternative) identified in the EA is the CCP (enhanced management 

alternative). A Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Action 

Memorandum are located in Appendix F. 

Tewaukon Complex Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan Process 

The Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCP is guided by the 

established purpose of the Refuge and Wetland Management District; the 

Service and National Wildlife Refuge System missions; Service compatibility 

standards; and other Service policies, plans and laws related to Complex 

management. 

While developing the CCP, the planning team reviewed conservation planning 

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

Shorebird Reserve Network, North American Waterfowl Management 

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

Service Mainstem Missouri Eco-team (Appendix H). 

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

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

develop the Tewaukon Complex CCP: 

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

funds, organizing efforts) 

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

3.	 Gather Information on Resources and Legal Responsibilities 

4.	 Analyze Resource Relationships (Develop Goals and Objectives) 

5.	 Develop Range of Alternatives 

6.	 Assess Environmental Effects 

7.	 Identify Preferred Alternative 

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

9.	 Respond to Comments 

10. Adopt Plan 

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

As with any process, comprehensive conservation planning is not necessarily 

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

Compatibility Determinations 

Compatibility determinations are required by the Refuge Improvement Act 

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

reviewed previously completed compatibility determinations regarding 

Complex programs and reevaluated these determinations to ensure they 

were relevant and current. Compatibility determinations document the 

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

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

compatible or incompatible with Complex purposes. No current program or 

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

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

Manager must also evaluate whether adequate staff and funding are 

available to support the program or activity. Compatibility determinations 

can be found in Appendix G. 

Planning is the process of deciding in 

advance what you are going to do. 

The Plan is the vehicle used to let 

others know in advance what 

you’re going to do. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 19 
Involving the Public 

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

Tribal organizations, and interested individuals an opportunity to have a 

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

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

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

provide information to the public throughout the process. 

Since the Tewaukon Complex includes three Counties and many people visit 

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

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

are as follows: 

Sargent County Forman City Hall (March 12, 1998) 

Ransom County Lisbon High School (March 17, 1998) 

Richland County American Legion Hankinson (March 24, 1998) 

Wahpeton Law Enforcement Center (March 26, 1998) 

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

A total of 103 people attended the four open houses. 

The open houses provided participants an opportunity to learn about the 

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

and goals and the Refuge and District purposes and current management 

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

representatives and to share their comments and concerns about current 

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

to see Complex management change. 

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

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

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

process was also displayed in cafes and businesses frequented by 

community members in the three Counties comprising the Complex. A 

questionnaire on Refuge issues was provided to the public to stimulate 

additional public input for the planning process. 

After the Draft CCP was published, a question and answer Open House 

was held to gather input and comments. The comment period was extended 

an additional 30 days during which staff met with a variety of area groups 

and organizations on the Draft CCP. 

Issues Raised During the Planning Process 

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

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

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

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

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

Refuge hunting opportunities to include waterfowl and predators, and 

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

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

issues identified by the public included expanding or decreasing the acres 

of cropland and conducting more management (such as planting more 

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

Complex. Grassland habitat and management issues included more protection 

for grasslands, integrating more grazing into management, maintaining and 

increasing weed control efforts, and reducing grassland habitat fragmentation. 

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

throughout the District. Issues involving land acquisition and subsequent 

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

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

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

of wetland habitat, tallgrass prairie and associated wildlife. 

20 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
The Tewaukon CCP is designed to address broad management and wildlife 

issues. Because public input is an important part of the CCP process and 

the CCP does not always address specific comments, public input is 

discussed in Appendix P. 

Putting It All Together 

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

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

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

Refuge System mission statement to the purposes the Refuge was 

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

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

management action are established by setting habitat goals, quantifying 

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

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

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

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

Complex goals and objectives are presented separately for the Refuge, District, 

and Easement Refuges for ease of understanding and reference. They are, 

however, not independent of each other. Goals and objectives for all of the 

management units must be considered when conducting management 

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

in one area may affect other wildlife and plant species and their habitats. 

These relationships were considered when the goals and objectives for 

each unit were developed. 

Habitat goals and objectives are the primary criteria which refuge 

managers will use to guide and evaluate their efforts. The Monitoring and 

Evaluation Section of the Plan addresses how this will be accomplished. 

Providing the habitat components that are needed to support Complex 

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

wildlife objectives and strategies. Without healthy and diverse habitat, 

wildlife will not exist. Goals and objectives for wildlife, endangered and 

threatened species, and interpretation and recreation provide additional 

information for managers to refine specific actions and to assist in 

evaluating success of habitat management and use of the Complex by the 

public. In order for refuge managers to fully achieve the visions that have 

been developed for the Complex, these objectives should be viewed 

holistically and applied collectively. All objectives in this plan are for 15 

years unless otherwise stated in the objective. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

methods become available and when existing strategies are not effective 

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

factors that influence outcomes besides management activities. These 

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

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

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

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

plans, revise existing plans, and budgets. Step-down management plans 

give more specific information on the appropriate use of management tools 

to achieve goals and objectives. Given that new information, techniques, 

and technology frequently arise, the CCP will be updated as necessary. 

Without healthy and diverse habitat, 

there is no wildlife. 

- Fulling the Promise (1999) 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 21 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mission and Goals 

Mallards, Cindie Brunner 

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

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

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

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

wildlife populations including migratory birds, endangered species, 

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

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

Americans opportunity to understand and participate in the conservation 

and use of fish and wildlife resources. 

National Wildlife Refuge
 

System Mission and Goals
 

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

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

and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans” (1997 National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act). Goals of the System are to: 1) preserve, restore, and 

enhance threatened and endangered species in their natural ecosystems; 2) 

perpetuate the migratory bird resource; 3) preserve a natural diversity and 

abundance of refuge flora and fauna; 4) provide the public an understanding 

and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology; 5) provide visitors with 

wildlife-dependent recreation. 

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

and National Wildlife Refuge System, the designated purpose of the Refuge 

unit as described in the establishing legislation and/or executive orders, 

Service laws and policy, and international treaties (for a complete list see 

Appendix E). Individual refuges provide specific habitat requirements that 

support trust resource species including migratory birds, endangered 

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

breeding refuges in South and North Dakota provide important wetland 

and grassland habitat that supports populations of waterfowl as authorized 

by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan. The Tewaukon Complex supports breeding populations of 

waterfowl and provides migration habitat during spring and fall periods. 

Sabine NWR and other refuges in Louisiana and Texas provide wintering 

habitat for waterfowl populations. This network (system) of refuge lands is 

critical to the survival of these birds. Any deficiency in one location affects 

the species and the entire system’s ability to maintain self-sustaining 

populations. 

Legislative history recognizes the importance of providing for wildlife 

oriented recreation for people on national wildlife refuges. The Refuge 

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

Service to provide wildlife oriented recreational opportunities for the 

public if they were compatible with the primary purposes of the refuge. 

Funds must also be available for the development, operation, and 

maintenance of recreational programs. In the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997, six wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

are recognized as priority public uses of refuge lands. These include 

wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and 

interpretation, and fishing and hunting. Priority public uses, and other 

uses, can be allowed on refuges if they are compatible with the purpose of 

the refuge and funding is available to support them. Uses may be allowed 

through a special regulation process, individual special use permits, and 

sometimes through State fishing and hunting regulations. 

22 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Complex and Resource 

Descriptions 

Tewaukon Complex History 

The Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex is located in the 

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

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

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

WMD includes Waterfowl Production Areas and wetland and grassland 

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

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

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

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

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

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

and fall migrations when peak numbers occur. 

Central Flyway 

Figure 1. USDI, FWS. Flyways, Pioneering Waterfowl 

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

Mississippi Flyway 

Figure 2. USDI, FWS. Flyways, Pioneering Waterfowl Management 

in North America. 5/84, 517 pgs. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 23 
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge
 

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

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

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

which provided for acquisition of easements for flowage and refuge 

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

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

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

Administration worked with local landowners to purchase refuge 

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

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

serve as wildlife conservation demonstration areas. Though these were 

perpetual easements, the land remained in private ownership. The 

construction of dams in these areas provided employment for workers and 

developed additional water resources. Water rights for the additional 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lake National Wildlife Refuge located 80 miles to the southwest of 

Tewaukon just north of Aberdeen, South Dakota. 

The Tewaukon easement lands were reserved and purchased as a 

Government-owned Refuge with the encouragement and support of local 

landowners and sportsmens groups. These landowners and groups wanted 

to protect the area for wildlife and to continue recreational fisheries 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dakota. 

Original management objectives established in the Master Plan for the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

public hunting, where and when such activities are compatible with 

primary management objectives of the refuge.” 

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

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

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

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

Government established the Lake Traverse Dakotah Sioux Reservation for 

the Sissetonwan and Wahpetonwan Dakota peoples. The boundaries 

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

used for gatherings by Native Americans and white settlers. This lake is 

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

hunting, and recreational fishing. 

24 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Tewaukon Wetland Management District 

The Tewaukon Wetland Management District was established in 1960 to 

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

and Sargent Counties. Enabling legislation includes: the Migratory Bird 

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

Wetlands Loan Act and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, for acquisition 

of areas for migratory birds and for Waterfowl Production Areas. 

Waterfowl Production Areas are subject to the provisions of the Migratory 

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

other management purpose, for migratory birds....” Public Law 85-585 

amended the Stamp Act to remove the inviolate sanctuary provision from 

WPAs. This is further defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 50 

as areas open to hunting, trapping, and fishing. 

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

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

Richland, and Sargent Counties. Wetland easements and WPAs are 

purchased with Federal Duck Stamp dollars to protect migration and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

property interest in them. District personnel are responsible for managing 

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

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

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

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

Complex personnel are responsible for administering over 10,000 acres of 

grassland easements. 

Tewaukon Complex Easement Refuges 

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

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

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

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

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

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

purchased refuge easements which reserved the right to impound water, 

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

conservation demonstration areas. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 25 
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
 

Ernest M. Steinauer and Scott L. Collins 

Prairie Ecoregions

 Figure 3. Prairie Ecoregions 

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

ecosystem while a portion of western Ransom and Sargent Counties lie in 

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

tallgrass prairie is the most mesic with annual precipitation averaging 20 

inches for southeastern North Dakota. Extreme seasonal 

temperatures range from -31 degrees to 100 degrees 

Fahrenheit. The tallgrass prairie is characterized by grasses, 

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

switchgrass, prairie cordgrass, and a variety of forbs including 

golden Alexander, Maximilian sunflower, blazing stars, and 

leadplant. The mixed-grass prairie is characterized by grasses 

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

aromatic aster and golden rod. These plant communities are 

not separated by distinct boundaries but transition from 

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

This boundary transition depends primarily on precipitation. 

Tallgrass plant species are commonly found on wetter sites 

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

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

have very different plant communities. Soils are also different 

on these sites. 

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

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

most biologically productive systems. They provide habitat for 

waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, amphibians, and a variety 

of other wildlife. The wetlands are important for maintaining 

and recharging groundwater supplies, improving water quality, 

storing flood waters, and trapping of sediments. The prairie 

pothole wetland complexes and their associated grasslands are 

an integral component of the prairie landscape, providing a 

wide array of ecological, social, and 

Prairie Pothole Region 

U.S. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan Update, Jan. 1995 

Figure 4. Prairie Pothole Region 

economic benefits. (U.S. Prairie Pothole 

Joint Venture Implementation Plan 

Update 1995). The Complex lands are 

located in several river watersheds 

including the Sheyenne, Red River of the 

North, and the Wild Rice River (Map 3). 

The Wild Rice River, a western tributary 

of the Red River of the North, flows 

through the Refuge. The Wild Rice River 

and several unnamed tributaries provide a 

water source for Refuge managed 

wetlands that attract migratory waterfowl 

which rest, feed, and nest in the area. 

The Tewaukon Complex is located on the 

eastern edge of the Central Migratory 

Bird Flyway and migrating birds are 

strongly influenced by the James River 

Corridor. Birds from the Mississippi 

Migratory Bird Flyway, following the Lake 

Traverse-Minnesota River system also use 

the area. As a result, Tewaukon is a mixing 

point for birds associated with both the 

Central and Mississippi Flyways (See 

Figures 1 and 2). 

26 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 19 
28 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Historical Resources, Cultural Values, and Uses 

Four major glacial periods impacted the northern plains during the 

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

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

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

Pothole Region are products of that geological event including prairie 

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

tallgrass prairie. The gently rolling landscape with shallow, seasonal, 

temporary, and permanent wetlands or potholes was carved out as the 

glaciers receded. 

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

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

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

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

Shallow, seasonal temporary and permanent wetlands dotted the grassy 

plain. Most of the original tallgrass prairie was plowed for agricultural 

production shortly after European settlement. The Service’s Habitat and 

Population Evaluation Team (HAPET) office, through the use of land 

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

remain in North Dakota, a 99 percent loss. In the Tewaukon District, 

118,700 acres are estimated to remain. 

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

periods of occupation have been documented through archaeological 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

quantities in archaeological sites. Fruits and plants utilized included 

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

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

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

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

squash, and beans as they became less nomadic. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 29 
Land Use and Wildlife Species Changes
 

“The ground was covered (with bison) 

at every point of the compass, as far 

as the eye could reach, and every 

animal was in motion.” 

- Alexander Henry 1801; Explorer along the 

Red River Valley 

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

nomadic tribes primarily for subsistence. They consumed large ungulates 

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

majority of the grassland remained intact. As European settlers moved 

into southeastern North Dakota, farming was introduced and the highly 

productive cropping potential of the soils was discovered. Production crops 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hunted to extinction or severely reduced. Some of these grassland species 

included: bison, elk, mule deer, antelope, grizzly bear, wolf, coyote, and 

sharp-tailed grouse (Bailey 1926). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

red fox populations increased in response to agricultural and settlement 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 23 
32 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Management by Unit
 

The planning team spent considerable time describing the variety of habitats 

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

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

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

the broad purpose and vision statements to management decisions. The 

CCP represents a course of action felt to best meet Complex goals and 

objectives. Implementation of the CCP will depend on increased staffing and 

funding. For more information on funding, staffing, and implementation of 

the Plan, see the Implementation and Monitoring Section. 

Management of the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge and the Tewaukon 

Wetland Management District is conducted out of the Refuge headquarters. 

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

and District specific information will be discussed in detail in their 

management sections. 

Special Management Units 

The Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge and Waterfowl Production Areas 

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

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

the National Wilderness Preservation System. The Wild Rice River which 

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

manipulation including Refuge impoundments, making it ineligible for a 

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

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

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

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

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

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 33 
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge (See Map 5 and 6) 

Purpose 

Authorizing legislation for the Refuge initiated land acquisition and defined 

the Refuge purposes. 

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

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

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

■	 For Refuge lands acquired under Public Land Order 286, dated June 26, 

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

ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.... 

■	 For Refuge lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation 

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

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

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

Act). 

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

reviewed past national, regional, and Complex planning documents and 

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

team developed the following vision statement for the Refuge: 

Vision: Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge will be preserved, managed, 

and enhanced as a part of the tallgrass prairie wetland ecosystem 

capable of supporting migratory birds and other native wildlife 

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

Refuge will provide an environment where a diversity of native 

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

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

where people can learn about wildlife and their habitats and 

enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation. 

34 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 27 
36 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 29 
38 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Habitat Management 

Wildlife species are intimately tied to the landscape. The food, water, shelter, 

and space that are provided on Refuge lands determine what wildlife species 

use those lands. Diverse habitats support diverse wildlife populations. 

R1 Goal: Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity of 

native flora, other grasslands and wetlands within the 

tallgrass prairie ecosystem. 

Grasslands 

Native Prairie 

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

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

Tallgrass prairie was the dominant vegetation type across the eastern 

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

Collins 1996). 

The tallgrass prairie ecosystem had frequent disturbances. Wildfires, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

communities. 

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

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

species composition of the tallgrass prairie was dominated by warm season 

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

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

Common cool season grasses included western wheatgrass, porcupine 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

stream and river corridors and some wetter areas protected from 

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

to be components of this ecosystem. 

The present plant community classification used by the North Dakota 

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

The following types of plant communities of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem 

are described by indicator species in Heidel’s 1986 Classification. These 

indicator species will provide guidance to refuge managers on existing 

prairie health and a measure for prairie restoration success. Prairie 

remnants occur of all these plant community types represented on the 

Complex. 

“The Herbage of this Plain in general [is] 

rich and luxuriant consisting chiefly of 

strong and succulent grass of many 

varieties. In the season of flowers a 

very large portion of this great plain 

presents one continual carpet of soft 

verdure, enriched by flowers of every 

tint.” 

- General Sibley, 1863 on an expedition 

through North Dakota 

Blazing Star, Cindie Brunner 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 39 
Wet Prairie 

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

surrounding deeper wetlands. It is dominated by prairie and wetlands 

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

Dominant species may include prairie cordgrass, switchgrass, and 

northern reed grass. Forbs include Maximilian sunflower, prairie 

dogbane, and golden alexanders. 

Wet Mesic Tallgrass Prairie, Sand 

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

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

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

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

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

species include switchgrass, big bluestem, northern reedgrass, Baltic 

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

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

Susan. 

Mesic Tallgrass Prairie, Sand 

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

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

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

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

The sand subtype may have prairie sandreed in moderate amounts. 

Forbs are usually diverse and may be abundant locally. Additional 

grasses may include switchgrass and prairie dropseed. Some common 

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

showy milkweed, white prairie clover, and stiff sunflower. 

Central Mesic Tallgrass Prairie 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional grasses may include porcupine grass, green needlegrass, and 

sideoats grama. Some common forbs include narrow-leaved blazing star, 

leadplant, stiff golden rod, hoary puccoon, showy milkweed, white 

prairie clover, and stiff sunflower. 

40 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Dry Mesic Tallgrass Prairie 

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

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

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

found on sides and river valley slopes. Common grasses include little 

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

Prairie sandreed is common and sand bluestem is occasional on sand 

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

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

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

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

Mesic Mixed-Grass Prairie 

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

valleys. Common grasses include: green needlegrass, bearded wheatgrass, 

western wheatgrass, and porcupine grass. Common forbs are similar to 

those in dry-mesic tallgrass and may include purple coneflower, alum 

root, stiff sunflower, narrow-leaved blazing star, and yellow coneflower. 

Shrubs and sub-shrubs include leadplant, prairie wild rose, and 

buckbrush. 

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

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

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

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

Mixed-Grass Prairie types. Historically, only the very wet or lands 

inaccessible to farming remained uncropped. Management history of the 

sites included prescribed fire, used periodically in the 1970s to the present 

time and limited haying. Little to no grazing has occurred on these areas. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 41 
Native Prairie Management 

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

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

planning team recognized that few remaining tracts of tallgrass prairie are 

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

remaining tracts occur on Complex lands. These objectives recognize 

managing and maintaining this rare and unique habitat and assumes 

prairie associated wildlife will use these areas. 

R1.1 Objective: Preserve, restore, and enhance the diverse native floral 

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

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

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

classification (Heidel 1986). 

Strategies: 

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

establish baseline information on species composition to use for 

comparison following management techniques. 

✓ Develop specific monitoring techniques to annually evaluate these 

native prairie areas in a step-down Monitoring Plan. 

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

interseeding, chemical treatment, etc.) as appropriate. 

42 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Tallgrass Prairie Management Approach 

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

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

management strategies that would guide grassland management on the 

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

to guide management efforts to maintain or restore native communities 

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

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

tallgrass prairie ecosystem. This approach was chosen to manage for 

sensitive species (indicator species) because many of the environmental 

stresses are reflected in these species population levels. Indicator species 

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

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

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

The criteria used for selecting the bird species were: 

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

• Select species of management concern using lists from the Audubon 

Society Watchlist, Fish and Wildlife Service Nongame Migratory Birds 

of Management Concern List or North Dakota Species of Special 

Concern (Berkey et al. 1993). 

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

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

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

Dakota breeding bird maps (Stewart 1975). 

Many species of invertebrates are excellent indicator species because their 

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

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

specific plants for nectar and larval food resources including Dakota 

skipper and powesheik skipper. Some invertebrates are also sensitive to 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In tallgrass prairie habitats, grassland birds are of particular concern 

because they have exhibited steeper, more consistent declines during 

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

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

depend on a variety of successional and diverse habitat conditions 

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

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

recommends management for tallgrass assemblages that are diverse, 

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

Missouri grassland study suggests that management should provide a 

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

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

stages of prairie succession to provide for maximum grassland bird 

diversity over decades of management. The habitat affinities of grassland 

bird species are diverse, and species respond to similar conditions in 

different ways (Wiens 1969; Herkert 1994). 

The species richness of grassland birds is positively associated with the 

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

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

notes that both area and vegetation structure significantly affect 

grassland bird populations. Large areas that are uniform in plant 

composition and structure may have less value than several smaller 

areas with distinct and diverse vegetative components (Ryan 1986). 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 43 
The most abundant introduced Eurasian grasses (i.e. Kentucky 

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

density than native vegetation (Wilson and Belcher 1989). 

Several studies suggest that grassland birds are experiencing large 

population declines due to the loss of extensive areas of grasslands 

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

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

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

area and its perimeter characteristics are as important to grassland birds 

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

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

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

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

avoid nesting near patch edges (including adjacent trees, shelterbelts 

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

This research helped the planning team develop the next objective that 

addresses the management of contiguous blocks of grassland cover for the 

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

were chosen to implement our tallgrass prairie management approach (See 

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

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

meter tall, and had access for management. Only one site (North Pool 2) 

has a tree row that may be removed after monitoring and site evaluation 

are done. Several of the sites have fields of tame grass, composed primarily 

of smooth brome, warm season native grass plantings, and a couple of crop 

fields. Two of the tracts are composed entirely of native prairie that have 

never been broken for crop production; the other sites have smaller tracts 

of native prairie. If this management approach proves to be an effective 

method of habitat management and if additional funds and staff become available, 

the management will be expanded to additional areas on the Refuge. 

This objective recognizes that the establishing Refuge legislation describes 

setting lands aside as a breeding ground for migratory birds including 

grassland migratory birds. Under management, these prairie pieces should 

support a diversity of vegetation structure and flowering plants needed by 

prairie dependent butterflies. 

R1.2 Objective: Manage the six Prairie Focus Areas (South Pool 4, Krause, 

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

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

grassland (greater or equal to 160 acres) that is greater than 50 meters 

from woody vegetation (greater than one meter tall); 2) contain a 

variety of vegetative heights on the area with 20 percent in each of the 

following categories: 0 to 10 cm; 10 to 20 cm; 20 to 30 cm; 30 to 60 cm; 

greater than 60 cm; 3) to increase native floral diversity so that greater 

than 75 percent of the vegetative composition is composed of indicator 

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

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

Strategies: 

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

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

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

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

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

management plan. 

✓	 Develop a detailed Monitoring Plan for the six sites. 

✓	 Annually evaluate the vegetation using methods and techniques developed in 

the Monitoring Plan for the six sites and apply management tools 

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

as appropriate to provide the limiting habitat requirements for 

migratory grassland birds and rare butterflies. 

44 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 37 
46 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Introduced/Planted Cover 

Dense Nesting Cover 

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

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

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

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

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

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

DNC stands once established, must receive management treatments every 

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

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

primary grassland covers that Complex managers historically established 

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

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

of the international importance of the Prairie Pothole Region to nesting 

waterfowl. Haying has historically been the primary tool to rejuvenate 

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

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

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

The planning team recognized that most of the grassland dependent birds 

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

and composition that provides cover and food requirements. Introduced/ 

planted cover objectives were developed to try and ensure that vegetative 

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

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

on the Refuge was an accomplishable objective. 

R1.3 Objective: Maintain 80 percent of DNC fields with two decimeters 

visual observation obscurity to provide optimal nesting habitat for 

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

seeded back into native plant species. 

Strategies:
 

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

visual obscurity using the Robel pole method. 

✓ Apply management tools (prescribed burning, haying, farming, 

grazing or interseeding) as appropriate to maintain optimal nesting 

habitat for ground nesting ducks. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 47 
Other Grasslands 

The Refuge has approximately 739 acres of planted warm season native 

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

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

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

because they are lacking vegetative structural diversity. The Refuge also 

has over 1,199 acres of introduced grasses consisting primarily of smooth 

brome and Kentucky bluegrass. These fields were generally planted to 

some other cover type, but have been invaded. If these fields are managed 

with fire and haying, they do provide marginal nesting cover for species 

like blue-winged teal but do not offer the structure preferred by many of 

the other ground nesting birds like bobolinks, mallards, and gadwalls. A 

total of 600 acres of planted cover would be converted to a diverse native 

floral community which involves intensive management. This acreage total 

includes sites in the six Prairie Focus Areas. 

R1.4 Objective: Over the next 15 years convert 600 acres of planted cover 

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

diverse native floral community composed of 75 percent of the climax 

species identified in Heidel’s Classification (1986). 

Strategies: 

✓ Gather existing information and initiate research on native plant 

community restoration, interseeding techniques, chemical, and 

mechanical treatments. 

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

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

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

where appropriate. 

48 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Wetlands 

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

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

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

these wetland basins are less than 15 acres (Stewart 1975). Wetlands are 

lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the 

nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities 

living in the soil and on its surface (Cowardin et al. 1979). Within a prairie 

wetland, water depth and duration of ponding determines the distribution 

of plant and wildlife species. 

In the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United 

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

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

water chemistry. Description of prairie potholes are listed below. 

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

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

frequently reflood during heavy summer and fall rains. Characterized by 

smartweed, rushes, sedges, and grasses. 

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

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

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

sedges, and some cattails. 

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

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

below normal runoff and precipitation. Characterized by a predominance 

of cattail and bulrush vegetation with scattered open water areas. 

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

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

precipitation. Typically have a border of aquatic vegetation (usually 

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

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

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

Prairie wetlands are dynamic in nature and go through various sequences 

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

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

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

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

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

alternating of wet and dry periods that make wetlands productive. 

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

in biotic and wildlife diversity. 

Description of Stages: 

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

becoming replaced by perennial vegetation, the longer the wetland is in 

the dry stage. 

■	 Shallow - Water depth of approximately one inch to two feet. Some 

emergent vegetation present. 

■	 Mid-depth - Water depth of approximately two to four feet. Open water is 

interspersed with emergent vegetation. 

■	 Open water - Water depth greater than four feet with some emergent 

vegetation around the edges. 

“The entire face of the country is 

covered with these shallow lakes, 

ponds and puddles, many of which 

are, however, dry or undergoing a 

process of gradual drying out.”

 - Charles Froebel Traveled with General 

Alfred Sully’s expedition in 1865 in Dakota 

Territory. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 49 
Wetlands are also influenced by other natural forces such as fire and wildlife 

impacts. During long periods of drought, prairie fires would burn the dry 

organic layer of wetlands removing years of accumulated sediments. Large 

herds of bison would trample the surrounding area and vegetation around 

wetlands. Bison would lie down and create depressions or wallows in wetland 

basins. They would remove soil, sediments, and plant seeds and take dust 

baths in dry wetland basins (Steinauer and Collins 1995). Bison wallows 

were three to five meters (10 to 16 feet) in size (Collins and Barber 1985) 

and would be free of vegetation. The large amount of hoof action would 

create exposed soil areas where seeds were planted as they were pushed 

into the soil. Bison also helped to decrease wetland sedimentation by 

removing soil during wallowing on their thick shaggy coats (Costello 1969). 

Muskrats also impact wetlands by removing cattails and rushes which 

create open water areas. 

Managed Wetlands 

The Refuge receives water from four sources (see Map 5 and 6): 

1) Wild Rice River 

2) LaBelle Creek 

3) Tributary to Hepi (Cloud’s) Lake 

4) Tributary to Sprague Lake 

The Refuge has 38 semipermanent and permanent wetlands with water 

level management capabilities on both Tewaukon and Sprague Lake Units. 

Historically, water management in these 38 wetlands has maintained 

approximately three to four feet of water throughout the year. Water was 

usually passed through the system in the spring; management levels were 

reached in late spring as snow melt runoff slowed. If possible, wetlands were 

refilled in the fall to store water in case of low precipitation in the winter 

and spring. Drawdowns, though planned, were infrequent, short-term and 

often difficult to do with water control structure capabilities. Often a plan 

to dry out a managed wetland could not be achieved because local runoff 

would refill the basin. Evaporation is the main option available to de-water 

some Refuge pools. With a flow through system, pool outlet elevations are 

often higher than the bottom of the pool which makes de-watering through 

the structures in high water years impossible. Past management strategy 

could be characterized as achieving an average which did not include the 

natural large fluctuations that normally occur in prairie wetlands. 

The planning team recognized the need to refine water management 

techniques so managed wetland conditions would more closely correlate 

with the natural processes of drying and flooding. The planning team also 

recognized that objectives needed to be developed that would help 

managers collect better water use and water quality data on managed and 

non-managed wetlands. The planning team felt that a mixture of 20 

percent of each stage (dry, shallow, mid-depth, open water) across Refuge 

managed wetlands and a remaining 20 percent reserve to provide habitat 

that is deficient in the watershed, was a way to quantify water 

management objectives. For example, when watershed wetland conditions 

are dry, the remaining 20 percent (reserve) of Refuge pools will be 

managed to provide wet stages. This diversity of wetland stages will meet 

the needs of a variety of wildlife species. 

50 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
 

R1.5 Objective: Annually provide for approximately 20 percent in dry, 20 

percent in shallow, 20 percent mid-depth, and 20 percent open water wetland 

conditions on Refuge managed wetlands and manage the remaining 20 

percent as a reserve to adjust to local climatic and habitat conditions. 

Strategies: 

✓ Develop a step-down Water Management and Monitoring Plan for 

Refuge managed wetlands. Continue to provide annual Water 

Management Plan/Water Use Reports for Regional Office review. 

✓ Utilizing water level manipulations, alter water levels within and 

amongst years to assure each unit proceeds through each of the 

wetland categories during a three to five year period. 

✓ Utilize fire manipulation to alter vegetation structure and mechanical 

methods to alter vegetation and disturb soil as needed. 

✓ Manipulate the 20 percent reserved category to meet habitat 

deficiencies detected within Red River watershed by annually 

assessing habitat conditions using information from the National 

Weather Service and the Habitat and Population Evaluation Team 

(HAPET) office. 

✓ Manage Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake as open water habitats for 

migratory waterfowl rest areas. 

Water Rights 

Water rights for the Tewaukon NWR were established in 1934 pursuant to 

Section 8270 (repealed 1943) of the Compiled Laws of North Dakota for the 

year 1913. On August 30, 1937, plans and data were submitted documenting 

the United States’ right to use waters tributary to each dam to its spillway 

capacity, and after each dam was filled to spillway capacity, an additional 

amount of water to maintain this level to stimulate aquatic vegetation for 

migratory waterfowl foods. In 1964, the Refuge was issued three water 

right permits authorizing use of additional water needed as a result of 

developments under the Refuge Annual Master Development Plan. (See 

Appendix D for a more complete description of water rights). 

The State Engineer’s Office has raised questions about the adequacy of the 

Refuge’s water rights. The Service has agreed that it will review water 

rights and management on all North Dakota refuges and provide updated 

information on capacity and water use. Tewaukon NWR will be one of the 

first to be evaluated in this effort. Additional data collection capabilities on 

the Refuge need to be developed in order to more accurately record water 

use. Water use is currently calculated using acre-feet tables that correspond 

to water elevations on Refuge pools. Each year a report is compiled on 

water use and proposed management in the Refuge Water Management 

Plan and forwarded to the North Dakota State Engineer. This report 

meets the North Dakota statutory requirement for an annual operations 

plan for all impoundments containing 1,000 acre-feet or more. 

R1.6 Objective: Protect existing water rights and clarify water rights 

needs on Refuge wetlands in order to provide long-term protection of 

water resources. 

Strategies: 

✓ Improve Refuge water use database by installing data loggers on four 

dams and three major tributaries of the Wild Rice River and gages in 

every managed pool on the Refuge. 

✓ Document Refuge water use and maintain records annually. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 51 
Water Quality 

Two water quality surveys have been conducted in the Wild Rice Watershed 

(Map 3). The first was conducted in 1996, by the North Dakota Department 

of Health’s Water Quality Division and the Wild Rice Soil Conservation 

District (SCD). The goal of this study was to implement an assessment 

project in order to gather sufficient data to document water quality trends, 

quantify pollutants, and identify potential nonpoint source pollution within 

the Wild Rice Watershed. The sampling was done for one year, 1996. Water 

quality variables monitored included: total ammonia as nitrogen, conductivity, 

total phosphorus, nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, 

total suspended solids, and fecal coliform bacteria. Six monitoring stations 

were located upstream from the Refuge, one was on LaBelle Creek and 

one was located downstream of Lake Tewaukon. The station downstream 

from Lake Tewaukon had the highest net yield for all the water quality 

variables. The report attributed part of this to the accumulation of excessive 

nutrients from upstream sources. Controlling upstream pollution and 

nutrient sources is the best way to decrease the amount of nitrates and 

sediments from entering the Refuge. 

Since 1996, a water quality survey has been conducted by Sisseton-Wahpeton 

Sioux Tribe’s Office of Environmental Protection. The goal of this study 

was to enhance and protect the Tewaukon NWR by ultimately setting 

water quality standards. Data has been collected for the last four years. 

The 1998 raw data was received and currently the Refuge is waiting for the 

report on the study’s findings. 

The planning team developed the following objective to improve the water 

quality of the Wild Rice River as it comes into the Refuge. This would be 

accomplished through a variety of cooperative private land agreements 

designed to improve water quality for aquatic plants, wildlife, and fish. The 

planning team felt that in 15 years a reduction of nitrates and sediments by 

15 percent could reasonably be accomplished. 

R1.7 Objective: Reduce annual Wild Rice River watershed nitrate 

inputs and sediment loads as it comes into the Sprague Lake Unit, and 

LaBelle Creek as it enters the Tewaukon Refuge Unit by 15 percent. 

Strategies: 

✓	 Determine the parameters to monitor water quality in the Wild Rice 

River and LaBelle Creek as they enter the Refuge and implement a 

water quality monitoring program. 

✓	 Work with Department of Health to conduct a land-use survey to 

further pinpoint the land-use practices that are influencing the water 

quality of the Wild Rice River Watershed. This survey should include a 

stream/riparian area assessment including current vegetation conditions 

and composition and land-use practices. Utilize the land survey to 

implement a Clean Water Act Section 319 Watershed Cleanup Project. 

✓	 Develop or use existing Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and 

USDA programs to partner with upstream landowners who farm/ 

ranch along the River to establish vegetative buffer zones, reduce livestock 

impacts along the Wild Rice River, and decrease sediment loads and 

contaminants. 

✓	 Partner with U.S. Department of Agriculture buffer strip program to 

establish stabilizing and filtering vegetation along Wild Rice River and 

LaBelle Creek to prevent erosion and sedimentation. 

✓	 Work with landowners to restore riparian vegetation and wetlands 

along the Wild Rice River and LaBelle Creek in order to decrease 

sediment loads, contaminants, and help reduce flooding. 

52 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Non-Managed Wetlands 

The Refuge has over 1,500 acres of non-managed prairie wetlands. These 

wetlands are diverse in nature and include temporary, seasonal, and 

semipermanent types. The majority of these wetlands are surrounded by 

grassland cover while a small portion are found in cropland. Not much 

information has been gathered about their health or condition. 

The wetlands in Refuge cropland are subject to varying degrees of siltation. 

Cultivating wetland basins (disturbing the vegetation) has contributed to 

soil erosion. Wetlands in agricultural fields receive more sediment from 

surrounding areas than wetlands surrounded by grasslands (Gleason and 

Euliss 1998). Other wetland impacts include increased turbidity, sediments, 

and a decrease of invertebrate production, a food source for other wildlife 

(Gleason and Euliss 1998). One of the control measures that could reduce 

sediment in agricultural fields is vegetative buffer strips around wetland 

basins (Dillaha et al. 1989). A need exists for more work on methods to 

restore pool depth in silted-in wetlands, evaluation of sedimentation effects 

on wetland functions, and effective ways to reduce sediment inputs 

(Gleason and Euliss 1998). 

R1.8 Objective: Determine the quality and health parameters of nonmanaged prairie wetlands in order to preserve their natural 

productivity, longevity, and function. 

Strategies:
 

✓ Gather baseline information on Refuge wetland conditions and identify
 

potential and existing threats. 

✓ Implement management methods to reduce or eliminate threats to 

wetland productivity and function. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 53 
Native Woodlands 

Historically Refuge woody vegetation occurred along riparian corridors 

and around some wetlands. Bailey (1926) states that these southeastern 

North Dakota riparian woodlands were composed of American elm, red 

elm, white ash, box elder, willow, bur oak, serviceberry, chokecherry, 

buffaloberry, and rose. Today native woody vegetation is still present on 

the shores of Lake Tewaukon, on the peninsula that juts out into the Lake, 

and along LaBelle Creek. 

Managing native woodlands has had little emphasis in previous Refuge 

planning efforts. The planning team recognizes that while this habitat 

component makes up a very small portion of the Refuge land base, it is 

important habitat for thrushes, orioles, warblers, and other tree nesting 

birds that reproduce on the Refuge. The establishing Refuge legislation 

language sets aside this area as a breeding ground for migratory birds. 

Managers need to have a better plan for the perpetuation of the native tree 

resource and the migratory birds that breed there. 

R1.9 Objective: Maintain native woody vegetation on the Lake 

Tewaukon peninsula, on the shore of Lake Tewaukon, and along 

LaBelle Creek corridor to provide roosting habitat, food, and cover for 

migratory and resident birds and other wildlife. 

Strategy: 

✓ Coordinate with a forest resource specialist to evaluate health of 

existing native wooded sites and provide recommendations for a 

management plan. 

Nonnative Plant Management On the Complex 

Several nonnative plant species exist on Complex lands and waters and are 

listed below: 

Grasslands: Wetlands: 

Leafy spurge Reed canary grass 

Canada thistle Canada thistle 

Musk thistle Kentucky bluegrass 

Bull thistle Smooth brome 

Kentucky bluegrass 

Smooth brome 

Yellow and white sweetclover 

Russian olive trees 

Watch Species: 

Purple loosestrife (sighted in several locations on private land in the 

District) 

All of these nonnative plants were intentionally or accidentally brought 

over to the United States from other countries. Without their natural 

control agents, these plants began to aggressively invade many of this 

country’s native habitats. These nonnative plant species can out-compete 

native plant species or other desired plant species when frequent disturbances 

(grazing and burning) and nonnative plant control methods are not conducted. 

The Complex staff uses a multi-faceted approach to nonnative plant control 

termed Integrated Pest Management (IPM). This approach to the control 

of pests (nonnative plants in this case) utilizes a practical, economical, and 

scientifically based combination of biological, mechanical, and chemical 

control methods. Many of these nonnative plant species are very aggressive, 

and relying on only one control method is usually not effective. A 

combination of methods has been proven to increase effective control over 

these plants. Nonnative plant species can crowd out the native or desirable 

flora making the grasslands or wetlands unattractive to many species of 

wildlife. For example, uniform grasslands that are comprised primarily of 

smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass provide little in the way of nesting 

cover for ground nesting birds and very poor cover in the winter. 

54 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Complex staff spend a considerable amount of time and funds on nonnative 

plant control. In 1999, over $20,000 dollars (labor and chemical costs) were 

spent on leafy spurge, Canada thistle, musk thistle, and bull thistle alone. 

Control of these four plant species will continue to be a top priority on 

Complex lands. Russian olive tree control also received more attention on 

the Complex (Refuge and Hartleben WPA) for the past five years. Several 

methods were tried until a time efficient and effective treatment was 

developed. Over 2,000 Russian olive trees have been chemically treated on 

the Hartleben WPA and Refuge to date. Control of the other nonnative 

species (smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and sweetclover) is currently 

managed with prescribed burning. More effort and methods will need to be 

used in the future to control these two nonnative grass species and 

sweetclover. 

R1.10 Objective: Reduce by 15 percent (measured as canopy cover) 

nonnative plants on Complex lands and waters. 

Strategies: 

✓	 Annually evaluate fields through visual observations and continue to 

aggressively manage highly invasive nonnative species focusing on 

Canada, musk and bull thistle and leafy spurge. 

✓	 Use a variety of techniques and tools including: chemical, mechanical, 

and biological methods, prescribed burning and grazing to control 

nonnative plants. 

✓ Continue to evaluate nonnative control methods for effectiveness and 

gather information on methods developed in the future. 

✓ Monitor Complex for additional nonnative plant species and control 

new invasions before they become a large problem. 

✓ Document and coordinate with the County Weed Board and State to 

control nonnative plant species on and off Service lands. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 55 
Prescribed Burning and Wildfires 

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

is the lack of periodic disturbance (Service Ecological Services Botanist, 

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

species of the northern great plains evolved under periodic disturbance and 

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

periodic disturbance was important for prairie plant health and maintained 

a place of enormous diversity for thousands of years. Defoliations can be 

mimicked to some degree by the periodic use of prescribed fire, grazing, 

and to a lesser extent, haying. Fish and Wildlife Service botanists 

recommend that a burning and/or mowing regime be used to enhance the 

tallgrass and low prairie communities (Kathy Martin 1993). Periodic 

rejuvenation using fire, grazing or haying is also recommended for planted 

cover in order to maintain optimum vigor (Duebbert et al. 1981). 

Prescribed fire on the Complex has typically been carried out in the spring 

and fall. More work is being done to incorporate summer burning into the 

rotation to mimic historic fire occurrence. 

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

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

also used to reduce hazardous fuels on Complex grasslands. Hazardous 

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

amount of litter can cause additional control problems for fire suppression 

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

make wildfires easier and more cost effective to control. The Tewaukon 

Complex has an average of one wildfire per year. Human caused fires 

account for 99 percent of all wildfires on the Complex. Wildfires on the 

Complex are usually caused by equipment or fires escaping from adjacent 

private land. 

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

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

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

and hurt or kill those that work with it. Proper planning, training, and 

equipment reduces the risk of this management tool. 

The following two objectives recognize that prescribed burning and 

wildfires play an important role in Complex habitat management. The 

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

economic risks that other management tools do not. 

R1.11 Objective: Utilize prescribed fire, in an ecosystem management 

context, applied in a scientific way under selected weather and 

environmental conditions, on approximately 5,000 acres of grasslands 

and 200 acres of wetlands annually on the Complex to accomplish 

habitat management objectives. 

Strategies:
 

✓ Maintain a current Complex Fire Management Plan and implement
 

the Plan to accomplish resource management objectives. 

✓ Conduct all fire management programs in a manner consistent with 

applicable laws, policies, and regulations. 

R1.12 Objective: Protect life, property, and other resources from 

wildfire by safely suppressing all wildfires on Complex lands and 

adjacent private lands. 

Strategies:
 

✓ Use strategies and tactics that consider safety and values at risk.
 

✓ Use prescribed fire to reduce hazardous fuels on Complex lands to
 

reduce the intensity and favorable conditions for wildfires. 

More detailed information on wildfire suppression and prescribed burning 

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

Management Plan. 

56 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
“Refuges Are Places Where Wildlife 

Comes First.” 

- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Fulfilling 

the Promise, 1999 

Wildlife 

R.2 Goal: Preserve, restore, and enhance the diversity and abundance 

of migratory birds and other native wildlife with emphasis 

on waterfowl, grassland and wetland-dependent birds. 

Waterfowl (Ducks, Geese, and Swans) 

North America’s greatest duck producing area is known as the Prairie 

Pothole Region (Figure 4). This area includes south central Canada, 

eastern North and South Dakota, western Minnesota, and north central 

Iowa. The Refuge provides nesting habitat for 13 species of waterfowl, and 

migrating food and resting habitat for 21 species of waterfowl. Blue-winged 

teal, mallards, gadwall, northern pintails, and northern shovelers are 

common nesters in Refuge grasslands while redheads, canvasbacks, and 

ruddy ducks nest overwater in Refuge wetlands. Wood ducks nest in 

Refuge trees. Large flocks of Canada geese, snow geese, and ducks use 

Refuge crop fields to feed during spring and fall migration. Prior to 1900, 

the giant Canada goose was distributed throughout North Dakota. Hunting 

pressure, egg collecting, and habitat destruction decimated this population 

during the 1900s. Restoration of giant Canada goose populations began in 

the 1930s with considerable effort made in the 1960s to 1970s (Lee et al. 

1984). The Refuge was a release site for some of the restoration efforts. 

Since then, the return of the giant Canada goose to North Dakota has been 

a huge success story. Resident Canada geese populations have grown from 

their reintroduction populations in the 1970s to levels that yield 10 to 15 

area crop depredation complaints per year. 

Waterfowl Nesting 

The Refuge is surrounded by intense agricultural use, that severely alters 

the landscape. The Refuge provides the majority of quality waterfowl 

upland nesting habitat in the area. The Conservation Reserve Program 

(CRP) has greatly increased grassland cover throughout the Complex in 

the past 10 years. However, the continued presence of this cover on the 

landscape depends on funding for this U.S. Department of Agriculture 

program. As grasslands are fragmented and tracts become smaller, nesting 

ducks become more vulnerable to predation. Predation has been identified 

as a principal cause of nest loss (Sargeant and Raveling 1992). In areas 

with intense agriculture, nesting ducks and their eggs are one of the most 

abundant, vulnerable, and desirable prey types available to red foxes 

(Sargeant et al. 1984). Large tracts of thick residual cover require more 

effort for predators to search. At the Refuge, the major predators on ducks 

and duck eggs include: red fox, striped skunk, raccoon, mink, and Franklin’s 

ground squirrel. (See Land Use and Wildlife Species Changes Section for 

more discussion.) Avian predators including northern harriers, red-tailed 

hawks, and great horned owls prey on duck and young. Gulls can also 

destroy nests on islands. The red fox is the main ground nesting duck 

predator in southeastern North Dakota. Red fox will not only eat and 

destroy eggs but will kill the hens if possible. Red fox kill an estimated 

242,000 dabbling ducks annually in North Dakota during the three month 

(approximate) fox denning season (Sargeant et al. 1984). Removal of 

predators (primarily red fox) can cause nest success to increase from 8 

percent (Sargeant et al. 1995) to an average 30 percent (Refuge nest 

success records 1990-1998). A nesting success of approximately 15 to 20 

percent is suggested to maintain stable duck populations of the five most 

common species of dabbling ducks (Cowardin et al. 1985, Greenwood 1986, 

Klett et al. 1988). In severely altered landscapes, like the Refuge, intensive 

management such as predator control is the only efficient way to increase 

nest success (Clark and Nudds 1991, Nudds and Clark 1992). The most 

effective time to conduct predator control is in the spring when red fox are 

caring for their young and little movement of foxes occurs in and out of an 

area (Sargeant et al. 1993). 

“The original northern prairies were 

strewn with small lakes, potholes, 

and marshes and veined with tiny 

creeks ... Through spring, summer, 

and fall these regions were 

darkened with clouds of waterfowl 

of all kinds.” 

- John Madson, 1982, Where the Sky Began 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 57 
Fox, Cindie Brunner 

Other activities that increase nesting success have been researched, 

discussed, and examined to determine the most economical, feasible, and 

effective method. One possibility includes purchasing enough additional 

tracts of land adjacent to the Refuge to create a large enough block of 

contiguous grassland habitat to increase nest success. This approach would 

be similar to USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). To provide 

for grassland cover on 100 acres of cropland for a 10-year period would cost 

$40,000 to $50,000 assuming a $40 to $50 per acre, per year payment. This 

would not be economically possible at this time. Predator proof fences are 

another way to increase nesting success. Three predator fences (100 total 

acres) have been built on the Refuge. Predator fences cost approximately 

$100,000 per fence for materials and contracted labor to build. They are 

labor intensive and involve many staff hours to maintain. Nesting success 

is high in predator fences. According to Refuge nest dragging information 

(1987-1999), an average nest success for the fences is 85 percent. Predator 

control on the entire Refuge for two to three weeks in the spring of the 

year averages about $2,500. This focused predator control effort effectively 

and efficiently meets our nesting success objective. 

To develop the next objective, the planning team considered the following 

information: 1) the importance of the Refuge to nesting waterfowl; 2) the 

extensive research that has been done to evaluate predator impacts on 

nesting populations; 3) and the nest monitoring studies that have been 

conducted on the Refuge; and 4) Service policy and implementation 

guidelines for management of predators to benefit breeding waterfowl on 

Service lands. A nesting success of 30 percent (Mayfield) was chosen 

because it maintains stable Refuge duck populations and contributes to the 

overall duck population. 

R2.1 Objective: Maintain an average upland duck nesting success of at 

least 30 percent (Mayfield) to increase waterfowl production on the 

Refuge. 

Strategies:
 

✓ Continue to annually monitor upland duck nesting success utilizing
 

standard nest search methods on selected Refuge uplands. 

✓ When the average nesting success falls below 30 percent (Mayfield) 

and wetland conditions are favorable, initiate predator (red fox, 

raccoon, skunk, mink, and feral cat) control in the spring prior to the 

waterfowl nesting season, for approximately two to three weeks. 

✓ Maintain existing predator exclosure fences and continue to monitor to 

determine duck nesting success. 

58 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Planted Foods 

Historically, the majority of Refuge uplands were farmed. Since these lands 

have been acquired, most of the cropland has been seeded to grassland cover 

(See Map 8). Currently, the Refuge has approximately 500 acres of cropland. 

Corn, millet, and winter rye or winter wheat are left as a Refuge share for 

migrating waterfowl and resident wildlife in the winter. Refuge farm 

cooperators maintain Refuge food plots on a 25:75 crop share basis. The 

number of interested cooperators is dwindling due to the small field sizes 

and the decreased variety of approved herbicides. It is important to note 

that approximately 135 acres of cropland are considered necessary to 

support migrating waterfowl and resident wildlife. Crop sharing is currently 

the only method available to provide this resource. Cooperators could be 

compensated for planting only 135 acres of cropland if a consistent annual 

funding source could be developed. 

Farming on refuges is controversial. National and regional trends in refuge 

management have emphasized scaling back or terminating farming programs 

to reduce chemical use and restore natural vegetation. Biological reasons for 

maintaining the Tewaukon farming program identified in the 1996 Cropland 

Management Plan included providing food sources for migrating waterfowl, 

wintering deer (approximately 200 to 300), and other resident species. The 

relationship between the Refuge farming program and regionally popular 

game species, primarily deer and pheasants, was discussed by the planning 

team. The planning team recognized that establishing Refuge legislation 

language describes providing habitat for “other wildlife” in addition to 

migratory birds. 

Refuge cropland food sources can also be linked to two waterfowl 

overpopulation concerns. Though the overall contribution of Tewaukon 

Refuge crop fields to the growth of mid-continent snow goose numbers is 

minimal, the availability of grain food sources has been linked to improved 

snow goose survival and the damage this population is doing on tundra 

nesting grounds. Local populations of Canada geese also have experienced 

rapid growth in the past 10 years due in part to their use of Refuge crop 

fields. The planning team recognized that many biological factors exist in 

addition to Refuge cropping that affect Canada Goose populations, such as 

record water levels in area wetlands and changes in crop rotations like the 

addition of soybeans. The crop damage that local Canada geese are causing 

in Richland and Sargent Counties has resulted in an increased number of 

complaints in the past five years. This resulted in the establishment of an 

experimental 1999 September hunting season to try and curb the growth of 

this population. 

There are also less tangible benefits to providing small grain, row, and hay 

crops on a small portion of Refuge uplands such as the reduction, or 

perceived reduction of crop depredation on private lands. After discussing 

these issues, the planning team developed the following cropland objective. 

R2.2 Objective: Maintain no more than 135 acres of cropland as a 

Refuge share to provide green browse and millet/corn for migratory 

waterfowl. 

Strategy: 

✓ Work annually with farm cooperators to plant and maintain Refuge 

food plots on a 25:75 crop share basis. Work to find alternative methods 

to the existing crop share farming program. 

Canada Goose, Cindie Brunner 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 59 
“Then, one day in late February or 

early March, the migrants began 

returning to the old prairie. They 

brought spring with them, and a 

surge of life and excitement... serried 

flocks of ducks and geese beyond 

number, and endless wedges of 

curlews and plovers...giant cranes, 

and a multitude of small minstrels – 

warblers, larks, singing sparrows, 

longspurs, redwings, and a host of 

others... The prairie pulse quickened; 

it was spring again, with the birds 

come home.” 

- John Madson, 1982, Where the Sky Began 

Migratory Birds 

The Refuge was established as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds (See Appendix A for a list of wildlife species observed on the Refuge). 

Migratory birds and habitat management for migratory birds will continue 

to be emphasized at the Refuge. Waterfowl have historically received 

management priority due to the Refuge’s location in the highly productive 

Prairie Pothole Region. The concern over the decline of other migratory 

birds in the country has increased the availability of information on other 

nesting bird species. Refuge management priorities will expand to include 

other migratory bird species at risk. 

Shorebirds 

Thirty-seven species of shorebirds including 28 species of sandpipers commonly 

cross the interior plains during spring and fall migrations (Skagen 1997). 

The habitat used by migratory shorebirds consists of small, shallow wetlands 

or wet muddy areas. Shorebirds inhabit the prairie region from mid-March 

through mid-October depending on weather and water conditions. Shorebird 

populations migrating through the Great Plains tend to be scattered and 

stop periodically to replenish fat reserves (Skagen 1997). Shorebirds are 

flexible in their migration stops because prairie wetland levels and conditions 

are highly variable. Eighteen species of shorebirds breed in North Dakota 

(Stewart 1975). A variety of shorebirds use the Refuge when wetland 

conditions meet their needs. The variety of wetland stages described in the 

Refuge Wetlands Section will provide habitat for shorebirds. 

Wading Birds 

Like shorebirds, the number of wading birds (herons, egrets, rails, bitterns) 

breeding on the Refuge fluctuates with the availability of water. A heron 

colony has existed on the Refuge since 1993 when water returned to the 

southeastern North Dakota. Great blue herons, great egrets, doublecrested cormorants, and black-crowned night herons nest in the colony 

located in dead trees in Pool 7A. No record exists of a heron colony on the 

Refuge prior to 1993. The variety of wetland stages described in the 

Refuge Wetlands Section will provide habitat for these species. 

Raptors 

Raptors (including eagles, hawks, falcons, and owls) can be seen on the 

Refuge. The three most common hawks nesting on the Refuge are the redtailed hawk, northern harrier, and the Swainson’s hawk. Great horned owls 

are the most common owl nesting on the Refuge. In the year 2000, an 

increase in short-eared owls nesting on the Refuge was observed. Several 

species of raptors migrate through the Refuge in the spring and fall. Most 

notable are bald eagles which follow the waterfowl migrations and can be 

regularly seen around Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake. The variety of 

grassland, wetland, and woodland habitats on the Refuge will continue to 

provide habitat for these species. 

60 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 53 
62 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Woodland Migratory Birds 

Some woodland migratory bird species have increased their number in 

North Dakota from 1967 to 1993 such as the western kingbird, brown 

thrasher, and song sparrows along with species like American robins, house 

sparrows, cliff swallows, and barn swallows that are associated with people 

and structures (Johnson et al. 1997). Maintaining native woody vegetation 

as described under the Refuge Native Woodlands Section will provide 

habitat for woodland dependent species. 

The following objective was developed to help Refuge Managers and 

Biologists gather additional information about the populations of birds that 

breed on the Refuge in order to determine how to best provide habitat for 

their life needs. 

R2.3 Objective: Initiate a baseline breeding bird survey on the Refuge 

to monitor local breeding migratory bird population changes over time. 

Strategy:
 

✓ Conduct point count surveys.
 

Grassland Migratory Birds 

Herkert (1995) looked at the data from the North American Breeding Bird 

Survey between 1966 and 1993 and found that grassland migratory bird 

species are declining faster than any other group of breeding species in the 

Midwestern United States. Bobolinks and western meadowlarks showed 

the greatest decline (Herkert 1995). Habitat fragmentation is one of the 

causes of population decline in grassland birds (Samson 1980, Herkert 1994, 

Vickery et al. 1994). Habitat size is important for some grassland birds 

(Samson 1980, Herkert 1994, Vickery et al. 1994) and the amount of edge 

(the area where two different habitats overlap or are adjacent to each other) 

of that patch of habitat is also important (Helzer and Jelinski 1999). Some 

grassland species avoid nesting near different habitat edges such as a 

grassland patch overlapping or adjacent to a woodland patch (Johnson and 

Temple 1986, Delisle 1995, Helzer 1996). Higher predation on nests and 

birds and parasitism of nests increased for grassland birds the closer they 

were to wooded edges (Johnson and Temple 1986 and 1990, Burger et al. 

1994). See Refuge Habitat Grassland Native Prairie Section for more 

discussion on grassland migratory bird habitat. 

R2.4 Objective: Monitor relative abundance and breeding status for 

four tallgrass prairie indicator bird species in the six areas identified 

for grassland bird management to provide feedback and information 

on the tallgrass prairie habitat management approach. 

Strategy: 

✓ Develop a step-down Monitoring Plan to address changes over time in 

relative abundance on a local scale and breeding documentation of the 

four indicator species (northern harrier, upland sandpiper, bobolink, 

and grasshopper sparrow) on the six Prairie Focus Areas. 

Meadowlark, Cindie Brunner 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 63 
 

Migratory Bird Disease Outbreaks 

The first documented migratory bird disease outbreak on the Refuge occurred in 

April 1991. This was a small outbreak, 79 total birds were collected (76 

snow geese, 1 white front goose, and 2 lesser scaup) on Lake Tewaukon. 

The cause of the disease was avian cholera. Another small disease outbreak 

occurred in August of 1999 in Pool 7A and Pool 3. Ten ducks, one Canada 

goose, one cormorant, and one least sandpiper were collected from the two 

sites. Except for the Canada goose, botulism was determined to be the 

cause of death in all of the birds. Water levels in Pool 7A dropped quickly 

due to a failure of a structure. Rapid water fluctuations and warm weather 

are favorable conditions for botulism. 

Procedures for attempting to contain migratory bird disease outbreaks are 

similar for most of the diseases encountered on the Refuge. These 

procedures include monitoring wetlands for dead or dying birds, immediate 

collection of dead birds, submitting specimens to the National Wildlife 

Health Center, and safe and proper disposal of the remaining carcasses. 

Promptly removing dead and dying birds from the disease outbreak area 

decreases the exposure that other birds and other animals have to the 

carcasses and reduces the spread of the disease. 

R2.5 Objective: Respond to and contain migratory bird disease 

outbreaks by applying safe and proper procedures as recommended by 

National Wildlife Health Center protocol. 

Strategies:
 

✓ Manage water level conditions on the Refuge to minimize conditions
 

known to precipitate diseases outbreaks. 

✓ Submit carcasses to the National Wildlife Health Center for evaluation 

and determination of cause of death. 

✓ Properly follow disease management procedures to limit impacts to 

migratory bird populations. 

Native Resident Wildlife 

Mammals 

The tallgrass prairie ecosystem was a vast and diverse habitat for a variety 

of wildlife. Bison, grizzly bear, wolves, elk, antelope, mule deer, bobcat, moose, 

and river otter (Bailey 1926) once lived in the tallgrass prairie wetland 

ecosystem. Today, these species are either not found here at all or are present 

in very low numbers. White-tailed deer are the only common Refuge large 

animal left from the group of large mammals historically found on tallgrass 

prairie. White-tailed deer numbers have increased in response to changes 

associated with agricultural and settlement. Today approximately 200 to 

300 white-tailed deer winter on the Refuge, taking advantage of shelterbelts, 

croplands, and other habitats. Only one objective was developed by the 

planning team to address specifically managing the Refuge white-tailed 

deer population. Many of the other habitat objectives will support deer 

populations. 

R2.6 Objective: Maintain an average winter deer population of no 

more than 250 to minimize vegetative damage on the Refuge and crop 

damages on adjacent lands. 

Strategy: 

✓ Work cooperatively with the ND Game and Fish Department to adjust 

Refuge deer hunting permits, monitor wintering deer numbers, and 

determine carrying capacity. 

Various other small and medium sized mammals can be found on the 

Refuge including: jumping mice, raccoons, eastern cottontails, white-tailed 

jackrabbits, long-tailed weasels, woodchucks, beaver, muskrats, mink, 

badgers, coyotes, and red foxes. Habitat management described in the 

CCP is expected to sustain these populations. 

64 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
R2.7 Objective: Develop a specific Monitoring Plan to gather baseline 

information for small and medium mammal populations on the 

Refuge. 

Birds 

Resident native birds are few due to very cold and snowy winters that limit 

food and shelter. Though classified as migratory birds, great horned owls, 

woodpeckers, white-breasted nuthatches, chickadees, and horned larks are 

a few of the birds that are present on the Refuge year-round. Habitat 

management described in the CCP is expected to sustain these 

populations. 

Upland Game Birds 

Only one species of native upland game bird, the sharp-tailed grouse, can 

be found on the Refuge. Sharp-tailed grouse are few in number and only 

spotted occasionally on the Refuge. There has been a lot of debate about 

the presence of greater prairie chickens which were not thought to occur in 

North Dakota prior to the late 1870s (Stewart 1975). By 1884, prairie 

chickens were as common as sharp-tailed grouse and spread rapidly 

throughout the State (Stewart 1975). Downward population trends started 

in the early 1940s; by 1972, fewer than 400 birds existed in North Dakota 

(Johnson et al. 1997). The planning team did not develop management 

objectives for prairie chickens since they have not been documented on the 

Refuge nor for sharp-tailed grouse since their occurrence on the Refuge is 

limited to occasional sightings. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Throughout the world there has been an apparent decline of amphibian 

species (Yoffe 1992; Blaustein 1994; Corn 1994). Prairie amphibians have 

had a longer history of decline than those from other habitats (Corn and 

Peterson 1996). Northern leopard frogs almost disappeared from tallgrass 

prairies in Wisconsin and Minnesota in the 1960s and 1970s (Gibbs et al. 

1971; Hine et al. 1981). The cause of decline is not well known although 

commercial harvest (Gibbs et al. 1971), and contamination from 

agricultural chemicals (Hine et al. 1981) are two of the more likely causes. 

Of the 124 species of reptiles and amphibians that occur in prairie habitats 

in central North America, 42 species are associated with grassland 

habitats, 38 are primarily aquatic or require permanent water (i.e. leopard 

frogs); 28 use forests or woody vegetation (grey treefrog), and 16 species 

are use a variety of habitats (tiger salamander) (Corn and Peterson 1996). 

Protection, conservation, and management of prairie reptiles and 

amphibians has not received much attention. Because of the sharp decline 

of wetland and prairie habitat in the tallgrass prairie, the abundance of 

aquatic species is just a fraction of their former abundance (Corn and 

Peterson 1996). 

Little population information exists for many refuge species such as 

reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, or invertebrates that fit the 

description of “other wildlife,” as described in establishing Refuge 

legislation language. In order to provide better background for refuge 

managers to evaluate options, basic population data need to be collected as 

described in the following objective. 

R2.8 Objective: Develop a specific Monitoring Plan to gather baseline 

information for amphibian and reptile populations on the Refuge. 

Tiger Salamander, Cindie Brunner Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 65 
Fish 

Little historical survey information has been gathered on fish populations 

in the Wild Rice River or in Refuge pools before 1966. Since that time, 

researchers, the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, the North 

Dakota Department of Health, North Dakota State University Department 

of Zoology, and the Fish and Wildlife Service have conducted fish surveys 

in the Wild Rice River. Copes and Tubb (1966) conducted fish surveys in 

the Red River tributaries including eight sampling stations scattered along 

the Wild Rice River. Sampling was conducted twice a month from June to 

September in 1965. One of the sampling stations was below Silver Lake 

before it entered the Sprague Lake Unit, and one was located near Cayuga 

downstream of the Tewaukon Unit. Northern pike, carp, fathead minnow, 

white sucker, black bullhead, brook stickleback, pumpkinseed, black crappie, 

yellow perch, and walleye were found in the Silver Lake sampling station 

(Copes and Tubb 1996). No fish were sampled in the Cayuga station 

possibly due to very turbid, low flowing, and polluted (oil) water. Farther 

downstream an additional two species were sampled, trout-perch and 

bigmouth buffalo. Transplantation (stocking) of fish, selective poisoning to 

maintain sport fisheries, high turbidities, water temperatures, erratic 

stream flow, and heavy silt loads all have some effect on fish distribution 

(Copes and Tubb 1966). No endangered, threatened or rare fish have been 

sampled on the Refuge. 

The amount of habitat for native stream fish on the Refuge is limited. The 

Wild Rice River flows are highly variable and can limit fish movement and 

habitat. The four large Refuge dams on the Wild Rice River also restrict 

fish movement and alter natural stream habitat. The primary focus of 

fisheries management has been on recreational fisheries in Lake Tewaukon 

and Sprague Lake (for more information on recreational fishing see 

Refuge Public Use and Recreation Fishing Section). 

Fish stocking in Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake for recreational fishing 

has probably been going on long before the Refuge was established. The 

Service began stocking Lake Tewaukon in 1940 and has continued to stock 

fish almost every year since then. The following species have been stocked 

by the Service in Lake Tewaukon: bluegill, black crappie, walleye, northern 

pike, black bullhead, largemouth bass, yellow perch, smallmouth bass, 

pumpkinseed, and tiger muskie. Sprague Lake has been stocked by the 

Service since 1978. The following species have been stocked by the Service 

in Sprague Lake: yellow perch, northern pike, walleye, black crappie, 

fathead minnow, channel catfish, and largemouth bass. 

The planning team did not develop specific management objectives for 

native fish due to the intermittent flows of the Wild Rice River and 

alteration of the Wild Rice River by the four large Refuge dams. No fish 

introductions are planned for other Refuge wetlands because recent 

research indicates there is direct competition for food between fish and 

ducklings (Hill et al. 1987 and Giles 1994). Water quality of the Wild Rice 

River is addressed in the Refuge Riparian Section and Refuge Managed 

Wetlands Water Quality Section. Recreational fishing is addressed in the 

Refuge Public Use and Recreation Fishing Section. 

Nonnative Wildlife 

In the Fish and Wildlife Service manual under the Populations Management 

Section (7 Refuge Manual 8.1), the issue of nonnative species introduction 

and management is addressed by policy. The policy states that the National 

Wildlife Refuge System exists for the protection and management of plants 

and animals native to the United States. This policy directs refuge 

managers “to prevent further introductions of exotic [nonnative] species on 

national wildlife refuges [including all lands and WPAs] except where an 

exotic [nonnative] species would have value as a biological control agent [an 

example would be leafy spurge beetles and tiger muskies] and would be 

compatible with the objectives of the refuge.” 

66 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Healthy populations of several species of wildlife both nonnative to North 

America and to North Dakota can be found on the Refuge. These 

nonnative species compete with native wildlife for food, water, cover, and 

space. Some species, like cats and dogs, will kill other native wildlife for 

food and sport. Other species, like house sparrows and starlings, outcompete native species for resources like nesting cavities that could be 

used by bluebirds, tree swallows, and house wrens. Carp do a great deal of 

habitat damage by destroying wetland vegetation that is utilized by water 

birds and other fish species. Carp also occupy a large amount of habitat 

that could be occupied by native fish species. The following objective was 

developed to address the range of options Refuge managers will use to 

manage these species. 

R2.9 Objective: Restrict the spread of existing and additional 

nonnative animal species (carp, house sparrows, feral dogs and cats) 

that adversely impact native species. 

Strategies: 

✓ Reduce population densities of carp to maintain a total biomass of less 

than 30.0 kg/survey. This was recommended in the 1996 Fisheries 

Management Plan for Refuge waters by applying appropriate 

management tools including the addition of predator fish (i.e., tiger 

muskies), minimum size limits on predatory fish (northern pike and 

walleyes), water management, chemical control, and commercial 

harvest. 

✓ Apply, when appropriate, management tools (including lethal, 

nonlethal methods and habitat manipulation) that eliminate or limit the 

expansion of introduced animal species such as feral dogs and cats, 

house sparrows, and carp. 

✓ Gather existing information and promote additional research on 

management techniques and affects of nonnative animal species on 

native flora and fauna. 

Other nonnative species, like the ring-necked pheasant, are not known to 

adversely impact Refuge native species. However, habitat management 

designed to benefit pheasants can adversely impact Refuge native species. 

For example, the best habitat management to improve Refuge pheasant 

populations, outside of requesting much milder winters and a dry springtime, 

would be to establish more large blocks of shrubs and trees for winter 

cover and incorporate more, or change the distribution of winter food plots. 

Both of these techniques would be harmful to grassland nesting migratory 

birds that avoid shrub and tree edges and have poorer reproductive 

success in smaller blocks of grassland cover (Helzer and Jelinski 1999). 

When considering management options, the following objective guides 

managers to favor native grassland nesting migratory birds. Managers 

must also consider the establishing purpose of the Refuge for migratory 

birds and policy concerning native and nonnative species. A number of 

objectives described in this Plan, such as maintaining cropland (i.e., millet 

bales), increasing the density of grassland cover, and using predator 

control, will still provide pheasant habitat and improve their nest success. 

R2.10 Objective: Refrain from carrying out additional management 

activities that specifically encourage population expansion of existing 

introductions (pheasants, gray partridge) to the detriment of native 

species. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 67 
Wildlife Disturbance
 

The demand for wildlife associated recreation has increased dramatically 

over the last 20 years. Outdoor recreation can affect wildlife behavior (i.e., 

feeding, resting) and survival to varying degrees. 

Wildlife seek refuge from all forms of disturbance, particularly those associated 

with loud noise and rapid movement. After reviewing several thousand journal 

articles and books, Dahlgren and Korschgen (1992) reported that studies 

indicate that water users were the primary cause of most disturbances to 

waterfowl. Mathews (1982) listed activities in order of decreasing disturbance 

to waterfowl as: rapid overwater movement and loud noise (power boating, 

waterskiing); overwater movement with little noise (sailing, wind surfing, 

rowing, canoeing); little overwater movement or noise (wading, swimming); 

and activities along shorelines (fishing, bird-watching, hiking, and traffic). 

These disturbances can decrease the amount of time a bird spends feeding 

by seven times and increases the amount of time a bird incurs high energy 

costs associated with flight (Edington and Edington 1986). During a fiveyear study on a refuge in southern Wisconsin, human activity (recreational, 

vehicle and non-vehicle activities) resulted an average of 43 percent of the 

ducks departing the area (Vander Zouwen 1983). 

Wildlife expend considerable energy and effort in order to successfully 

reproduce and raise young. Disturbance at this time of year by humans can 

scatter broods and separate adults from young thus increasing their risk of 

predation, exposure, and starvation due to inexperience in finding food 

(Sherwood 1965). In studies in England and Germany, an 80 percent decrease 

of waterfowl nests and an 85 percent decrease in duck pairs were related to 

the increasing number of anglers during the breeding season (Reichholf

1976, Åhlund and Götmark 1989). Disturbance from observers caused a 10 

percent nest abandonment rate by mallards using artificial nest baskets in 

an Iowa study (Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992). 

Winter survival of resident wildlife, i.e., white-tailed deer, can be affected 

by a variety of disturbances ranging from snowmobiles to cross-country 

skiers. Human caused wildlife disturbance during the winter can increase 

stress and can contribute to the death of wildlife. 

The planning team discussed wildlife disturbance during migration, the 

nesting and breeding season, and the winter season. The team also discussed 

the pros and cons of flexible versus standard dates for opening roads in the 

spring, public notification through news releases, and Refuge pamphlets. 

68 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Wildlife Disturbance Closure Background 

To limit disturbance to migratory water birds using Lake Tewaukon and 

Sprague Lake, the road around the north shore of Lake Tewaukon and the 

trail around the south side of Sprague Lake have been closed to vehicles 

beginning on October 1 for the past 10 years. Secondary considerations for 

closing these roads through the winter have been to limit winter wildlife 

disturbances (see Wintering Wildlife Habitat Section) and reduce the 

opportunity for visitors to get stuck in snow on these unplowed roads. The 

dates that these roads have been opened for public travel in the spring 

have varied. The Lake Tewaukon road has been re-opened for public travel 

when the frost is out and the road surface is dry. This reduces maintenance 

costs. Generally, the Lake Tewaukon road is re-opened after the main 

migration concentrations of migratory waterbirds have moved on. The 

Sprague Lake trail does not dry out quickly and is not open to public traffic 

until after the spring concentrations of migratory waterbirds have moved 

through. Peak concentrations of migratory water birds on the Refuge have 

historically been recorded during the second and third weeks of April. 

However, early spring weather and open winters like those in 1998 and 

1999 have moved peak concentrations of birds on the Refuge ahead by as 

much as a month. Gates are used to close each of these access points. 

Boat access for fishing on both lakes has historically been closed on the 

Friday before the opening of the general waterfowl season, but has been 

standardized to October 1 for the past few years. Boat traffic is permitted 

again on May 1. 

Shore fishing from the Point is popular during the spring and fall. The 

Point Road on the peninsula that juts out into Lake Tewaukon has 

traditionally been closed to limit disturbance to the winter deer herd and 

has usually been closed prior to the opening of deer gun season. This date 

varies from year-to-year. A second consideration for closing this road is the 

operation of an aerator in Lake Tewaukon south of the Point, which is used 

to prevent winter fish kill. Lake ice is always thin above the aerator lines, 

and this area can be hazardous for anglers. This portion of the lake is easily 

accessed from the west end of the Point Road. This road is not maintained 

in the winter and closing it also keeps people from getting stuck in the 

snow during the winter. The Point Road has also been re-opened to the 

public in the spring when the surface is dry. In most years, it is re-opened 

after spring concentrations of migratory waterbirds have moved through. 

A wooden barricade with a sign is used to close this road. 

Much of the public input we received focused on access to the Point in the 

fall and spring. People felt that since the Point Road provided access to 

such a small percentage of the lakeshore, and the remainder of the Refuge 

was closed to the public during waterbird migration periods, the Point 

Road could remain open and the Refuge would still provide adequate rest 

area. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 69 
Migratory Bird Habitat 

Bird migration periods vary from year-to-year depending on regional 

resource availability, climatic events along the migration corridors, and the 

bird species. For example, Refuge peak waterfowl migration in the spring 

occurs from March through April while peak bobolink migration usually 

occurs from May through early June. The number of birds that use the 

Refuge as a resting and feeding area varies widely from year-to-year 

depending on available water and food in the surrounding region. For 

example, in March of 1993 the only available open water in our region was 

Lake Tewaukon, and at that time, an estimated 700,000 snow geese used 

the lake. Compared to the fall of 1999 when open water was available all 

over the region, only an estimated 5,000 snow geese used the Refuge. 

Current road closures effectively limit disturbance of waterbirds to 5 percent 

of Lake Tewaukon and 10 percent of the Sprague Lake shorelines. The 

majority of Refuge anglers fish the shoreline areas adjacent to roads and 

trails open to vehicles. Road closures also limit the amount of bird 

disturbance caused by wildlife observers and photographers. To limit 

disturbance to migrating waterbirds, the road around Lake Tewaukon and 

the trail around the south side of Sprague Lake will be closed to vehicles in 

October, November, and April. These roads will also be closed from 

December through March to limit winter wildlife disturbance which is 

discussed in the Wintering Wildlife Habitat Section. Walk-in angling access 

will be permitted to Lake Tewaukon (except the Point) and Sprague Lake 

year-round. 

The Point Road will be closed to all public access (vehicles and foot traffic) if it 

becomes impassable due to snow conditions or on November 1 to limit winter 

wildlife disturbance. The staff will evaluate the disturbance to migratory 

waterbirds during peak migration periods for several years to determine if 

this road should be closed from October through April. This road could be 

gated, signed, and a news release can be used to notify the public. 

In September, the Refuge is open to walk-in archery hunters and youth 

deer hunters. These activities generate less than 40 visitors a year and 

provide minimal disturbance to migrating birds. The Refuge is closed to all 

hunting during the peak fall migration period in October. 

R2.11 Objective: Manage the Refuge as a protected resting and feeding 

area for migratory birds during the spring and fall migration periods. 

Strategies: 

✓ Manage Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake as open water rest areas for 

migratory water birds. 

✓ Close Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake to boat traffic from October 1 

through April 30 during the peak migration period. 

✓	 Close the road around Lake Tewaukon and the trail south of Sprague 

Lake to vehicles during the months of October, November, and April to 

reduce disturbance to migratory birds. 

✓	 During the primary waterbird fall migration period (October), close all 

hunting activities on the Refuge. 

✓	 Identify limited access areas to the public through signs, news 

releases, and pamphlets, and provide information to the public about 

the impacts of human disturbance to wildlife. 

✓	 Evaluate exceptions for public access for wildlife observation and 

photography during migration based on activities requested and their 

potential impacts to migrating birds. 

✓	 Evaluate disturbance to migratory waterbirds during the peak 

migration months of October and April and assess migratory bird 

responses to vehicles and angler visits on the Point Road. Close the 

Point Road during the months of October and April if disturbance is 

significant. 

70 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Nesting Birds and Other Breeding Wildlife 

The nesting and rearing season for birds and other wildlife on the Refuge 

lasts from April through August. Wildlife utilize grassland, wetland, and 

tree and shrub habitats to reproduce and raise young. Providing areas of 

minimal human disturbance during this season was recognized by the 

planning team as important for wildlife survivability and production. 

Currently, visitor use is primarily associated with the main Refuge road 

around Lake Tewaukon and the area east of County Road 12. That portion 

of the Refuge west of County Road 12 and the Sprague Lake Unit (except 

for Sprague Lake) are closed to public entry from April through August. It 

is recognized that disturbance occurs to wildlife and habitat during activities 

such as hiking, photography, and wildlife observation. These disturbances 

include trampling of vegetation, flushing of nesting birds, scattering young, 

and occasional death from vehicles. Approximately 15 percent of the 

Refuge is open to wildlife-dependent recreation during the nesting and 

reproductive season. Currently, Refuge use in this area is limited to driving 

the Lake Tewaukon road and fishing along the shoreline. Few visitors 

venture off established roads and trails into the grassland and wetland 

habitats. If an increase in this type of use occurs, a reevaluation of the use 

and possible re-zoning of open areas or the development of established 

walking/observation trails can mitigate impacts that may occur. 

R2.12 Objective: Manage the Sprague Lake Unit (except for the Lake) 

and the area west of County Road 12 on the Tewaukon Unit as a closed 

area to the public from April through August to reduce disturbance to 

wildlife nesting and reproduction. 

Strategies: 

✓ Identify limited access areas to the public through signs, news 

releases, and pamphlets and provide information to the public about 

the impacts of human disturbance to wildlife. 

✓ Evaluate exceptions for public access on closed areas based on activities 

requested and their potential impacts to nesting and reproducing 

wildlife. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 71 
Wintering Wildlife Habitat 

On the Refuge, winter encompasses the months of December through 

March. Stress periods for wildlife are predominately associated with cold 

temperatures and snow depths which vary from year-to-year. In the winter 

of 1997, extreme weather, including 8 blizzards, over 100 inches of snow, 

and a severe ice storm in April, caused mortality in deer, pheasants, and 

other wildlife. Providing areas of minimal human disturbance during this 

season was recognized by the planning team as important for wildlife 

survivability. 

Recreational pheasant hunting is permitted on the Refuge during the 

month of December and the beginning of January. Weather limits the 

number of hunters participating in this activity. If winter conditions are 

severe early and snow is deep, the Refuge has very few visits from 

pheasant hunters. Recreation during the rest of the winter is limited to ice 

fishing and access for ice fishing on Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake. 

Other user groups which have inquired about winter public use activities 

include cross-country skiers, ice skaters, dog sled users, and snowshoe 

users. These activities have not been allowed in the past due to the 

potential disturbance to wildlife and safety issues. 

R2.13 Objective: Manage the Refuge (except for ice fishing on Lake 

Tewaukon and Sprague Lake) as a closed area from January through 

March to reduce disturbance to wintering resident wildlife. 

Strategies: 

✓	 Close the road around Lake Tewaukon and the trail south of Sprague 

Lake to vehicles from December through March to reduce disturbance 

to wintering wildlife. That portion of the Lake Tewaukon road from 

County Road 12 east to the north boat ramp access road will remain 

open. 

✓	 Close the Point Road if it becomes impassable due to snow conditions 

or on November 1 to limit disturbance to wintering deer and for ice 

fishing safety. The Point Road will be re-opened in the spring when 

conditions are dry for vehicle access. 

✓	 Limit vehicle access (including snowmobiles) for winter ice fishing to 

specific areas on Lake Tewaukon (the north boat ramp, east boat ramp, 

and access from County Road 12). Limit vehicle access for winter ice 

fishing on Sprague Lake to the east and west boat ramps. 

✓	 Winter hiking, snowshoeing, ice skating, cross-country skiing, and 

other recreational activities not associated with recreational fishing 

access on Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake will not be permitted. 

✓	 Identify limited access areas to the public through signs, news 

releases, and pamphlets and provide information to the public about 

the impacts of human disturbance to wildlife. 

Location Closure Periods Reason 

Lake Tewaukon Road October, November, and April 

December through March 

Migratory Birds 

Wintering Wildlife 

Sprague Lake Trail October, November, and April 

December through March 

Migratory Birds 

Wintering Wildlife 

Point Road When impassable or November 1 

to when road is passable 

Wintering Wildlife 

Ice Fishing Safety 

Portion of Tewaukon 

Unit West of County 

Road 12 

April through August 

January through March 

Nesting and Breeding Wildlife 

Wintering Wildlife 

Sprague Lake Unit 

excluding Sprague 

Lake 

April through August 

January through March 

Nesting and Breeding Wildlife 

Wintering Wildlife 

72 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Endangered Species 

R3 Goal: Contribute to the preservation and restoration of endangered, 

threatened, rare, and unique flora and fauna that occur, or have 

historically occurred in the area of Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge. 

With the delisting of the peregrine falcon from the Federal Endangered 

Species List, only the federally threatened bald eagle is known to occur or 

have been observed on the Refuge. Bald eagles are regularly sighted 

during the spring and fall migration periods. 

Only two federally listed endangered species likely used the Refuge historically, 

the whooping crane and the gray wolf. These species have never been recorded 

on the Refuge since files have been kept. Records of whooping crane nests 

and young birds indicate that breeding birds formerly occurred in southeast North 

Dakota, but mostly in the more central region (Stewart 1975). Whooping cranes 

more likely only migrated through the Refuge. Historically, gray wolves 

were found throughout North Dakota and were known as plains wolves or 

buffalo wolves (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 1995). Gray wolves were extirpated 

from North Dakota through shooting, trapping, and poisoning but occasional 

sightings have been reported in this District since 1985. 

Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern 

In 1995, the Fish and Wildlife Service identified migratory nongame birds 

that were of management concern across the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). These species are of concern because of documented or 

apparent population declines, small or restricted populations or dependence on 

restricted or vulnerable habitats. The bird species that occur or may occur 

on the Tewaukon Refuge include: (*Nest on the Refuge) 

Black tern * 

Ferruginous hawk 

Northern harrier * 

Upland sandpiper * 

Olive-sided flycatcher 

Sedge wren * 

s sparrow'Baird 

Grasshopper sparrow * 

Loggerhead shrike 

Red-headed woodpecker 

Chestnut-collared longspur 

With the exception of the five bird species that nest on the Refuge, the other 

birds are seen only occasionally on the Refuge during migration. The northern 

harrier, upland sandpiper, and the grasshopper sparrow have been chosen as 

indicator species for the Tallgrass Prairie Management Approach. Population, 

breeding, and habitat information on these three indicator species are 

addressed in the Tallgrass Prairie Management Approach Section. Since 

little information exists about Refuge breeding populations of black terns 

and sedge wrens, the status of these species will best be addressed under 

the point count objective in the Refuge Migratory Bird Section. 

Other Rare Species 

Rare Butterflies 

In 1996, Tim Orwig surveyed the Refuge native prairie sites for rare butterflies. 

Regal fritillary butterflies, and powesheik skippers were recorded on two 

Refuge sites. Both the regal fritillary and the powesheik skipper are found 

exclusively on native prairie sites. The larvae of these butterflies feed on 

native grasses and a variety of native forbs when they are adults. A list of 

the other butterflies observed are in Tim Orwig’s 1996 report. 

Since the health of prairie communities and the species diversity of the prairies has 

been previously identified in the Plan as a management objective, the following objective was developed as a method for evaluating native prairie diversity. 

Three rare butterflies, regal fritillary, powesheik skipper, and Dakota 

skipper were chosen as indicator species in the “A Habitat-Based Approach 

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

R3.1 Objective: Develop a Monitoring Plan to measure relative abundance of 

three rare butterflies in the six Prairie Focus Areas to provide feedback and 

information to the tallgrass prairie habitat management approach. Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 73 
“Natural resource management is 90 

percent managing the public and 10 

percent managing the resource” 

- Unknown 

Public Use and Recreation 

More than 30 million people visit national wildlife refuges every year. The 

vision for the future in Fulfilling the Promises (1999) states that: 

“The National Wildlife Refuge System of the next century will provide 

the American people a legacy of wildlife, a place where visitors are 

welcome, opportunities for stewardship and a system to appreciate.” 

The Refuge Improvement Act recognizes the importance of compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreation. The Act identifies hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation as 

the six priority public uses. 

Given the long legislative history that encourages compatible wildlifedependent public uses on refuges and the long history of wildlife-related 

public use on Tewaukon Refuge, several objectives were developed by the 

planning team to continue providing the six priority recreational uses. 

R4 Goal: Provide recreational and educational opportunities for 

persons of all abilities to learn about and enjoy tallgrass 

prairie wetland ecosystem, the fish and wildlife found there, 

and the history of the Refuge in a safe and compatible manner. 

Fishing 

Fish populations have been highly variable in Lake Tewaukon. In the 

1940s, strong populations of northern pike, walleye, crappies, and perch 

were present. After carp became established in 1943, fishing steadily 

declined until 1955. Rough fish removal, heavy stocking, and minimum size 

limits for Northern pike and walleye, and low water conditions in Refuge 

pools have helped to improve desirable fish populations and limit carp 

numbers. Currently, fish species present on the Refuge include carp, walleye, 

Northern pike, yellow perch, black bullhead, yellow bullhead, black 

crappie, white sucker, fathead minnow, golden shiner, and tiger muskie. 

Lake Tewaukon has been an important public recreational spot since the 

1880s. Historic uses on Lake Tewaukon included extensive boating, 

swimming, and fishing. When Refuge and flowage easements were secured 

in the 1930s, it was with the support of local landowners and the sportsmen’s 

clubs. Their support of additional land acquisition came with the provision 

that recreational fishing would continue and be improved on the Refuge 

(1954 resolution by area wildlife clubs and 1955 response letter from the 

Service in Refuge files). The 1962 Tewaukon Master Plan addresses this 

understanding between the local community and the Service: “When land 

acquisition was initiated, it was with the understanding that recreational 

use of the lake would be continued and improved.” 

Past fisheries improvement projects have included: 

■	 Managing Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake at higher elevations (since 

1970). 

■ Placing artificial reefs of Christmas trees to enhance shelter for various 

species (1988, 1991) and artificial fish structures (1997). 

■ Carp removal projects (1985, 1989, 1990 and 1993) in Lake Tewaukon. 

■ Installing an aeration system in Lake Tewaukon (1986). 

Northern Pike, Cindie Brunner 

74 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake are managed as open water migratory 

bird rest areas. Because they are large (Lake Tewaukon 1,000 acres and 

Sprague Lake 184 acres) and relatively deep (8 to 9 feet), they offer the 

best opportunity on the Refuge to provide recreational fishing. Though fish 

may intermittently occur in other Refuge pools, wetland management 

objectives developed to benefit migratory birds do not provide favorable 

conditions for fish (See Refuge Managed Wetland Section). Recreational 

fisheries will only be managed on Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake and 

all other Refuge pools will remain closed to recreational fishing. 

The original compatibility determination completed in 1994, limited fishing to Lake 

Tewaukon and Sprague Lake. The compatibility determination was reviewed as 

part of this planning process and determined to be adequate, appropriate, and 

current (See Appendix G). Stipulations on fishing include closing the two lakes to 

boat fishing and portions of lakeshore roads during the spring and fall waterbird 

migration periods. (See Refuge Wildlife Disturbance Section.) 

Currently, fishing facilities on the two lakes include three boat ramps on Lake 

Tewaukon and two on Sprague Lake. An accessible fishing dock and ramp, 

outdoor rest rooms, picnic tables, picnic shelter and informational kiosks are 

available on Lake Tewaukon (See Map 9 through 12). A public use summary guide 

is available to anglers and describes Refuge specific regulations and opportunities. 

A Refuge Fisheries Management Plan was completed for Lake Tewaukon 

and Sprague Lake for 1996-2005. This Plan discusses several ways to 

improve recreational fish population conditions in Lake Tewaukon and 

Sprague Lake. The following objective adopts those recommendations. 

R4.1 Objective: Maintain populations of sport fish including northern pike 

greater than 35 kg/survey total biomass, walleyes greater than 30 kg/survey 

total biomass, and perch greater than 10 kg/survey total biomass in Lake 

Tewaukon and Sprague Lake in accordance with the 1996-2005 Refuge 

Fisheries Management Plan. 

Strategies:
 

✓ Reduce population densities of carp to maintain a total biomass of less than 30
 

kg/survey in Refuge waters. (See CCP Nonnative Objective and Strategies). 

✓ Work cooperatively with the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Assistance 

Office and the ND Game and Fish Department to determine and 

implement fish stocking rates, harvest regulations, water management, 

monitoring of fish populations, and law enforcement. 

✓ Maintain water levels at an average depth of approximately 9 feet in 

Lake Tewaukon and 8 feet in Sprague Lake. 

✓ Maintain use of an aerator during October through March in Lake 

Tewaukon to help prevent the winterkill of fish species. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 75 
R4.2 Objective: Provide public fishing opportunities in Lake Tewaukon 

and Sprague Lake when compatible. 

Strategies:
 

✓ Provide shore fishing opportunities on the two lakes year-round.
 

✓ Provide boat fishing opportunities on the two lakes from May 1 to
 

September 30. 

✓	 Provide ice fishing opportunities on the two lakes during the winter 

and identify access points as described in the Refuge Wildlife 

Disturbance Section. 

✓	 Work cooperatively with the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Assistance 

Office and the ND Game and Fish Department to stock the lake with fish for 

public fishing opportunity. 

✓	 Work cooperatively with the ND Game and Fish Department to conduct 

law enforcement patrols to ensure special regulation compliance and 

provide a quality experience for all visitors. 

✓	 Work cooperatively with local groups to maintain and improve fishing facilities 

including five boat ramps, an accessible fishing pier, and four public use areas 

(see Map 9 through 12) with rest rooms, picnic tables, and information kiosks. 

✓	 Identify open fishing areas to the public through signs, news releases, and 

pamphlets, and inform the public about Refuge regulations and opportunities. 

Hunting 

Tewaukon NWR is open for ring-necked pheasant and white-tailed deer 

hunting. Waterfowl and other migratory bird hunting conflicts with the 

Refuge purposes as an “inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds.” Migratory 

bird hunting is available on the adjacent North Dakota State Game 

Management area and other State and Federal public lands in the District. 

A Refuge Hunting Regulations and Map pamphlet is available to hunters 

in the fall and describes Refuge specific regulations and opportunities. 

The Refuge is open to youth gun hunters and bow hunters for white-tailed 

deer in September and the deer rifle permit season in November. Archery 

season for deer reopens in November after the deer gun season to reduce 

hunting group conflicts and provide for a more safe hunter experience. All 

other North Dakota State regulations apply. Refuge deer tags for the deer 

gun season are issued by the ND Game and Fish Department. The number 

of deer tags issued are based upon wintering deer populations (See Refuge 

Native Wildlife Section) and hunter density for safety reasons. 

The Refuge is open to pheasant hunting after the close of the deer gun 

season in November through the end of the general State Season to reduce 

hunting group conflicts and migratory bird disturbance. Nontoxic shot is 

required. All other North Dakota State regulations apply. 

R4.3 Objective: Provide public opportunity for pheasant hunting in 

November and December after the fall waterfowl migration. Deer hunting 

opportunities will also be provided during the months of September, 

November, and December before and after the waterfowl migration. 

Strategies: 

✓	 Continue to provide a youth deer gun season in September, archery 

deer hunting in September and December, and a deer gun season in 

November. Continue to provide a pheasant hunting season after the 

deer gun season in November and December. 

✓	 Work cooperatively with the ND Game and Fish Department to conduct 

law enforcement patrols to ensure special regulation compliance and 

provide a quality experience for all visitors. 

✓ Work cooperatively with the ND Game and Fish Department to 

distribute deer gun permits and manage hunting seasons. 

✓ Maintain parking areas and provide maps and pamphlets to provide 

information about Refuge hunting regulations and access. 

✓	 Identify open hunting areas to the public through signs, news releases, 

and pamphlets and inform the public about Refuge regulations and 

opportunities. 

76 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 69 
78 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 71 
80 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 73 
82 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 75 
84 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Trapping 

The Refuge had recreational trapping prior to 1998; however, the interest 

in trapping decreased due to the fur prices which made it difficult to justify 

the staff time for only one interested trapper. If fur price and interest 

increases, this use will be reevaluated. Recreational trapping is available on 

all waterfowl production areas in Ransom, Richland, and Sargent Counties. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Wildlife observation and photographic opportunities are available from 

May through September on the Refuge east of County Road 12 (Map 9 

through 12). Access to closed areas of the Refuge are by request only. 

R4.4 Objective: Provide public opportunity for wildlife observation and 

photography on the east side of County Road 12 from May through 

September. 

Strategies: 

✓ Maintain the 8-mile Prairie Lake auto tour around Lake Tewaukon to 

ensure a safe and quality experience from May 1 through September 30. 

✓ Develop an accessible wildlife observation platform and interpretive 

hiking trail on the Refuge. 

✓	 Identify open wildlife viewing and photography areas to the public 

through signs, news releases, and pamphlets and inform the public about 

Refuge regulations and opportunities. 

Interpretation 

Currently, the Refuge has a small visitor center in the administrative 

headquarters. Three exhibits have been developed and installed at this site. 

Seven kiosks with information panels are located at the visitor center and 

the four public use areas and on the Lake Tewaukon overlook. A Prairie 

Lake Auto Tour has been developed around Lake Tewaukon and a short 

accessible prairie walk is located adjacent to the headquarters. A variety of 

pamphlets are available about the Service, the Refuge System, the Tewaukon 

Refuge, and other natural resources at the visitor center and kiosks. 

R4.5 Objective: Promote public awareness and advocacy of Refuge 

resources and management activities that conserve the regions’ 

natural, cultural, and historical resources in the visitor center and use 

signs, exhibits, pamphlets, and programs elsewhere on the Complex. 

Strategies: 

✓	 Develop a new Refuge general brochure, wildlife list (including mammals, 

amphibians, and butterflies), and a Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Project 

brochure. 

✓	 Maintain and update current brochures when necessary (including 

Public Use Summary and Map, Hunting Regulations and Map, Bird 

List, Refuge Map, and Prairie Lake Auto Tour). 

✓	 Provide visitor information and access to the Refuge visitor center on 

weekends during the months of July, August, September, October, and 

November which coincides with increased visitation. 

✓ Develop three interactive, accessible interpretive exhibits for the visitor 

center on tallgrass prairie, snow geese, and a Refuge orientation map. 

✓ Expand the visitor center for more informational exhibits, space for 

visitors, and special events. 

✓	 Develop an accessible tallgrass prairie trail in a managed prairie site 

adjacent to the Refuge visitor center to promote awareness about 

tallgrass prairie values and management efforts. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 85 
Environmental Education 

Over the last 10 years, the Refuge staff has aspired to develop an environmental 

education and outreach program on a local and statewide scale. Refuge 

staff have worked to educate and inform the public about a variety of 

natural resources, Refuge management activities and programs, and local, 

regional and national fish, wildlife, and habitat issues. 

R4.6 Objective: Environmental education programs and activities will 

focus on the native prairie/wetland ecosystem and Refuge natural, 

cultural, and historic resources. These activities will be designed to 

develop awareness and promote advocacy for Refuge resources and 

management activities. 

Strategies: 

✓	 Present a program at each of the 15 local schools once a year to educate 

young people about natural resources and issues and promote an 

understanding of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mission and 

purpose of the Tewaukon Complex. 

✓	 Continue to host an annual Tewaukon Field Day with the ND Extension 

Service, Cogswell Gun Club, and Tewaukon Rod and Gun Club as 

partners. 

✓ Coordinate and promote the North Dakota Jr. Duck Stamp Program 

with several wildlife groups and other partners. 

✓ Participate in three County conservation tours with County Soil 

Conservation Districts each year. 

✓ Conduct or host at least five school and group tours per year. 

Public Outreach 

The staff at the Refuge has worked to improve the public outreach program 

by increasing news releases, programs, tours, presentations to local and 

interested groups, attending meetings, participating in local, County, and 

State activities, and briefing congressional offices. 

R4.7 Objective: Develop awareness and foster an understanding of 

Complex resource issues and management activities through public 

outreach that develops Service and Refuge advocacy. 

Strategies: 

✓ Visit local wildlife and community groups two times per year to provide 

information on Refuge activities, management, and issues. 

✓ Visit with congressional offices annually to keep them up-to-date on 

Refuge activities, management, and issues. 

✓ Develop and maintain a Tewaukon Complex Website. 

✓ Participate in one County fair each year. 

✓ Host a Refuge Open House every year. 

✓ Write 12 news releases for local and State newspapers annually. Conduct 

television and radio spots upon request. 

86 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Cultural Resources 

The majority of the cultural resource information for the Refuge was 

complied in Jackson and Toom’s 1999 report, “Cultural Resources Overview 

Studies of the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge, Sargent County, North 

Dakota and the Waubay National Wildlife Refuge, Day County, South 

Dakota.” Additional information can be found in the report: “Archaeological 

Test Excavations at Lake Tewaukon (325A211): A Protohistoric Occupation 

Site in Southeastern North Dakota” by Thomas W. Haberman, 1978, 

University of North Dakota Historic (A.D. 1780 to present). Sites on the 

Refuge include the Langie family cemetery on the western shore of Lake 

Tewaukon and the campsite of General Sibley’s military troops at Camp 

Parker on July 2 and 3, 1863, on the eastern shore of Parker’s Bay. 

Less than 5 percent of the Refuge has been surveyed for cultural resources. 

The majority of the cultural sites have been documented in gently sloping 

to moderately-well to well-drained soils, especially along lakes. These areas 

offered the best sites for human occupation. Other areas are located on the 

Refuge with similar soil and site characteristics that have not been surveyed 

and could be targeted. 

Recommendations for the cultural resources at the Refuge were compiled 

from the two cultural resource reports mentioned previously. These 

recommendations include a comprehensive evaluation of the Refuge for 

cultural resources, protection of three existing sites from lake shore 

erosion (and needed periodic test excavation monitoring), and nomination 

of several sites for the Natural Register of Historic Places. 

Objectives were developed to protect, inventory, and inform the public about 

Refuge cultural resources. 

R4.8 Objective: Preserve and protect existing cultural resources and 

future discoveries of archaeological sites when they are discovered on 

Refuge lands. 

Strategies: 

✓	 Continue to coordinate cultural resource inventories on construction 

and development sites. Work cooperatively with U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service archaeologist and State Historical Preservation Office prior to 

all proposed actions. 

✓	 Conduct a Class II cultural resource survey (sample inventory of 

project site for distribution and density over a larger area) on 1/3 of 

the Refuge areas that were not previously surveyed. 

✓ Coordinate and develop an agreement with the Sisseton-Wahpeton 

Sioux tribe for any discovery of human remains. 

✓ Provide a protective cabinet to preserve archaeological resources 

recovered in the University of North Dakota survey on the Refuge. 

R4.9 Objective: Increase public awareness of the significance of the 

cultural and archaeological resources located on Tewaukon Refuge 

Complex. 

Strategies:
 

✓ Maintain Tewaukon’s artifact display and interpretive panels.
 

✓ Develop additional interpretive materials for new information and
 

sites. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 87 
Partners
 

The National Wildlife Refuge System recognizes that strong citizen support 

benefits the System. These benefits include the involvement and insight of 

citizen groups in Refuge resource and management issues and decisions, 

which helps managers gain an understanding of public concerns. Partners 

yield support for Refuge activities and programs, raise funds for projects, 

are activists on behalf of wildlife and the Refuge System and provide 

support on important wildlife and natural resource issues. In Fulfilling the 

Promises, the Service identified the need to forge new and nontraditional 

alliances and strengthen existing partnerships with States, Tribes, 

nonprofit organizations and academia to broaden citizen and community 

understanding of and support for the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

A variety of people including but not limited to scientists, birders, anglers, 

hunters, ranchers, farmers, outdoor enthusiasts, and students have a great 

deal of interest in Tewaukon Complex’s management, wildlife species, and 

habitats. This can be evidenced by the number of visitors to the Refuge and 

the partnerships that have been developed which are listed in Appendix I. 

The Complex staff will strive to maintain these partnerships. New partnerships 

will be formed with interested organizations, local civic groups, community 

schools, Federal and State governments, and other civic organizations if 

funding and staff are available. 

R5 Goal: Promote partnerships to preserve, restore, and enhance a 

diverse, healthy, and productive prairie/wetland ecosystem in 

which the Tewaukon Refuge serves as a model and demonstration 

area. 

R5.1 Objective: Create opportunities for new and maintain existing 

partnerships among Federal, State, local agencies, organizations, 

schools, corporations, communities, and private landowners to 

promote the understanding and conservation of ecosystem and Refuge 

resources, activities, and management. 

Strategies: 

✓ Maintain coordination with the ND Game and Fish Department to 

conserve, protect, and manage lands for wildlife. 

✓	 Work with the Bureau of Reclamation and area landowners on the 

Kraft Slough National Wildlife Refuge acquisition project. Once the 

land is transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, develop a 

management plan for the area. 

✓	 Implement and support the goals and objectives of the Drift Prairie 

Wetland Enhancement Project through the North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act. 

✓	 Continue to support and coordinate the Refuge Fishing Tournament each 

year with the Tewaukon Rod and Gun Club and the Cogswell Gun Club. 

✓	 Continue to support and coordinate the Tewaukon Field Days each 

year with the ND Extension Service, Tewaukon Rod and Gun Club, 

the Cogswell Gun Club, and local 4-H groups. 

✓	 Identify and promote new partnerships to support restoration, 

protection, enhancement, and preservation of tallgrass prairie and its 

flora and fauna. 

88 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Volunteer Program 

The 1998 Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act 

promotes understanding and conservation of fish, wildlife and plants, and 

cultural and historical resources of the Refuge. The purposes of the Act are 

to 1) encourage the use of volunteers to assist in the management of 

refuges; 2) to facilitate partnerships between the Refuge and nonfederal 

entities; 3) to promote public awareness of the resources of the Refuge and 

public participation in the conservation of the resources; and 4) to 

encourage donations and other contributions. 

R5.2 Objective: Foster a volunteer program that supports Complex 

goals and objectives and provides a quality experience for volunteers. 

Strategies:
 

✓ Utilize a variety of sources to recruit volunteers with diverse experiences.
 

✓ Provide room and board for volunteers while they are working at the
 

Complex. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 89 
Tewaukon Wetland Management District 

Purpose 

The purpose for the Tewaukon Wetland Management District is determined 

by the legislation that authorized Waterfowl Production Area and wetland 

easement acquisition. Lands were acquired primarily to benefit migratory 

birds. 

■	 For District lands acquired under the Public Law 85-585, dated August 

1, 1958, the purpose of the acquisition is to assure the continued 

availability of habitat capable of supporting migratory bird populations 

at desired levels. 

■	 For District lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Tax, 16 U.S.C. § 718, as amended, for the 

purpose: “...as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “...all of the 

provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act] ... except the 

inviolate sanctuary provisions ...” 16 U.S.C. § 718© (Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp Tax). 

Since March of 1996, North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) 

funds have been used to acquire grassland easements in the three County 

Tewaukon District. Grassland easements are acquired only with companion 

wetland easements. 

■	 The North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Public Law 101-233 ­

December 13, 1989, as amended in 1990, 1994, and 1998 is an Act to 

conserve North American wetland ecosystems and waterfowl and 

other migratory birds and fish and wildlife that depend upon such 

habitats. 

Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) conservation easements have also 

been transferred to the Complex for administration. 

■	 Conservation easements are executed by quitclaim deed through the 

State Executive Director of the Farm Service Agency, its successors or 

assigns, for the United States Department of Agriculture. The 

easements are under the authority and in furtherance of the provisions 

of Federal law, including sections 331 and 335 of the Consolidated Farm 

and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981, 1985), Executive Order 

11990 providing for the protection of wetlands, and Executive Order 

1198 providing for the management of floodplains, and section 1314 of 

the Food Security Act of 1985 authorizing the Farmers Home 

Administration to grant easements for conservation purposes. 

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

reviewed past national, regional, and Complex planning documents and 

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

team developed the following District vision statement. 

Vision 

The Tewaukon Wetland Management District will be preserved, 

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

ecosystem capable of supporting habitat for migratory birds and other 

native wildlife for the benefit of present and future generations. The 

District will provide a learning environment where a diversity of 

tallgrass prairie, wetlands, plants, wildlife, and natural processes can 

be found. Provide opportunities where people can enjoy wildlife 

associated recreation. 

90 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Description of the District 

The Tewaukon Wetland Management District is comprised of over 14,000 

acres of fee Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA) (Map 2), 35,000 acres of 

wetland easements, over 10,000 acres of grassland easements, and 112 

wetland and 45 grassland acres in FmHA easements in Ransom, Sargent, and 

Richland Counties. 

Waterfowl Production Areas 

The majority of Waterfowl Production Areas in the Tewaukon Wetland 

Management District were purchased in the 1960s. WPAs are owned in fee title 

by the Service. Historically, acquisition of WPAs focused on larger 

semipermanent wetlands, and often, very little associated upland was included in 

the tract. As grassland cover was converted to cropland, the Service recognized 

the importance of purchasing uplands adjacent to wetlands for waterfowl 

production. When considering a WPA purchase from willing sellers, the Service 

ranks sites with native prairie, rare wildlife and plant species, a diversity of 

temporary and semipermanent wetlands, and areas near or adjacent the Refuge 

or another WPA as higher priorities for acquisition. Currently, the Service 

purchases on average one WPA in this District every three years. 

Wetland Easements 

The Small Wetlands Acquisition Program was authorized by Congress in 1958 

by an amendment to the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

Act. The purpose of the program is to ensure long-term protection of 

waterfowl breeding habitat, primarily on wetlands in the Prairie Pothole 

Region of the United States. Wetland easements are perpetual and prohibit 

filling, leveling, draining, and burning of wetlands under easement. 

Wetland easements are a real property interest the Service has purchased 

from a willing landowner and are a permanent fixture to the land title. The 

land remains in private ownership. Since 1962, when the Wetlands Program 

began, the Service has acquired a perpetual real property interest in more than 

two million wetland acres for waterfowl production in the Great Plains states. 

Grassland Easements 

Conversion of grasslands to cropland has generated a need for upland 

habitat protection adjacent to wetlands. The loss of upland nesting cover 

and plant foods have reduced the value and productivity of wetlands for 

nesting waterfowl and their broods, and other migratory birds and wildlife. 

Grassland easements, like wetland easements, are perpetual easements 

that protect both existing and restored grasslands. The purposes of the 

perpetual grassland easement program are: to improve and protect the 

water quality of wetlands, maintain upland nesting habitat for ground 

nesting birds, protect highly erodible soils, and provide an alternative to 

the purchase of uplands in fee title, leaving land in private ownership. 

Grassland easements are real property interests that the Service 

purchases from landowners to prohibit any alteration of permanent 

grassland cover including cropland conversion or development, and haying 

or mowing until after July 15. Grazing is not prohibited or regulated under 

the grassland easement. Funding for grassland easements comes from a 

variety of sources including Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation 

Stamp Act (with Governor approval), NAWCA grants, and Land and Water 

Conservation Funds. 

ND FmHA Conservation Easements 

These Conservation Easements were developed by the United States 

Congress under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 

1985 to help farmers reduce their debt load on farmland and to protect 

natural resources. The easement prohibits farming, mowing, haying, 

burning, filling, dumping, wood cutting, draining, or altering vegetation 

(includes grazing) on easement lands. Some wetlands on FmHA tracts 

have less restrictive easements that only prohibit draining, filling, leveling, 

or burning. Currently, the Tewaukon District has six FmHA conservation 

easements. Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 91 
Waterfowl Production Areas
 

Management on fee WPAs is limited by funding, staff time, and the availability of 

cooperators. To efficiently maximize budgets and time, the planning team divided 

the WPAs into three priority levels: high, moderate, or low. The criteria used to 

determine a WPA’s ranking was size of the tract, potential waterfowl pair 

densities shown on the Thunderstorm Map (See Map 13), and those with 

unique resources (i.e., tallgrass prairie, rare plants, and wildlife). A 

breakout of the priority level criteria for WPAs is as follows: 

High Priority Level WPAs 

■	 Over 160 acres in size 

■	 Attract ducks 97 to 117 pairs/square mile (red) or 80 to 97 (yellow) on 

the Thunderstorm Map (Map 13) 

■	 Has unique resources (tallgrass prairie areas) 

Moderate Priority Level WPAs 

■	 Between 100 to 160 acres in size 

■	 Attract ducks 54 to 79 pairs/square mile (dark green); 37 to 53 pairs/ 

square mile (light green) on Thunderstorm Map (Map 13) 

■	 Unique resources (native prairie) 

Low Priority Level WPAs 

■	 Under 100 acres in size 

■	 Attract ducks 36 pairs/square mile (grey) to anything below 18 pairs/ 

square mile (blue) on Thunderstorm Map (Map 13) 

■	 Access and management potential low 

All Tewaukon District WPAs were placed in these three priority levels and 

are listed in Appendix L and shown on Map 14. 

Some management and activities would continue on all of the WPAs 

regardless of their priority levels. Those include: 

■	 All WPAs will be open to hunting, fishing, and trapping according to 

North Dakota State regulations. All other public activities will require 

a Special Use Permit and will be evaluated to determine if they are 

compatible with District purposes. 

■	 All border fences and signs will be maintained. 

■	 Weed control will continue on all tracts. 

■	 All WPAs would continue to receive law enforcement protection of 

resources and public safety. 

■	 Roadside mowing will be done by October 1 according to State 

regulations. 

The differences in habitat management for each of the priority levels are 

outlined in the objectives. 

Many of the District habitat management, wildlife, and public use goals 

and objectives are similar to Refuge goals and objectives. Much of the 

supporting text for these goals and objectives is also similar. Supporting 

text and historical background for each section can be found in the Refuge 

portion of the Plan unless they are specific to the District. 

92 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 85 
94 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 87 
96 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Habitat Management 

D1 Goal: Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity of 

native flora, other grasslands, and wetlands within the 

tallgrass prairie wetland ecosystem. 

Grasslands 

Native Prairie 

Approximately 3,100 acres of native prairie are scattered on various 

Waterfowl Production Areas. Many of these areas were inaccessible for 

agriculture because they are sandy, rocky, or wet. Historically, management of 

these areas has consisted of some haying and limited grazing and fire. 

Disturbance events occurred infrequently leaving the majority of the 

native prairie tracts in a degraded condition. Nonnative plants such as 

smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, leafy spurge, Canada thistle, Russian 

olive trees, and sweet clover have invaded the sites. 

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

periodic disturbance (ND Ecological Services Botanist, Kathy Martin 

1993; Barbour et al. 1987; Duebbert et al. 1981). See Refuge section on 

native prairie for further discussion. 

Several objectives were developed by the planning team to manage and 

preserve native prairie sites. 

D1.1 Objective: Preserve, restore, and enhance diverse native floral 

communities so that greater than 75 percent of the plant species 

composition is composed of climax species on all native tallgrass 

prairie tracts on WPAs. (Refer to Heidel’s Classification 1986 of floral 

communities of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem and desired indicator 

species in the Native Prairie Refuge Section.) 

Strategy:
 

✓ Develop a Monitoring Plan for native prairie on high priority level
 

WPAs to determine species composition and relative abundance. 

“The most remarkable features of this 

region are the intervals of level 

prairie....where the horizon is as 

unbroken as that of a calm seas...the 

long grass...bending gracefully to the 

passing breeze as it sweeps along 

the plain, gives the ideas of waves, 

and the solitary horseman on the 

horizon is so indistinctly seen as to 

complete the picture by the suggestion 

of a sail...” 

- John Lambert, topographer, report to 

Governor Stevens on a expedition from the 

Mississippi River to the Columbia River. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 97 
Enhancing Native Prairie 

Research outlined under the native prairie section in the Refuge portion of 

the CCP (See Refuge Habitat Grassland Section for more information) 

helped the planning team develop the next objective that addresses the 

management of contiguous blocks of grassland cover in the District for the 

benefit of grassland nesting migratory birds and prairie butterflies. Three 

sites were chosen to focus our grassland management. These sites were 

selected because they contained over 160 acres of upland habitat, have 

existing native prairie, were WPAs in the high priority level, had existing 

or potential for populations of native prairie butterflies, and had access for 

management. The tree rows on the Gunness and Gainor WPAs are at the 

fringes of the grasslands and, at this time, no plans exist to remove them. 

Several tree rows and individual trees exist on the Hartleben WPA. A unit 

of 160 acres or greater will be selected and, for now, only trees from this 

area will be removed. Under management, these prairie pieces should 

support a diversity of flowering plants needed by prairie dependent 

butterflies, one of our indicator species. If this management approach 

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

funds and staff become available, the management will be expanded to 

additional high priority level WPAs in the District. 

D1.2 Objective: Manage three WPAs as Prairie Focus Areas (Hartleben/ 

Aaser WPA, Gainor WPA, and the Gunness WPA) (Map 14): 1) to 

achieve an area of contiguous grassland (greater or equal to 160 acres) 

that is greater than 50 meters from woody vegetation (greater than 1 

meter tall); 2) contain a variety of vegetative heights on the area with 

20 percent in each of the following categories: 0 to 10 cm; 10 to 20 cm; 

20 to 30 cm; 30 to 60 cm; greater than 60 cm; 3) to increase native floral 

diversity so that greater than 75 percent of the vegetative composition 

is composed of indicator species of the dry mesic tallgrass, central 

mesic tallgrass prairie, wet prairie, mesic tallgrass prairie climax 

communities (Heidel 1986). 

Strategies: 

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

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

vegetation greater than 1 m tall on the three WPAs. Include specific 

management details of these areas in a step-down management plan. 

✓ Develop a detailed Monitoring Plan for the three WPAs. 

✓ Annually evaluate the vegetation using methods and techniques 

developed in the Monitoring Plan for the three WPAs and apply 

appropriate management tools (prescribed burning, mowing, grazing, 

interseeding, chemical treatment, etc.,) as appropriate to provide the 

limiting habitat requirements for migratory grassland birds and rare 

butterflies. 

98 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Protecting Native Prairie 

Historically, an estimated 4,750,000 acres of tallgrass prairie was found in 

North Dakota. Currently, only 275,000 acres of tallgrass prairie remain, 

which is a 99 percent decline. An estimated 118,700 acres still remain in the 

Tewaukon District. The U.S. Forest Service manages 70,000 acres of land 

as the Sheyenne National Grasslands, the largest contiguous tract of native 

prairie (approximately 50,000 acres) in the District. The Service owns in 

fee title approximately 3,700 acres of native prairie in Ransom, Sargent, 

and Richland counties, and the Nature Conservancy owns 1,100 acres of 

native prairie in Ransom county. The remaining 60,900 acres are 

predominately in private ownership and have been identified in the 1998 

report from the North Dakota Natural Heritage Program survey of 

tallgrass prairie in Sargent, Ransom, and Richland Counties. Currently, 

the Service has protected over 10,000 acres of tallgrass prairie through 

grassland easements from willing sellers with two NAWCA grants. 

Priority under NAWCA grants is given to native prairie tracts with good 

wetland complexes or unique and rare resources. Landowner demand for 

grassland easements has been high and a need exists for more funding. 

Currently, a Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Project is being considered by the 

Service for funding of grassland easements and fee title acquisition 

through the Land and Water Conservation Act. This project includes the 

tallgrass prairie region in both North and South Dakota. The Dakota 

Tallgrass Prairie Project, described in the Dakota Tallgrass Prairie 

Environmental Assessment, targets tallgrass prairie remnants that do not 

have high densities of associated wetlands. 

D1.3 Objective: Through a combination of voluntary partnerships, 

easements, and fee title land acquisition, preserve the remaining 

estimated 60,900 acres of existing native prairie tracts within the 

tallgrass prairie ecosystem to provide nesting areas for grassland 

nesting birds and protection for unique and rare plant and animal 

communities. 

Strategies:
 

✓ Work cooperatively with the ND Heritage Program to identify
 

remaining tracts of native prairie within the Red River Watershed. 

✓ Work cooperatively with County commissioners to improve their 

recommendations to the Governor for State approval of fee title 

purchases of grassland habitat from willing sellers. 

✓ Investigate and develop new funding sources (i.e., Dakota Tallgrass 

Prairie Project) for fee title and easement purchases. An estimated $5 

million for easement offers will be needed to accomplish this objective. 

Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, 16USC 

668dd, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has the authority to enforce the 

provisions of grassland easements (no conversion of grassland cover and no 

haying or mowing before July 15). The following objective was developed 

to ensure that grassland easement interests are protected. 

D1.4 Objective: Protect all grassland easement real property interests 

from development or conversion in Ransom, Richland, and Sargent 

Counties. 

Strategies:
 

✓ Annually monitor all grassland easement tracts for violations and work
 

with landowners to correct any violations. 

✓ Work cooperatively with landowners to develop grassland management 

plans and guidelines and provide technical assistance for grassland 

issues to promote healthier grasslands. 

“Within one human lifetime, the prairies 

have passed from wilderness to become 

the most altered habitat in this country 

and one of the most disturbed, ecologically 

simplified and over-exploited regions in 

the world. The essence of what we risk 

losing when the grasslands are 

destroyed is not a species here or a 

species there, but a quality of life, the 

largeness and wildness that made this 

country remarkable.” 

- Adrian Forsyth, Ecologist 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 99 
Introduced/Planted Cover 

Dense Nesting Cover 

The District has approximately 1,800 acres in dense nesting cover (DNC) 

on WPAs. Historically, haying has been the predominate management tool 

to maintain the fields. After 10 to 15 years, the fields have been broken up 

and farmed for approximately three years, then replanted. The following 

objectives have been developed to manage these sites. 

D1.5 Objective: Maintain 30 percent of DNC fields on High Management 

Priority WPAs and 10 percent on Moderate Management Priority WPAs 

with 7.87 inches (2 decimeters) observation obscurity to provide 

optimal nesting habitat for waterfowl. 

Strategy: 

✓ Develop a plan for DNC fields in the step-down Monitoring Plan to 

annually evaluate DNC fields and then apply management tools 

(prescribed burning, haying, farming, grazing, or interseeding) as 

appropriate. 

Planted Cover 

There are approximately 1,800 acres of nonnative grass (smooth brome and 

Kentucky bluegrass), 82 acres of cropland, and 1,900 acres of warm seeded 

native grass (3 to 4 species) on the District. The majority of the cropland is 

in the form of food plots maintained by partners under the Adopt-A-WPA 

program on the Klefstad, Asche, and Smith WPAs. These fields will be 

converted to a more diverse native plant community as opportunity and 

funding become available. 

D1.6 Objective: Convert 400 acres of tame grass, cropland, and warm 

season native grass plantings on High Management Priority WPAs 

and 150 acres of Moderate Management Priority WPA fields to a 

diverse native floral community to develop larger contiguous blocks 

for migratory bird species and other prairie wildlife. 

Strategy: 

✓ Develop site specific restoration plans, funding sources, and a 

Monitoring Plan. Then begin restoration efforts. Apply management 

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

chemical treatment, etc.,) where appropriate. 

100 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Wetlands 

Very little data has been collected on WPA wetlands. A variety of 

agricultural operations (cultivation, herbicide application, etc.,) take place 

on sites that are hydrologically related to WPA wetlands. Without baseline 

data, it is difficult to determine if these activities pose any threats to 

wetlands. In addition, water management projects and irrigation in the 

vicinity of WPAs may be affecting the hydrology of these wetlands. 

The following objective was developed to help managers evaluate the 

impacts activities outside WPAs have on wetlands. 

D1.7 Objective: Protect the quality and health of all prairie wetlands 

to preserve their natural productivity, longevity, and function on WPAs. 

Strategy: 

✓ Gather baseline information on existing wetland conditions on 10 

percent of the High priority WPA wetlands, determine monitoring 

parameters, and identify external threats. 

Water Rights 

The only water control structure located on a Waterfowl Production Area 

is on the Gainor WPA in Sargent County. The structure is located adjacent 

to a legal drain that runs through the northern section of the WPA. The 

structure is used to hold water back in the spring in a large wetland. 

Currently, no State recognized water rights exist for Waterfowl Production 

Areas. 

D1.8 Objective: Clarify the legal mechanism to acquire water rights on 

the Gainor WPA. 

Protecting Wetlands 

It is estimated that approximately 60 percent of the original wetland 

acreage has been drained in North Dakota (Tiner 1984). The primary 

drainage comes from surface ditches constructed to dry land out for 

agricultural production (Tiner 1984). Another threat to wetlands is the 

gradual siltation of basins caused by soil erosion from adjacent cropland 

and cultivation of entire wetlands (Kantrud et al. 1989). Herbicide and 

insecticide use also has the potential to highly impact wetland-dependent 

wildlife populations by eliminating food and cover (Hudson et al. 1984; Hill 

and Camardese 1986). Despite the impacts to wetlands that are caused by 

agricultural production, wetlands in farm fields are important to wetlanddependent wildlife. Given this background, the following objectives were 

developed for wetland acquisition. Priority tracts for wetland acquisition 

(fee title) will include parcels of at least 80 acres of uplands, tracts adjacent 

to WPAs, and sites with a variety of temporary and seasonal wetlands. 

D1.9 Objective: Protect an average of 100 acres/year of wetland habitat 

through easements or fee title purchase from willing sellers for 

waterfowl and other migratory birds. 

Strategies:
 

✓ Identify high priority tracts in the District using the Thunderstorm
 

map and other tools. 

✓ Work cooperatively with County commissioners to improve their 

recommendations to the Governor for State approval of fee title 

purchases of wetland habitat and associated uplands from willing 

sellers. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 101 
Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, 16USC 

668dd, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has the authority to enforce the 

provisions of wetland easements (draining, filling, leveling, or burning of 

wetlands). This objective discusses the Service’s intention to protect the 

real property interest that was acquired when the easements were purchased. 

D1.10 Objective: Protect all wetland easement real property interests 

from development, draining or conversion in Ransom, Richland, and 

Sargent Counties. 

Strategies: 

✓ Annually monitor, through aerial and ground checks, all wetland 

easements for violations. 

✓ Work cooperatively with landowners to correct drain, fill, and burning 

violations. 

✓ Evaluate the impacts of water management and irrigation projects 

affecting surface and groundwater on easement wetlands. 

Protecting Fens 

A fen, also called an alkaline bog, is a wetland primarily composed of organic 

soil material (peat or muck) that takes thousands of years to develop. Surface 

water is sometimes lacking although the bottom soils are saturated by alkaline 

groundwater seepage (Stewart and Kantrud 1972). Fens usually have a pH of 

4.0 - 7.5 and are dominated by grasses, especially sedges (Crum 1988). Common 

plant species found in fens are Carex aquatilis (sedge), northern reedgrass, broadleaved cattail, softstem bulrush, hoary willow, and fowl mannagrass (Stewart 

and Kantrud 1972). Fens are extremely rare and occupy less than 1 percent of 

the wetlands in the nation and are usually small in size. No fens are identified 

on District lands. Since these wetland types are so rare, the following 

objective was developed to provide protection for these sites. 

D1.11 Objective: Identify and protect existing fens in the District through 

easements, fee title purchases from willing sellers, and cooperative 

agreements with private landowners. 

Strategy: 

✓	 Work cooperatively with the ND Heritage Program, other interested groups 

or individuals and landowners to identify and protect existing fens in the 

District. 

Riparian Zones 

Riparian zones can be described as that portion of the land that is located adjacent 

to a stream, river, or body of water. The band of vegetation that grows in the 

riparian zone is influenced by the presence of water in the channel. Three major 

rivers are in the District: the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, and the 

Sheyenne River. Several smaller creeks and natural drainages are associated with 

these Rivers. Riparian vegetation varies along these areas from tall cottonwood 

trees to willows and grasses. Most of the riparian zones in southeast North Dakota 

are farmed to the river banks, heavily grazed, or annually hayed. These practices 

generally degrade water quality and native aquatic resources including fish, 

reptiles, amphibians, birds, mollusks, and invertebrates. Since riparian sites are 

known to be diverse in wildlife species and generally support higher population 

densities than surrounding uplands, the following objective was developed. 

D1.12 Objective: Improve water quality and native aquatic resources 

within riparian zones of the Red River of the North Watershed. 

Strategies: 

✓	 Using existing USDA programs and other partner resources, develop 

opportunities under the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and 

NAWCA grants to establish vegetative riparian zones on 5 percent of 

land along rivers and tributaries in the Red River Watershed. 

✓	 Protect existing vegetation along rivers and tributaries in the Red River 

Watershed by working cooperatively with USDA, other agencies, 

organizations, and private landowners. 

102 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Nonnative Plant Management 

See Refuge Nonnative Plant Management Section for more information 

(Objective R1.10). 

Prescribed Burning and Wildfires 

See Refuge Prescribed Burning and Wildfire Section for more information 

(Objective R1.11 and R1.12). 

Wildlife 

D2 Goal: Preserve, restore, and enhance the diversity and abundance 

of migratory birds and other native wildlife with emphasis on 

waterfowl, grassland, and wetland-dependent birds. 

Waterfowl 

In 1985 and 1986, nest searches on five WPAs in the District were conducted. 

Three of the WPAs were trapped for predators during 1985 and two were not 

trapped. The average nesting success for the two WPAs that were not trapped was 

17 percent (Mayfield). The three WPAs that were trapped had a nesting success 

of 33 percent (Mayfield). A nesting success of approximately 15 to 20 

percent is suggested for stable duck populations of the five most common 

species of dabbling ducks (Cowardin et al. 1985, Greenwood 1986, Klett et 

al. 1988). The WPAs in the District are predominately surrounded by 

cropland, like islands of habitat in a sea of black dirt. In these types of 

severely altered landscapes, intensive management (such as predator 

control) might be the only way to increase nest success (Clark and Nudds 

1991, Nudds and Clark, 1992). Using tools like the Thunderstorm Map 

(Map 13), which shows the correlation between duck pairs/square mile and 

wetland density, seven Waterfowl Production Areas that had the highest 

potential to attract ducks were chosen as areas to concentrate our most 

intensive management efforts. 

D2.1 Objective: Maintain an average duck nesting success of at least 30 

percent Mayfield on seven WPA complexes in the District (Evanson/ 

Anderson, Evanson, Nelson/Klefstad, Palensky/Wyum/Kaske, Smith/ 

Tanner/Buckmiller, Englevale Slough, and Weaver/Coit) for waterfowl 

production (Map 14). 

Strategies: 

✓	 When the average nesting success falls below 30 percent (Mayfield) 

and wetland conditions are favorable, initiate predator control in the 

spring prior to the waterfowl nesting season, for approximately 2 to 3 

weeks. 

✓	 Work cooperatively with Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, local 

sportsmen, and private landowners to fund and implement a predator 

control program on these WPA complexes. 

✓ If funded, annually monitor duck nesting success using standard nest 

dragging techniques for the seven WPA complexes. 

✓ Maintain existing predator fences. 

Migratory Birds 

For more information, see discussion on priority management areas for 

grassland migratory birds and butterflies in Refuge Habitat Grassland 

Section. 

D2.2 Objective: Monitor relative abundance and breeding status of four 

tallgrass prairie indicator bird species on the three WPAs as identified 

for grassland bird management and to provide feedback and information to 

the tallgrass prairie habitat management approach. 

Strategy: 

✓	 Develop a step-down Monitoring Plan to address changes over time in 

relative abundance on a local scale and documentation of breeding of 

the four indicator species (northern harrier, upland sandpiper, 

bobolink, and grasshopper sparrow) on the three WPAs (Map 14). 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 103 
Migratory Bird Disease Outbreaks 

The first large disease outbreak in the Tewaukon District occurred in April 

1990 near the town of Sheldon in Ransom County. Approximately 970 birds 

were collected from a large privately-owned wetland (160 acres in size) and 

from wetlands within a five mile radius. The majority of dead birds were snow 

geese. About six ducks and one Canada goose were also collected. The 

National Wildlife Health Center was never able to determine the cause of 

death although necrotic enteritis was suspected. Another large die-off of 

snow geese occurred in November 1990 on Kraft Slough in Sargent County. A 

total of 421 snow geese and one mallard were collected. In this incidence, 

the National Wildlife Health Center confirmed necrotic enteritis as the 

cause of the die-off. 

In the fall of 1998, another disease outbreak occurred on the District. This 

outbreak occurred in some large wetlands in western Richland County and 

the Kraft Slough area in western Sargent County. Several sites were monitored, 

and birds were collected from each of the areas and sent to the National 

Wildlife Health Center. The total number of dead birds for all the sites was 

3,873. A wide variety of birds were affected including American coots 

(1,450) and ducks, both divers and dabblers (1,530). The remaining number 

included shorebirds, grebes, gulls, egrets, cormorants, blackbirds, and 

rails. Botulism was determined by the National Wildlife Health Center to 

be the cause of death. Another botulism die-off occurred on the same 

wetlands in 1999. Coots and ducks were the predominate species found. 

Environmental conditions, dropping water levels, exposed mud flats, and 

hot temperatures provided favorable conditions for botulism. 

Procedures for attempting to contain migratory bird disease outbreaks are 

similar for most of the diseases encountered on the District. These 

procedures include monitoring wetlands for dead or dying birds, immediate 

collection of dead birds, submitting specimens to the National Wildlife 

Health Center, and safe and proper disposal of the remaining carcasses. 

Promptly removing dead and dying birds from the disease outbreak area 

decreases the exposure that other birds and animals have to the carcasses 

and reduces the spread of the disease. 

D2.3 Objective: Respond to and contain migratory bird disease outbreaks 

by applying safe and proper procedures as recommended by National 

Wildlife Health Center protocol. 

Strategies:
 

✓ Submit carcasses to the National Wildlife Health Center for evaluation
 

and determination of cause of death. 

✓ Properly follow disease management procedures to limit impacts to 

migratory bird populations. 

104 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Native Resident Wildlife 

Mammals 

Little is known about the native mammals on Waterfowl Production Areas. 

White-tailed deer use many of the WPAs in the District. Some of the other 

mammals include beaver, muskrat, mink, woodchuck, Franklin’s ground 

squirrel, thirteen-lined ground squirrel, cottontail rabbit, white-tailed 

jackrabbit, badger, raccoon, and striped skunk. Not much is known about 

the variety of weasels, bats, shrews, mice, voles, and pocket gophers on 

District lands. No baseline surveys have been conducted for small 

mammals. The following objective was developed to collect baseline data 

that will enable managers to better manage and assess threats to wildlife 

resources. 

D2.4 Objective: Develop a Monitoring Plan to gather baseline data on 

small mammals on the following high priority WPAs: Hartleben WPA 

Complex; Gunness WPA; Biggs/Berndt WPA; Weaver/Coit; and Krause 

WPA (Sargent County) (Map 14). 

Upland Game Birds 

One of the resident (nonmigratory) native birds on the District is the 

sharp-tailed grouse. Prior to 1900, this species was common throughout the 

State (Coues 1878, Johnson 1964, Judd 1892). Currently, sharp-tailed 

grouse are found predominately in the mixed-grass prairie that is relatively 

undisturbed by excessive grazing or farming (Stewart 1975). Sharp-tailed 

grouse group in the spring on communal dancing grounds called leks. No 

leks are currently known to occur on Service lands in the Tewaukon 

District. Occasionally birds have been observed on the Ransom County 

Waterfowl Production Areas. No prairie chickens are known to occur on 

District lands. See Refuge Resident Native Wildlife Section for discussion 

on prairie chickens. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Reports of reptile and amphibian species in the District include work by 

Hoberg and Gause (1992). Four species of toads (great plains, American, 

Canadian, and Woodhouse’s) and three species of frogs (northern leopard, 

wood frog, and western chorus) have been documented in the District 

(Hoberg and Gause 1992). Hoberg and Gause (1992) reported specimens of 

the tiger salamander, mudpuppy (Ransom County), northern prairie skink, 

western painted turtle, common snapping turtle, plains garter snake, and 

western hognose snake. Red-bellied snakes have been observed by the 

Tewaukon staff on the Hartleben WPA. 

D2.5 Objective: Develop a Monitoring Plan to gather baseline data on 

amphibians and reptiles on the following high priority WPAs: Hartleben 

WPA Complex; Gunness WPA; Biggs/Berndt WPA; Weaver/Coit; and 

Krause WPA (Sargent County) (Map 14). 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 105 
Fish 

Several fish surveys have been conducted in the Sheyenne River and the 

Red River of the North. The earliest survey was in 1892 by A.J. Woolman in 

both of these rivers. Since that time, researchers, the North Dakota Game 

and Fish Department, the North Dakota Department of Health, North 

Dakota State University Department of Zoology, and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service have conducted fish surveys in one or both of these rivers. From 

1892 to 1994, 84 species of fish (77 considered native) were reported from 

the Red River of the North basin (Koel 1997). The majority of fish (34 

percent) were in the Cyprinidae family (includes shiners, dace, chubs and 

minnows), second were the Percidae family (darters, perch and walleye) 

(Koel 1997). Woolman (1896) reported longnose gar and blacknose shiner in 

the Red River of the North Watershed. These two species were not picked 

up in any subsequent surveys. Banded killifish have been collected before 

1892 from the Sheyenne River but have not been collected since (Koel 1997). 

The greater redhorse, in the sucker family, has been found in the Red River of 

the North and the lower Sheyenne River but no recent observations have 

been made (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). 

During high water years, a few large wetlands on Waterfowl Production 

Areas provide some temporary fish habitat (Englevale Slough, Wollitz, and 

Hartleben WPAs). Most of these fish populations would be comprised 

primarily of fathead minnows. Other fish would most likely come from 

illegal introductions or movement of fish during high water years. 

The primary purpose of WPAs is to benefit waterfowl. Recent research 

indicates that fish compete directly with ducklings for invertebrate food 

sources. Hill et al. (1987) reported that mallard ducklings feeding in lakes 

with high densities of fish had low densities of aquatic invertebrates, 

survived at lower rates than those feeding in areas with low densities of 

fish. Brood sizes also appeared to increase following removal of fish from 

wetlands where ducklings were foraging (Giles 1994). 

The planning team did not develop specific management objectives for 

native stream fish or other native fish as no streams occur on District 

Service lands. No fish introductions are planned for larger wetlands on 

WPAs because they provide only temporary fish habitat and direct 

competition for food occurs between fish and ducklings. 

Nonnative Wildlife 

For further information on the Service’s policy on nonnative wildlife, see 

the Refuge Wildlife Nonnative Section. 

D2.6 Objective: Restrict the spread of existing and additional 

nonnative animal species (carp, house sparrows, feral dogs and cats) 

that adversely impact native species. 

Strategies:
 

✓ Gather existing information and promote additional research on management
 

techniques and affects of nonnative species on native flora and fauna. 

✓ Apply, when appropriate, management tools (including lethal and 

nonlethal methods and habitat manipulation) that eliminate or reduce 

the expansion of nonnative animal species. 

Other nonnative species, like the ring-necked pheasant, are not known to 

adversely impact District native species. For more discussion see Refuge 

Nonnative Wildlife Section 

D2.7 Objective: Refrain from carrying out management activities that 

specifically encourage population expansion of existing introductions 

(pheasants, gray partridge) to the detriment of native species. 

106 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Endangered Species 

D3 Goal: Contribute to the preservation and restoration of endangered, 

threatened, rare, and unique flora and fauna that occur or 

have historically occurred in the District. 

With the delisting of the peregrine falcon from the Federal Endangered 

Species List, only the federally threatened bald eagle and western prairie 

fringed orchid are known to occur or have been observed on the Tewaukon 

WMD. Bald eagles are regularly sighted during the spring and fall migration 

periods. Two endangered species, whooping cranes and gray wolves, 

historically occurred in the District. Occasionally, these species are 

reported in the District today. 

Whooping Cranes 

Whooping cranes historically nested in North Dakota. Records of whooping 

crane nests and young birds indicate that breeding birds once occurred 

locally on the southern Drift Plains, but were more common in the central 

and northeastern region (Stewart 1975). Whooping cranes more than likely 

migrated through the District. In June 1999, four whooping cranes were 

sighted in the Havana area by Refuge staff (visual observation documented 

by Siekaniec 1999). The planning team did not develop management 

objectives for whooping cranes since they are only rare migratory visitors 

to the District. 

Gray Wolves 

Historically, gray wolves were found throughout North Dakota and were 

known as plains wolves or buffalo wolves (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 1995). 

Gray wolves were extirpated from North Dakota through shooting, trapping, 

and poisoning but occasional sightings have been reported in 1985, 1990, and 

1991. The planning team did not develop management objectives for gray 

wolves as they have not been regularly documented on the District. 

Bald Eagles 

In 1999 and 2000, two bald eagle nesting attempts were documented on 

private land in the District. The planning team did not develop management 

objectives for bald eagles since they are primarily migratory visitors and 

no nesting has occurred on Service lands in the District. 

“Extinction of species, the silent crisis 

of our time, diminishes our world...and 

a commitment to the preservation of 

species diversity is fundamental to 

an optimistic view of the future of 

our own species.” 

- Harrison B. Tordoff, 1988, Minnesota’s
 

Endangered Flora and Fauna
 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 107 
Western Prairie Fringed Orchid, Cindie Brunner 

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid 

The western prairie fringed orchid is a perennial plant of the North American 

tallgrass prairie and is found in native, calcareous prairies and sedge meadows. 

The western prairie fringed orchid was listed as a threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act in 1989. Approximately 90 percent of known 

western prairie fringed orchids in the United States occur in the Red River 

Valley of North Dakota and Minnesota. Currently, the largest population 

exists on the Sheyenne National Grasslands in Ransom and Richland 

Counties. The remaining plants are found on adjacent private land. Some 

of these areas are protected by Service grassland easements. No known 

populations of western prairie fringed orchids exist on Waterfowl Production 

Areas. The primary cause of the orchid’s decline was conversion of prairie 

to cropland. Hydrologic changes that drawdown or contaminate the water 

table may also adversely affect the species (Fish and Wildlife Service 

Recovery Plan 1996). The Federal status of this plant requires the Service 

to develop strategies for recovery. The following objectives were developed 

because prairie fringed orchids are a federally listed threatened species. 

Current funding is available in two NAWCA grants to protect orchid 

habitat and the largest populations of these plants are found in Tewaukon 

District counties. 

D3.1 Objective: Work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological 

Services Division, Forest Service, and private landowners with existing 

populations of western prairie fringed orchids to protect and enhance 

orchid habitat. 

Strategies:
 

✓ Work with the ND Heritage Program to identify existing and historical
 

populations of orchids on private land. 

✓ Work cooperatively with private landowners to develop conservation 

plans (including fire, weed control, haying and mowing rotations, and 

grazing systems) to maintain self-sustaining orchid populations on 

private land. 

✓ Work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species 

Division to implement actions needed in the orchid recovery plan. 

✓ Protect 300 acres of orchid habitat through grassland easements or fee 

title purchase from willing sellers. 

108 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern 

In 1995, the Fish and Wildlife Service identified migratory nongame birds 

that were of management concern across the United States (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1995). These species are of concern because of documented 

or apparent population declines, small or restricted populations or 

dependence on restricted or vulnerable habitats. The bird species that 

occur or may occur on the Tewaukon District include: (*Nest on the District) 

Black tern * 

Ferruginous hawk 

Northern harrier * 

Yellow rail 

Upland sandpiper * 

Olive-sided flycatcher 

Sedge wren * 

Dickcissel 

s sparrow'Baird 

Grasshopper sparrow * 

Loggerhead shrike 

Red-headed woodpecker 

Chestnut-collared longspur 

With the exception of the five bird species that nest on the District, the other 

birds are seen only occasionally on the District during migration. The 

northern harrier, upland sandpiper, and the grasshopper sparrow have been 

chosen as indicator species for the Tallgrass Prairie Management Approach. 

Population, breeding, and habitat information on these three indicator 

species are addressed in the Refuge Tallgrass Prairie Management 

Approach Section. Since little information exists about District breeding 

populations of the remaining birds of Management Concern, more habitat 

suitability and use information needs to be identified. 

D3.2 Objective: Evaluate methods to determine habitat suitability and 

use by these species (black tern, ferruginous hawk, yellow rail, 

loggerhead shrike, red-headed woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, 

dickcissel, Baird’s sparrow, chestnut-collared longspur). 

Other Rare Species 

Rare Prairie Butterflies 

Of particular interest are three rare prairie butterflies: the Dakota skipper, 

powesheik skipper, and the regal fritillary because they are only found on 

native prairie sites that have diverse plant communities. Dakota skipper 

habitat consists of mesic tallgrass to mid-grass native prairie. Larval foods 

include little bluestem and needle-and-thread grasses. Nectar plants 

include yellow and purple coneflower, white prairie clover, black-eyed 

susans, and white camus (Royer 1997). Powesheik skippers require 

undisturbed wet to mesic prairie habitat composed of sedges for larval food 

and available nectar sources that include yellow coneflower and black-eyed 

susans (Royer and Marrone 1992). The principal habitat requirements for 

the regal fritillary are large extensive native tallgrass prairie tracts with 

native violets and nectar supplies including long-headed coneflower, blackeyed susans, fleabanes, and blazingstars (Royer and Marrone 1992). 

Two butterfly inventory surveys were conducted by Tim Orwig in 1995 and 

1996 on a number of District prairie and wetland sites. In 1995, the Krause 

WPA and Hartleben WPA were surveyed, and in 1996, the Hartleben WPA, 

Aaser WPA, Krause WPA, Gunness WPA, and McGill WPA were surveyed. 

Powesheik skippers and regal fritillary butterflies were found on the 

Hartleben WPA, Krause WPA (Tewaukon staff sightings), and Aaser WPA. 

Powesheik skippers were observed on the Gunness WPA, a broad-winged 

skipper was spotted on the Aaser WPA, and one Dakota skipper was seen 

both in 1995 and 1996 on the Hartleben WPA. Presence of these rare butterflies on 

these isolated prairies requires specific management techniques designed 

to maintain their populations. Swengel (1996) suggested dividing prairie 

sites into smaller management units (one third of tract size) as a preferred 

management technique in order to limit the impacts of a particular 

management activity like fire or haying affecting on the entire tract. 

Swengel (1996) found haying to be the favored management strategy to 

maintain skipper habitat and recommended large uniform management 

treatments be avoided. 

Monarch Butterfly, Cindie Brunner 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 109 
The following objectives were developed to ensure the survival of native 

prairie butterfly populations. 

D3.3 Objective: Maintain populations of rare prairie butterflies 

including powesheik skipper, Dakota skipper, and regal fritillary on 

native prairie sites on the Hartleben, Aaser, and Gunness WPAs. 

Strategies:
 

✓ Develop a Monitoring Plan to gather data on species occurrence,
 

relative abundance, and locations of rare butterflies. 

✓ Schedule management activities (prescribed fire, haying) on prairie 

sites with populations of prairie butterflies on small tracts. Avoid 

treating entire sites with the same tool in the same or following year. 

D3.4 Objective: Develop a Monitoring Plan to gather information on 

species composition and relative abundance on other known rare 

butterfly populations within the District on suitable sites every three 

years. 

D3.5 Objective: Evaluate reintroduction of the three rare butterflies 

on suitable native prairie sites. 

Elktoe Mussel 

The elktoe mussel is found in water of a specific depth and flow that provides 

a certain mix of river bottom components found in the riffle sections of 

streams (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 1995). The elktoe mussel is also listed on 

the American Fishery Society Endangered Species list as a species of 

“special concern.” Specimens have been collected recently in the Red River 

of the North (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). The planning team did 

not develop specific management objectives for elktoe mussels as they are 

not known to occur on District Service lands. 

110 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
North Dakota State Listed Rare Species 

Animals 

Northern (Greater ) Prairie Chicken - State Threatened 

Mountain Plover - State Extirpated 

Pugnose Shiner - State Endangered 

Greater Redhorse - State Threatened 

Prairie Skink - State Threatened 

Prairie Chicken 

There has been a lot of debate over greater prairie chickens which were not 

thought to occur in North Dakota prior to the late 1870s (Stewart 1975). By 

1884 prairie chickens were as common as sharp-tailed grouse and spread 

rapidly throughout the State (Stewart 1975). Downward population trends 

started in the early 1940s until by 1972 fewer than 400 birds existed in 

North Dakota (Johnson et al. 1997). Several records indicated historical 

breeding on District lands (Tewaukon file records). In 1993, 50 prairie 

chickens were released on the Englevale Slough WPA Complex by the ND 

Game and Fish Department. In recent years, no prairie chickens have been 

found on the Englevale Slough WPA. The planning team did not develop 

specific management objectives for prairie chickens as they are not known 

to occur on District Service lands. 

Mountain Plover 

A record on July 29, 1921, (Lincoln 1925) reports a mountain plover in the 

vicinity of Carter’s Slough near Hankinson in Richland County. This is the 

only known record for this bird in the District. The planning team did not 

develop management objectives for mountain plovers they are not known 

to occur on District Service lands. 

Greater Redhorse 

The greater redhorse is in the sucker family and prefers large streams with 

clear water and bottoms composed of clean sand or gravel. The greater 

redhorse has been found in the Red River of the North and lower Sheyenne 

Rivers; however, no recent observations have been made. The greatest 

threats to the redhorse are changes to its river habitat including, dams, 

channelization, pollution, destruction of riparian areas, and increased water 

speed and turbidity due to increased drainage into the river (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1995). The planning team did not develop specific management 

objectives for greater redhorse as they are not known to occur on District 

Service lands. 

Prairie Skink 

Prairie skinks were observed on the Hartleben WPA in 1997 and 1998. 

Prairie skinks are active during the summer and are found in sandy areas 

and grassland in eastern North Dakota. Specific management objectives 

were not developed for prairie skinks since District prairie habitat objectives 

would provide necessary habitat. 

Plants 

See Appendix C 

Handsome Sedge 

Only three records exist for the handsome sedge in North Dakota, and 

they occur in Richland County in about one mile of river valley (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1995). The planning team did not develop specific 

management objectives for handsome sedge as they are not known to occur 

on District Service lands. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 111 
White Lady’s Slipper, Cindie Brunner 

Small White Lady’s Slipper 

The small white lady’s slipper is a perennial plant in the orchid family. It is 

found in wet to mesic, calcareous, tallgrass prairies, sedge meadows, and 

fens. This plant needs full sun exposure or only light shade (Bowles 1983, 

Case 1987). It is ranked on the North Dakota Natural Heritage State List 

as “imperiled in the State.” One of the largest population of white lady’s 

slippers in North Dakota exists on the Hartleben WPA and averages 

approximately 200 plants. This site has historically been in an annual late 

haying regime. Haying and prescribed fire (early spring or late fall) are 

currently being applied on the site to maintain populations of lady’s 

slippers. 

D3.6 Objective: Maintain and monitor an average population of 200 to 

300 small white lady’s slippers on the Hartleben WPA. 

Strategy: 

✓	 Develop a Monitoring Plan to measure species relative abundance and 

evaluate habitat management techniques including haying and 

prescribed burning. 

Rare Species Objectives 

The following objectives were developed to direct the conservation of rare 

species utilizing protection and management techniques. Objectives also 

identify opportunities to conserve these species if any are found on 

Complex lands in the future. Consideration for other District management 

objectives that overlap with other agency and organization conservation 

goals and objectives would be taken into account. 

D3.7 Objective: Determine habitat suitability for North Dakota State 

listed rare wildlife and plant species on WPAs within the District. 

Strategy: 

✓	 Work cooperatively with ND Game and Fish Department, ND Heritage 

Program, and Nature Conservancy to initiate a baseline survey on 

suitable sites to determine presence or absence of these species on 

WPAs. 

D3.8 Objective: Protect North Dakota State listed wildlife and plant 

species habitat to maintain North Dakotas native biodiversity. 

Strategy: 

✓	 Work cooperatively with Federal, State, local government agencies, 

nongovernmental agencies, and private landowners to identify, 

document, and protect critical habitat for State listed wildlife and 

plants through easements, fee title purchase from willing sellers, and 

cooperative agreements. 

112 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Public Use and Recreation 

WPA tracts are open to hunting, fishing, and trapping according to Title 50 

CFR. At this time, stocked fisheries are not developed on WPAs. The following 

objectives were designed to provide information to the public and some 

background about the wildlife and habitat resources found there. 

D4 Goal: Provide the public with quality opportunities to learn about 

and enjoy tallgrass prairie wetland ecosystems, the fish and 

wildlife, and history of the District in a safe and compatible 

manner. 

Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing 

D4.1 Objective: Provide information about public opportunities for hunting, 

trapping, and fishing according to State and Federal Regulations on 

Waterfowl Production Areas. 

Strategy: 

✓ Work cooperatively with the ND Game and Fish Department to 

conduct law enforcement patrols on the District to ensure compliance. 

Interpretation/Environmental Education 

Very little interpretation currently exists on Waterfowl Production Areas 

due to the long distances that are required to maintain sites and limited 

funding. All environmental education efforts for the Complex are 

conducted through the Refuge. 

The General Federation of Women’s Cultura Club of Hankinson has partnered 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service to develop an interpretive walking trail 

on the tallgrass prairie on the Hartleben WPA. 

D4.2 Objective: Through signs, pamphlets, and programs provide 

interpretation of the region’s natural, cultural, historical resources, 

recreational opportunities, and District management and activities to 

promote public awareness and advocacy. 

Strategies:
 

✓ Develop a District public use pamphlet and map.
 

✓ Maintain the prairie walking trail on the Hankinson WPA native prairie
 

site to provide information and educational interpretation of tall grass 

prairie ecosystem. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 113 
 

Cultural Resources 

No thorough cultural resource surveys have been conducted on the District. A few 

WPAs have had cultural evaluations (Class I and II) conducted where rights-ofway or construction has been proposed. Several historic trails are near or 

cross Waterfowl Production Areas. These trails include the Fort Ransom ­

Fort Wadsworth Trail which narrowly misses the Klefstad WPA and crosses 

the Lundstad WPA in Sargent County. The 1863 General Sibley Expedition 

may have crossed the J. Palensky WPA and the Metzen WPA where some 

native prairie remains. Colonel McPhail’s return route in 1862 is believed 

to have crossed or come close to the Arneson, Blikre, Chose, Skonseng, 

Strander, Peterson, Holt, Grinstead, Weaver, and Dick WPA’s in Ransom 

County. His party also traveled close to the Bauer WPA in Sargent County. 

The Twin Lakes Stockade, an overnight camp on the Fort Abercrombie ­

Fort Wadsworth Trail, is located one-half mile south of the Bladow WPA in 

Richland County (Refuge Manager Troester memo to Regional Director, 

January 31, 1972). An expedition to determine the suitability for a railroad 

occurred in 1853 to 1855 crossing Richland and Ransom Counties was 

documented by Issac Stephens. Two objectives were developed to improve 

baseline cultural resource data which will yield better information for 

refuge managers. 

D4.3 Objective: Conduct cultural resource inventories on construction 

and development sites as necessary. 

Strategy:
 

✓ Work cooperatively with the Service archaeologist and SHPO (State
 

Historic Preservation Officer) prior to all proposed actions. 

D4.4 Objective: Preserve and protect existing cultural resources and 

future discoveries of archaeological sites associated with District lands. 

Strategies:
 

✓ Annually conduct cultural resource surveys (Class II) on 10 percent of
 

WPAs not previously surveyed. 

✓ Coordinate and develop an agreement with the Sisseton-Wahpeton 

Sioux tribe on any discovery of human remains. 

114 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
 

Partners 

D5 Goal:	 Promote partnerships to preserve, restore, and enhance a diverse, 

healthy, and productive tallgrass prairie ecosystem in which the 

District plays a role. 

D5.1 Objectives: Create opportunities for new and maintain existing 

partnerships among Federal, State and local agencies, organizations, 

schools, corporations, and communities to promote the understanding 

and conservation of ecosystem and District resources, activities, and 

management. 

Strategies: 

✓	 Maintain coordination with the ND Game and Fish Department to 

conserve, protect, and manage lands for wildlife. 

✓	 Continue to work with the Red River Area Sportsmen Club and the 

Sargent County Pheasants Forever on the Adopt-A-WPA program and 

look for other opportunities to improve the program. 

✓	 Implement and support the goals and complete the work detailed in 

the Drift Prairie Wetland Enhancement Project I and II funded under 

the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and the Dakota 

Tallgrass Prairie Project when funded. 

✓	 Preserve, restore, and enhance wetland, riparian, and grassland 

habitat on private lands. 

✓	 Work with other organizations to improve duck nesting success in the district 

on private lands especially in areas of high waterfowl recruitment (Zones of 

Opportunity). Organizations include ND Game and Fish Department, Ducks 

Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, and Natural Resource Conservation Service. 

✓	 Coordinate and work with the U.S. Forest Service and Nature Conservancy 

on prairie restoration, enhancement, and protection issues (including 

sharing seed sources, prescribed burning, nonnative plant control, etc.). 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 115 
Tewaukon Easement Refuges 

Purpose 

The purpose for the Tewaukon Easement Refuges is determined by 

legislation that authorized acquisition although the easement interest in 

these lands was acquired primarily to benefit migratory birds. 

■	Easement Refuges were established by Executive Order 6910 on 

November 26, 1934 which provided for acquisition of easements for 

maintaining and operating artificial lakes, to maintain a closed refuge, 

and a wildlife demonstration unit. 

E1 Goal: Administer existing easement refuges. 

Habitat Management 

Originally, five easement refuges existed in the Tewaukon District. These 

included: Tewaukon, Clouds Lake, Lake Elsie, Storm Lake, and Wild Rice 

Easement Refuges. When the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge was 

established, only three easement refuges remained, including Lake Elsie, 

Storm Lake, and Wild Rice. Two tracts of land on the south side of the 

Tewaukon Unit are easement refuges, and several flowage easements are 

located on the west side of the Tewaukon Unit along the Wild Rice River. 

The landowners in these locations probably elected not to complete a fee 

title transaction at the time these transactions were completed on other portions 

of the Refuge. Over time, the structures that impounded water on Wild Rice and 

Storm Lake Easement Refuges deteriorated and were not repaired. Waterfowl 

use decreased with an increase in housing development, gravel pit development, 

and recreational boating on Lake Elsie. The Wild Rice Easement Refuge is no 

longer providing waterfowl values due to a lack of permanent water with the loss 

of the water control structure. Storm Lake is still important, especially for diving 

ducks and western and pied-billed grebes. It is located adjacent to the town of 

Milnor, and a golf course was developed on the north side in 1974 which included 

impacts to 1.7 acres of fee title property. An agreement between the Service and 

the Milnor golf course and City of Milnor has been implemented to 

minimize these fee title impacts. 

In 1998, the Service divested Lake Elsie Easement Refuge after 53 years 

of human activity altered the privately owned uplands to the point where 

they provide little value for wildlife. It is the station’s desire to eventually 

divest the Wild Rice Easement Refuge as well. Storm Lake is still beneficial 

to wildlife and should remain a part of the Refuge System. The easement 

refuge deed does not regulate any uses of the upland areas and makes it 

difficult to manage for wildlife purposes. 

E1.1 Objective: Protect all easement refuge property interests from 

hunting, draining, or conversion in Sargent County. 

Strategies:
 

✓ Annually monitor the two remaining easement refuges for conflicts.
 

✓ Work cooperatively with landowners to resolve conflicts.
 

E1.2 Objective: Divest the Wild Rice Easement Refuge as it no longer 

serves its original purpose. 

Water rights for Wild Rice, Lake Elsie, and Storm Lake Easement Refuges were 

established in 1934 pursuant to Section 8270 (repealed 1943) of the Compiled Laws 

of North Dakota for the year 1913. The State Engineer’s Office has raised 

questions about the validity of the water rights for the Wild Rice and Storm Lake 

Easement Refuges. The Service affirmatively relinquished the water rights for 

Lake Elsie in February 1999 after Congress terminated Refuge status. 

E1.3 Objective: Maintain existing water rights on Storm Lake Easement 

Refuge. 

✓	 Strategy: Replace/repair deteriorated structure at Storm Lake. 

116 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Kraft Slough 

The initial stage of the Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU) project was authorized on 

August 5, 1965. As part of that authorization, Kraft Slough was to be 

developed as Taayer Reservoir. The Reservoir was designed to regulate 

irrigation flows in the lower James River Valley of the Missouri River basin 

and the Wild Rice River Valley of the Red River of the North. Taayer 

Reservoir and its associated wildlife area consisted of 8,385 acres. It included 

Kraft Slough, Pickell Slough, Lake Taayer, an unnamed wetland, and 

associated uplands in the area. This Plan was described in the Bureau of 

Reclamation’s (Reclamation) Environmental Impact Statement, Initial 

Stage GDU, INT FES 74-3, January 10, 1974. 

The GDU Reformulation Act of 1986 (Reformulation Act) was signed by 

the President on May 12, 1986. The Reformulation Act modified the 1965 

GDU project authorization in several ways which would affect the disposition 

of Kraft Slough. Taayer Reservoir was de-authorized. The establishment of 

a refuge at Kraft Slough was authorized. 

The Reformulation Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to “... acquire 

up to 5,000 acres in the Kraft and Pickell Slough areas and to manage the 

area as a component of the National Wildlife Refuge System giving 

consideration to the unique wildlife values of the area. In acquiring the 

lands which comprise the Kraft and Pickell Slough complex, the Secretary 

is authorized to acquire wetlands in the immediate vicinity which may be 

hydrologically related and nearby uplands as may be necessary to provide 

for proper management of the complex. The Secretary is also authorized to 

provide for appropriate visitor access and control at the refuge.” 

Reclamation has been acquiring lands to develop the Refuge and upon 

development, will transfer the administration of the Refuge to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. The unit at this time consists of 1,695 acres 

purchased from willing sellers. 

Due to concerns expressed by adjacent landowners and the public, the 

Service has conducted an evaluation of maintaining the hunting opportunities 

as they now exist when the area becomes a national wildlife refuge. The 

evaluation showed that the use would be compatible and could continue. 

Other than providing technical assistance, the Complex staff is not involved in 

the acquisition or management of the unit at this time. These responsibilities 

are currently the Bureau of Reclamation’s until such time that acquisition 

is complete and comprises a management unit. Then the unit will be 

transferred to the Service. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 117 
Implementation and Monitoring
 

Personnel 

Current staffing at the Refuge consists of eight permanent and eight 

seasonal employees. One of the positions, Tallgrass Prairie Biologist, is 

shared with South Dakota. A recent national evaluation of complexity and 

minimum staffing requirements of the Complex indicated that an 

additional 10 permanent staff is suggested. Additional seasonal staff will be 

required to implement the strategies in the CCP and effectively monitor 

the flora and fauna, to determine if the goals and objectives in the Plan are 

being met. 

At this time, the Refuge has an annual base budget of $374,000 to maintain 

salaries for eight full-time permanent personnel and annual operating 

expenses for the Refuge and Wetland Management District. The current 

budget represents the minimum needed to maintain current annual activities 

and does not adequately support Complex habitat management, biological 

monitoring, maintenance, public use, and educational programs and all 

Complex facilities and structures. 

The following chart shows the current staff and the proposed additional 

staff required to fully implement the CCP. If all positions are funded, the 

Refuge Complex staff will be able to carry out all aspects of this Plan. This 

would provide maximum benefits to wildlife, maximum efficiency, improve 

facilities and provide for increased public use. Projects that have adequate 

funding and staffing will receive priority to accomplish. Staffing and 

funding are requested for the 15-year period of the Plan. 

Current Proposed 

Management Staff 

Complex Project Leader, GS-13 

Supervisory Refuge Operations Specialist, GS-11 

Complex Project Leader, GS-13 

Supervisory Refuge Operations Specialist, GS-12 

Refuge Operations Specialist, GS-9/11 

Biological Staff 

Complex Biologist, GS-9 

Seasonal Biological Technicians, GS-4 to GS-6 (2) 

Tallgrass Biologist, GS-11* 

Complex Biologist, GS-11 

Biologist, GS-9 

Biological Technician, GS-7 

Seasonal Biological Technicians, GS-4 to GS-7 (3) 

Private Lands Biologist, GS-9 

Tallgrass Biologist, GS-12* 

Public Use Staff 

Law Enforcement Officer, GS-11* 

Outdoor Recreation Planner. GS-11 

Seasonal Public Use Staff, GS-7/9 (2) 

Fire Management Staff 

Career Seasonal Range Technician, GS-6* 

Seasonal Range Technicians, GS-3 to GS-6 (5)* 

Fire Management Officer, GS-9* 

Career Seasonal Range Technician ,GS-7* 

Seasonal Range Technicians, GS-3 to GS-6 (6)*

Administrative Staff 

Administrative Assistant, GS-6/7 Administrative Assistant, GS-8 

Administrative Assistant, GS-6/7 

Maintenance Staff 

Equipment Operator, WG-10 

Maintenance Worker, WG-8 

Equipment Operator, WG-10 

Maintenance Worker, WG-8 

Career Seasonal Maintenance Workers, WG-8 

Career Seasonal Tractor Operator, WG-7 

*shared with other stations in North and South Dakota 

118 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
 

 

 

Funding Needed to Implement This Plan 

Projects required to implement the Tewaukon CCP are listed in Appendix 

J. This Appendix shows the funding needed to implement the CCP through 

two different systems. The first system is the Refuge Operation Needs 

System (RONS). This documents requests to Congress for funding and 

staffing needed to carry out projects above the existing base budget. Amounts 

shown include a start-up cost of implementing each program with actual 

yearly costs that are significantly less. The other system is the Maintenance 

Management System (MMS) which documents the equipment, buildings, and 

other existing property that require repair or replacement. Twelve of the 

current RONS projects directly support the implementation of the CCP. 

Other funding needs include the maintenance or replacement of existing 

equipment and facilities. In the past, the Complex has had a large backlog of 

these funding needs. However, in recent years, much has been accomplished 

in funding these backlogs. Below is a list of remaining needs required to 

implement the CCP and maintain the structures and equipment to safe 

standards for the 15 years of the Plan. 

Vehicles $1,339,250 

Equipment $ 561,585 

Public Use Facilities $ 300,000 

Buildings and Facilities $ 50,000 

Water Control Structures and Dikes $ 900,000 

Roads, Gates, and Fences $ 73,500 

$3,224,335 

A list of the top eleven items is located in the Maintenance Management 

System list in Appendix J. 

Step-Down Management Plans 

Service managers have traditionally used the Refuge Manual to guide field 

station management actions. The policy direction given through the Manual 

has provided direction for developing a wide variety of plans which are used 

to prepare annual work schedules, budgets, public use, safety, and land 

management actions. The CCP is intended as a broad umbrella plan which 

provides general concepts and specific wildlife, habitat, endangered 

species, public use, and partnership objectives. The purpose of step-down 

management plans is to provide greater detail to managers and employees 

who will implement the strategies described in the CCP. 

Under the CCP, the Complex staff will revise or develop several step-down 

plans for the Refuge and District. Complex step-down plans to be revised 

include: 

Public Use Plan Water Management Plan 

Cropland Management Plan Upland Management Plan 

Fisheries Management Plan Fire Management Plan 

Staff will also develop Habitat and Wildlife Monitoring Plans. 

Partners 

Partnerships require extensive staff time to coordinate, develop, and maintain. 

Long-term commitments including funding and staff time are needed to maintain 

a strong and lasting relationship with partners. Without appropriate 

staffing, we run the risk of losing our current partners and not developing 

new partners. Several of the objectives in the CCP depend on partner 

support and funding. Many of our wildlife, habitat, and public use programs would 

not continue without the additional funding and support from partners. 

Without partners, many of the habitat protection, restoration, and 

enhancement projects would go unfunded. Over time, the diversity of 

wildlife species will begin to decline as the habitat degrades. Partners are 

essential in fully implementing the CCP for the Tewaukon Complex. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 119 
Monitoring and Evaluation
 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term management of 

natural resources that is directed over time by the results of ongoing 

monitoring activities and other information. Habitat, wildlife, and public 

use management techniques and specific objectives will be regularly 

evaluated as results of the monitoring program and other new technology 

and information become available. These periodic evaluations will be used 

over time to adapt both the management objectives and techniques to 

better achieve management goals. 

Monitoring is an essential component of the CCP. Monitoring strategies 

have been integrated into many of the goals and objectives. Specific details 

including monitoring strategies, methods, techniques, and locations will be 

outlined in a step-down Complex Monitoring Plan. In this CCP, habitat 

monitoring receives the primary emphasis. Many of the wildlife species on 

the Complex are migratory birds. Migratory birds are impacted by a variety 

of factors (drought, disease, pollution, habitat destruction, etc.,) on their 

wintering and nesting grounds and all along their migration pathways. 

Determining whether or not a habitat manipulation on a Refuge field or wetland is 

wholly responsible for a Refuge migratory bird population change is difficult. 

Managers can strive to gather current information about the critical 

habitat needs for targeted species and then design Habitat Management 

Plans and strategies to met these needs. The habitat can then be monitored 

to determine if the management strategies are providing the critical 

habitat needs of a wildlife species. For example, if one of the critical habitat 

needs for bobolinks is vegetative structure at a specific density, managers 

can manipulate vegetation to achieve this structure and density. Whether 

or not bobolink use increases on the manipulated field, when the vegetation 

structure and density meet the conditions that bobolinks prefer, may or may 

not be directly tied to the manipulation. Monitoring bobolink populations in 

the manipulated field over a long period of time can provide some general 

local population trend information and document bird use. Managers must 

then carefully evaluate the bird use data to try and determine if a direct 

correlation exists to the habitat manipulation. 

All habitat management activities will be monitored to assess whether the 

desired effect on wildlife and habitat components has been achieved. 

Baseline surveys will be conducted for wildlife species for which existing or 

historical numbers and occurrence is not well known. It is also important to 

conduct studies to monitor wildlife responses to increased public use 

including fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and environmental 

education. 

Monitoring should be designed and developed with Universities and/or 

Government research divisions when stringent protocols or complex data 

analysis is needed. Applied research can help to answer habitat, wildlife, 

and public use management questions. Complex staff will work with 

researchers to ensure that the research is applicable and compatible with 

Complex objectives. 

This CCP is designed to be effective for a 15-year period. Periodic review of 

the CCP will be required to ensure that established goals and objectives 

are being met and strategies are being implemented. Ongoing monitoring 

and evaluation will be an important part of this process. 

Key monitoring needs are identified throughout the CCP. A step-down 

Complex Monitoring Plan will incorporate and describe how, when, and 

who will conduct the monitoring. 

120 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Plan Amendment and Revision 

The CCP will guide management on the Complex for the next 15 years. 

CCPs are ultimately signed by the Regional Director, Mountain Prairie 

Region 6, thus providing regional direction to the station project leader. A 

copy of the CCP will be provided to all those who are interested. The 

project leader at the station will review the CCP every five years to 

determine if it needs revision. In the case of severe circumstances, the 

project leader has the authority to modify management actions to respond 

appropriately. The Plan will be revised no later than 2015. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Preparers 

The planning team was comprised of: 

Allison Banks, Division of Planning 

Sandra Siekaniec, Project Leader 

Jack Lalor, Refuge Operations Specialist 

Kristine Askerooth, Biologist 

Brian Kietzman, Wildlife Resource Management Biologist, ND Game 

and Fish Department 

Jaymee Fojtik, GIS Mapping 

Beverly Boecher, Education and Visitor Services (cover and photos) 

Barbara Shupe, Writer/Editor, editing and document layout 

The Draft CCP, Environmental Assessment, and Final CCP were written 

by Sandra Siekaniec, Kristine Askerooth, and Jack Lalor. The documents 

were reviewed by Tewaukon Complex staff, Regional Office staff, Biological 

Resources Division, and other Service offices. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 121 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A. Tewaukon 

NWR Complex Wildlife 

Species Lists 

Bird List 

(Species known to nest on the Complex are marked with an *) 

Loons 

Common Loon Gavia immer 

Grebes 

Pied-billed Grebe* Podilymbus podiceps 

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus 

Red-necked Grebe* Podiceps grisegena 

Eared Grebe* Podiceps nigricollis 

Western Grebe* Aechmophorus occidentalis 

Pelicans 

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 

Cormorants 

Double-crested Cormorant* Phalacrocorax auritus 

Bitterns, Herons, and Egrets 

American Bittern* Botaurus lentiginosus 

Least Bittern* Ixobrychus exilis 

Great Blue Heron* Ardea herodias 

Great Egret* Anlea Alba 

Snowy Egret Egretta thula 

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis 

Green Heron* Butorides virescens 

Black-crowned Night-Heron* Nycticorax nycticorax 

New World Vultures 

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 

Swans, Geese, and Ducks 

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons 

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens 

Canada Goose* Branta canadensis 

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus 

Wood Duck* Aix sponsa 

Gadwall* Anas strepera 

American Wigeon* Anas americana 

American Black Duck Anas rubripes 

Mallard* Anas platyrhyncos 

Blue-winged Teal* Anas discors 

Northern Shoveler* Anas clypeata 

Northern Pintail* Anas acuta 

Green-winged Teal* Anas crecca 

Canvasback* Aythya valisineria 

Redhead* Aythya americana 

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris 

Lesser Scaup* Aythya affinis 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes curcullatus 

Common Merganser Mergus merganser 

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator 

Ruddy Duck* Oxyura jamaicensis 

Osprey, Kites, Hawks, and Eagles 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Northern Harrier* Circus cyaneus 

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 

Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii 

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis
 

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus
 

Swainson’s Hawk* Buteo swainsoni
 

Red-tailed Hawk* Buteo jamaicensis
 

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis
 

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus
 

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
 

Falcons and Caracaras 

American Kestrel* Falco sparverius 

Merlin Falco columbarius 

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus 

Gallinaceous Birds 

Gray Partridge* Introduced Perdix perdix 

Ring-necked Pheasant* Introduced Phasianus colchicus 

Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus
 

Greater Prairie-Chicken Tympanuchus cupido
 

Rails 

Virginia Rail* Rallus limicola 

Sora* Porzana carolina 

American Coot* Fulica americana 

Cranes 

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis 

Plovers 

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola 

American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica 

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus 

Killdeer* Charadrius vociferus 

Stilts and Avocets 

American Avocet* Recurvirostra americana 

Sandpipers and Phalaropes 

Greater Yellowlegs Ttinga melanoleuca 

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria 

Willet* Catoptrophorus semipalmatus 

Spotted Sandpiper* Actitis macularia 

Upland Sandpiper* Bartramia longicauda 

Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica 

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa 

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres 

Red Knot Calidris canutus 

Sanderling Calidris alba 

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla 

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla 

White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis 

Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii 

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos 

Dunlin Calidris alphina 

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus 

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus 

Common Snipe* Gallinago gallinago 

Wilson’s Phalarope* Phalaropus tricolor 

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 

Skuas, Jaegers, Gulls, and Terns 

Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan 

Bonaparte’s Gull Larus philadelphia 

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis 

California Gull Larus californicus 

Herring Gull Larus argentatus 

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia 

Common Tern Sterna hirundo 

Forster’s Tern* Sterna forsteri 

Black Tern* Chlidonias niger 

122 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pigeons and Doves 

Rock Dove Introduced Columba livia 

Mourning Dove* Zenaida macroura 

Cuckoos and Anis 

Black-billed Cuckoo* Coccyzus erythropthalmus 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus 

Typical Owls 

Eastern Screech-Owl Otus asio 

Great Horned Owl* Bubo virginianus 

Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca 

Long-eared Owl Asio otus 

Short-eared Owl* Asio flammeus 

Nightjars 

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor 

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus 

Swifts 

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica 

Hummingbirds 

Ruby-throated Hummingbird* Archilochus colubris 

Kingfisher 

Belted Kingfisher* Ceryle alcyon 

Woodpeckers 

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

Downy Woodpecker* Picoides pubescens 

Hairy Woodpecker* Picoides villosus 

Northern Flicker* Colaptes auratus 

Tyrant Flycatchers 

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi 

Eastern Wood-Pewee* Contopus virens 

Willow Flycatcher* Empidonax traillii 

Least Flycatcher* Empidonax minimus 

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe 

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus 

Western Kingbird* Tyrannus verticalis 

Eastern Kingbird* Tyrannus tyrannus 

Shrikes 

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus 

Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor 

Vireos 

Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons 

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus 

Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus 

Red-eyed Vireo* Vireo olivaceus 

Crows, Jays, and Magpies 

Blue Jay* Cyanocitta cristata 

Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia 

American Crow* Corvus brachyrhynchos 

Larks 

Horned Lark* Eremophila alpestris 

Swallows 

Purple Martin* Progne subis 

Tree Swallow* Tachycineta bicolor 

Northern Rough-winged Swallow* Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

Bank Swallow* Riparia riparia 

Cliff Swallow* Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 

Barn Swallow* Hirundo rustica 

Titmice and Chickadees 

Black-capped Chickadee* Poecile atricapilla 

Nuthatches 

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis 

White-breasted Nuthatch* Sitta carolinensis 

Creepers 

Brown Creeper* Certhia americana 

Wrens 

House Wren* Troglodytes aedon 

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes 

Sedge Wren* Cistothorus platensis 

Marsh Wren* Cistothorus palustris 

Kinglets 

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa 

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula 

Thrushes 

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis 

Veery Catharus fuscescens 

Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus 

Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus 

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus 

American Robin* Turdus migratorius 

Mimic Thrushes 

Gray Catbird* Dumetella carolinensis 

Brown Thrasher* Toxostoma rufum 

Starlings 

European Starling* Introduced Sturnus vulgaris 

Wagtails and Pipits 

American (Water) Pipit Anthus rubescens 

Sprague’s Pipit Anthus spragueii 

Waxwings 

Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus 

Cedar Waxwing* Bombycilla cedrorum 

Wood Warblers 

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina 

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata 

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla 

Yellow Warbler* Dendrocia petechia 

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica 

Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia 

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendrocia coronata 

Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens 

Palm Warbler Dendrocia palmarum 

Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea 

Blackpoll Warbler Dendrocia striata 

Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia 

American Redstart* Setophaga ruticilla 

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus 

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis 

Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis 

Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia 

Common Yellowthroat* Geothlypis trichas 

Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla 

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis 

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens 

Tanagers 

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 123 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sparrows and Towhees 

Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea 

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina 

Clay-colored Sparrow* Spizella pallida 

Field Sparrow* Spizella pusilla 

Vesper Sparrow* Pooecetes gramineus 

Lark Sparrow* Chondestes grammacus 

Lark Bunting* Calamospiza melanocorys 

Savannah Sparrow* Passerculus sandwichensis 

Grasshopper Sparrow* Ammodramus savannarum 

Baird’s Sparrow* Ammodramus bairdii 

Le Conte’s Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii 

Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni 

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca 

Song Sparrow* Melospiza melodia 

Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii 

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana 

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis 

Harris’ Sparrow Zonotrichia querula 

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys 

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis 

Lapland Longspur* Calcarius lapponicus 

Smith’s Longspur Calcarius pictus 

Chestnut-collared Longspur* Calcarius ornatus 

Cardinals, Grosbeaks, and Allies 

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis 

Rose-breasted Grosbeak* Pheucticus ludovicianus 

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea 

Dickcissel Spiza americana 

Blackbirds and Orioles 

Bobolink* Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

Red-winged Blackbird* Agelaius phoeniceus 

Western Meadowlark* Sturnella neglecta 

Yellow-headed Blackbird* Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus 

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus 

Brewer’s Blackbird* Euphagus cyanocephalus 

Common Grackle* Quiscalus quiscula 

Brown-headed Cowbird* Molothrus ater 

Orchard Oriole* Icterus spurius 

Baltimore Oriole* Icterus galbula 

Finches 

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus 

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus 

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra 

Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea 

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus 

American Goldfinch* Carduelis tristis 

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus 

Old World Sparrows 

House Sparrow* Introduced Passer domesticus 

Mammals with ranges within the area of 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex: 

*Documented sightings 

Arctic Shrew Sorex articus 

Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus 

Northern Water Shrew Sorex palustris 

Pygmy Shrew Microsorex hoyi 

Northern Short-tailed Shrew* Blarina brevicauda 

Least Shrew Cryptotis parva 

Keen’s Myotis Myotia keeni 

Little Brown Myotis* Myotis lucifungus 

Eastern Red Bat Lasiurus borealis 

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus 

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus 

Eastern Cottontail* Sylvilagus floridanus 

White-tailed Jackrabbit* Lepus townsendii 

Woodchuck* Marmota monax 

Franklin’s Ground Squirrel* Citellus franklini 

Richardson’s Ground Squirrel* Citellus richardsoni 

Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel* 

Spermophilus tridecemlineatus 

Eastern Fox Squirrel* Sciurus niger 

Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus 

Plains Pocket Gopher* Geomys bursarius 

Plains Pocket Mouse Perognathus flavescens 

Beaver* Castor canadensis 

Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis 

White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus 

Deer Mouse* Peromyscus maniculatus 

Northern Grasshopper Mouse* Onychomys leucogaster 

Southern Red-backed Vole* Clethrionomys gapperi 

Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster 

Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus 

Common Muskrat* Ondatra zibethicus 

Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius 

Western Jumping Mouse* Zapus princeps 

Coyote* Canis latrans 

Red Fox* Vulpes vulpes 

Common Raccoon* Procyon lotor 

Long-tailed Weasel* Mustela frenata 

Least Weasel Mustela nivalis 

American Mink* Mustela vison 

American Badger* Taxidea taxus 

Striped Skunk* Mephitis mephitis 

White-tailed Deer* Odocoileus virginianus 

Moose* Alces alces 

Historical 

American Bison Bison bison 

Bobcat Lynx rufus 

Elk or Wapiti Cervus canadensis 

Gray Wolf Canis lupus 

Grizzly Bear Ursus horribilis 

Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus 

Pronghorn Antelope Antilocapra americana 

River Otter Lutra canadensis 

124 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae
 

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus
 

Black bullhead Ameiurus melas
 

Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis
 

Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus
 

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus
 

Stonecat Noturus flavus
 

Tadpole madtom Noturus gyrinus
 

Central mudminnow Umbra limi
 

Northern pike Esox lucius
 

Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus
 

Burbot Lota lota
 

Trout-perch Percopsis omiscomaycus
 

Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris
 

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus
 

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus
 

Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis
 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
 

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui
 

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides
 

White crappie Pomoxis annularis
 

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus
 

Rainbow darter Etheostoma caeruleum
 

Iowa darter Etheostoma exile
 

Least darter Etheostoma microperca
 

Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum
 

Yellow perch Perca flavescens
 

Logperch Percina caprodes
 

Blackside darter Percina maculata
 

River darter Percina shumardi
 

Sauger Stizostedion canadense
 

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum
 

Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens
 

Mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi
 

Brook stickleback Culaea inconstans
 

Introduced (nonnative) Fish 

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Brown trout Salmo trutta 

Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis 

Common carp Cyprinus carpio 

Flathead chub Platygobio gracilis 

Muskellunge Esox masquinongy 

Tiger muskie Esox lucius X E.masquinongy 

White bass Morone chrysops 

Gray Tiger Salamander
 

American Toad*


Great Plains Toad*
 

Canadian Toad*
 

Woodhouse’s Toad


Gray Treefrog


Western Chorus Frog*


Amphibians and reptiles with ranges within 

the area of Tewaukon National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex: 

*Documented sightings 

Mudpuppy* Necturus maculosus 

Tiger Salamander* Ambystoma tigrinum 

Eastern Tiger Salamander* Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum 

Blotched Tiger Salamander* 

Ambystoma tigrinum melanostictum 

Ambystoma tigrinum diaboli 

Common Snapping Turtle*
 

Painted Turtle*


Prairie Skink*
 

Smooth Green Snake


Red-bellied Snake*
 

Plains Garter Snake*
 

Common Garter Snake*


(Peterka and Koel 1996) 

Chestnut lamprey 

Silver lamprey 

Lake sturgeon

Longnose gar

Bowfin

Goldeye 

Mooneye

Ciscoe

Whitefish

Quillback carpsucker 

White sucker 

Northern hogsucker

Bigmouth buffalo

Silver redhorse

Golden redhorse 

Shorthead redhorse 

Greater redhorse 

Central stoneroller 

Largescale stoneroller 

Spotfin shiner

Brassy minnow 

Common shiner

Silver Chub 

Pearl dace

Hornyhead chub

Golden shiner 

Pugnose shiner 

Emerald shiner

River shiner

Bigmouth shiner 

Blackchin shiner

Blacknose shiner 

Spottail shiner

Rosyface shiner 

Sand shiner 

Weed shiner

Mimic shiner

Northern redbelly dace

Finescale dace

Bluntnose minnow

Fathead minnow

Blacknose dace

 Bufo americanus 

Bufo congnatus 

Bufo hemiophrys 

Bufo woodhousii 

Hyla vericolor 

 Pseudacris triseriata 

Chelydra serpentina 

 Chrysemys picta 

Eumeces septentrionalis 

 Opheodrys vernalis 

Storeria occipitomaculata 

Thamnophis radix 

Thamnophis sirtalis 

Native Fish in the Red River Basin
 

Ichthyomyzon castaneus 

Ichthyomyzon unicuspis 

Acipenser fulvescens 

 Lepistoseus osseus 

Amia calva 

Hiodon alosoides 

Hiodon tergisus 

Coregonus artedii 

 Coregonus clupeaformis 

Carpiodes cyprinus 

Catostomus commersoni 

Hypentelium nigricans 

Ictiobus cyprinellus 

 Moxostoma anisurum 

Moxostoma erythrurum 

Moxostoma macrolepidotum 

Moxostoma valenciennesi 

Campostoma anomalum 

Campostoma oligolepis 

Cyprinella spiloptera 

Hybognathus hankinsoni 

Luxilus comutus 

Macrhybopsis storeriana 

Margariscus margarita 

Nocomis biguttatus 

Notemigonus chrysoleucas 

Notropis anogenus 

Notropis atherinoides 

Notropis blennius 

Notropis dorsalis 

Notropis heterodon 

Notropis heterolepis 

Notropis hudsonius 

Notropis rubellus 

Notropis stramineus 

Notropis texanus 

Notropis volucellus 

Phoxinus eos 

Phoxinus neogaeus 

Pimephales notatus 

Platygobio gracilis 

Rhinichthys atratulus 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 125 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B. Plant 

Species Mentioned in 

CCP 

References for plant species names: McGregor et al, 1986 

Alumroot 

American elm

Baltic rush 

Bearded wheatgrass 

Big bluestem

Black-eyed susan

Blue grama 

Box elder

Buckbrush 

Broad-leaved cattail

Bur oak

Canada goldenrod 

Chokecherry

Fowl mannagrass

Green needlegrass

Grey headed coneflower

Handsome sedge

Hardstem bulrush

Hoary puccoon 

Hoary willow

Indian grass 

Intermediate wheatgrass

June grass

Leadplant 

Little bluestem

Intermediate wheatgrass

Maximilian sunflower 

Meadow anemone 

Narrow-leaved blazing star 

Needle-and-thread

Nodding lady tresses 

Northern reedgrass

Pasture sage

Porcupine grass

Prairie cordgrass

Prairie dogbane

Prairie sandreed

Prairie smoke

Prairie wild rose 

Purple coneflower 

Purple prairie clover 

Red elm

Sand bluestem

Showy milkweed

Sideoats grama

Small white lady’s slipper

Sneezeweed

Softstem bulrush

Stiff goldenrod 

Stiff sunflower

Switchgrass 

Tall blazing star 

Thimbleweed 

Western prairie fringed orchid

Western wheatgrass

White ash

White aster

White camass

White prairie clover

Wild lily

Yellow coneflower 

Heuchera richardsonii 

Ulmus americana 

Juncus balticus 

Agropyron subscundum 

Andropogon gerardii 

Rudbeckia hirta 

Bouteloua gracilis 

Acer negundo 

Symphoricarpos occidentalis 

 Typha latifolia 

Quercus macrocarpa 

Solidago canadensis 

 Prunus virginiana 

Glyceria striata 

Stipa viridula 

Ratibidia pinnata 

 Carex formosa 

Scirpus acutus 

Lithospermum canescens 

Salix candida 

Sorghastrum nutans 

 Agropyron intermedium 

Koeleria pyramidata 

Amorpha canescens 

Andropogon scoparius 

 Agropyron intermedium 

Helianthus maximilianii 

Anemone canadensis 

Liatris punctata 

Stipa comata 

Spiranthes cernua 

Calamagrostis stricta 

Artemisia ludoviciana 

Stipa spartea 

Spartina pecinata 

Apocynum cannabinum 

Calamovilfa longifolia 

 Geum triflorum 

Rosa arkansana 

Echinacea angustifolia 

Dalea purpurea 

 Ulmus rubra 

Andropogon hallii 

Asclepias speciosa 

Bouteloua curtipendula 

Cypripedium candidum 

Helenium autumnale 

 Scirpus tabernaemontani 

Solidago rigida 

Helianthus rigidus 

Panicum virgatum 

Liatris pycnostachya 

Anemone cylindrica 

Platanthera praeclara 

Agropyron smithii 

Fraxinus americana 

Aster ericoides 

Zigadenus elegans 

Dalea candida 

Lilium philadelphicum 

Ratibidia columnifera 

Introduced 

Alfalfa Medicago sativa 

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense 

Musk thistle Carduus nutans 

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare 

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis 

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula 

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria 

Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea 

Russian olive Eleagnus angustifolia 

Smooth brome Bromus inermis 

White sweet clover Melilotus alba 

Yellow sweet clover Melilotus officinalis 

126 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Appendix C. ND State Rare and Unique Plant 

Species 

These plant species are pulled from the ND Natural Heritage Program data files and only include species that are 

found in the Tewaukon WMD and are of greatest concern (S1 or S2). 

North Dakota Natural Heritage State Rankings 

S1 - Critically imperiled in state 

S2 - Imperiled in state

 ND Heritage 

Common Name Scientific Name Ranking 

Adder’s-tongue fern Ophioglossum pusillum S2 

Bicknells sunrose Helianthemum bicknellii S1 

Blue Cohosh Caulophyllum thalictroides S1 

Bog Violet Viola conspersa S2 

Brook flatsedge Cyperus bipartitus S1S2 

Delicate sedge Carex leptalea S2 

Dotted smartweed Polygonum punctatum S2 

Downy hawthorn Crataegus mollis S1 

Dutchman’s breeches Dicentra cucullaria S1 

Dwarf spikerush Eleocharis parvula S1S2 

Early Panic-grass Panicum praecocius S2 

Foxtail sedge Carex alopecoidea S2 

Green kneeled cottongrass Eriophorum viridicarinatum S1 

Handsome sedge Carex formosa S1 

Hooked crowfoot Ranunculus recurvatus S1 

Large yellow lady’s slipper Cypripedium planiipetalum S2 

Large-leaved pondweed Potamogeton amplifolius S2 

Loesel’s Twayblade Liparis loeselii S2 

Low flatsedge Cyperdus diandrus S2 

Marsh bellflower Campanual aparinoides S2 

Marsh horsetail Equisetum palustre S2 

Meadow horsetail Equisetum pratense S2 

Meadow onion Allium canadense S1 

Moonwort Botrychium minganense S1 

Nodding ladies tresses Spiranthes cernua S1 

Oakfern Gymnocarpium dryopteris S1 

Prairie mimosa Desmanthus illinoensis S1 

Purple sandgrass Triplasis purpurea S1 

Richardson’s sedge Carex richardsonii S1 

Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis S2 

Showy lady’s slipper Cypripedium reginae S2 

Sicklepod Arabis canadensis S1 

Slendar cottongrass Eriophorum gracile S1 

Small yellow lady’s slipper Cypripedium parviflorum S2 

Spiral sedge Carex convoluta S1 

Spring cress Cardamine bulbosa S1 

Southern watermeal Wolffia columbiana S2 

Spiny naiad Najas marina S1 

Stout wood reed Cinna arundinacea S1 

Sweetflag Acorus calamus S2 

Upright pinweed Lechea stricta S1 

Wahoo Euonymus atropurpureus S2 

W. Prairie fringed orchid Patanthera praeclara S2 

White lady’s slipper Cypripedium candidum S2 

Wooly beach-heather Hudsonia tomentosa S1 

Zigzag Goldenrod Solidago flexicaulis S1S2 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 127 
Appendix D. Tewaukon
 

Complex Water Rights
 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Water Rights 

Declaration of Filing dated September 1, 1934, for Lake Tewaukon (Pool 1) 

and East and West White Lakes (Pools 12 and 11) (including Cutlers Marsh 

- Pool 2) for 7,198 acre-feet storage and 4,251 acre-feet seasonal use from 

the Wild Rice River. 

Declaration of Filing dated September 1, 1934, for 397 acre-feet storage 

and 312 acre-feet seasonal use, for Cloud’s Lake, now called Hepi Lake 

(Pool 8), from an unnamed tributary. Water use in Pools 5 through 10 are 

covered under this Right, with Hepi Lake to be drawn down to fill these 

pools. 

Permit No. 1261, for 7,139 acre-feet from the Wild Rice River (4,852 acrefeet storage and 2,287 acre-feet seasonal use) for additional storage and 

seasonal use in Lake Tewaukon, Cutlers Marsh, and West White Lake; 409 

acre-feet seasonal use to replace water diverted from the watershed by 

Sargent County Water Conservation District project; and total storage and 

seasonal use for Pools 3 and 4. The priority date is December 28, 1964. 

Permit No. 1262, for 1,130 acre-feet (635 acre-feet storage and 495 acrefeet seasonal use) for Sprague Lake (Pool 14) from an unnamed tributary 

with a priority date of December 28, 1964. 

Permit No. 1263, for 236 acre-feet for Mann Lake (Pool 13) and 450 acrefeet for Horseshoe Slough (Pool 16) for a total of 686 acre-feet from the 

Wild Rice River with a priority date of December 28, 1964. 

Permit No. 3816, for 571 acre-feet (474 acre-feet storage and 97 acre-feet 

annual use) from the Wild Rice River for the Nickeson Bottoms, a tract 

owned jointly by ND Game and Fish Department, Bureau of Reclamation, 

and the Service. The priority date is August 15, 1985. 

Wild Rice Easement Refuge Water Rights 

Declaration of Filing dated September 1, 1934, for 80 acre-feet storage and 

120 acre-feet seasonal use from the Wild Rice River. 

Storm Lake Easement Refuge Water Rights 

Declaration of Filing dated September 1, 1934, for 729 acre-feet storage 

and 516 acre-feet seasonal use from an unnamed tributary within the Wild 

Rice/Red River basin. 

128 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Appendix E.
 

Key Legislation/Policies


 (in alphabetical order) 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978): Directs agencies to 

consult with native traditional religious leaders to determine appropriate 

policy changes necessary to protect and preserve Native American 

religious cultural rights and practices. 

Americans With Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits discrimination in 

public accommodations and services. 

Antiquities Act (1906): Authorizes the scientific investigation of 

antiquities on Federal land and provides penalties for unauthorized 

removal of objects taken or collected without a permit. 

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974): Directs the 

preservation of historic and archaeological data in Federal construction 

projects. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979) as amended: Protects 

materials of archaeological interest from unauthorized removal or 

destruction and requires Federal managers to develop plans and schedules 

to locate archaeological resources. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally owned, leased, or 

funded buildings and facilities to be accessible to persons with disabilities. 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (1940): The Act prohibits the 

taking or possession of and commerce in bald and golden eagles, with 

limited exceptions. The enacting clause of the original Act stated that the 

Continental Congress in 1782 adopted the bald eagle as the national 

symbol; that the bald eagle became the symbolic representation of a new 

nation and the American ideals of freedom; and that the bald eagle 

threatened with extinction. 

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the Corps of 

Engineers (404 permits) for major wetland modifications. 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986): The purpose of the Act is 

“To promote the conservation of migratory waterfowl and to offset or 

prevent the serious loss of wetlands by the acquisition of wetlands and 

other essential habitat, and for other purposes.” 

Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires all Federal agencies to carry 

out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. 

Executive Order 11987, Exotic Organisms (1977): This Executive Order 

requires Federal agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to: restrict the 

introduction of exotic species into the natural ecosystems on lands and 

waters owned or leased by the United States; encourage States, local 

governments, and private citizens to prevent the introduction of exotic 

species into natural ecosystems of the U.S.; restrict the importation and 

introduction of exotic species into any natural U.S. ecosystems as a result 

of activities they undertake, fund, or authorize; and restrict the use of 

Federal funds, programs, or authorities to export native species for 

introduction into ecosystems outside the U.S. where they do not occur 

naturally. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 129 
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management (1977): Each Federal 

agency shall provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood 

loss and minimize the impact of floods on human safety, and preserve the 

natural and beneficial values served by the floodplains. 

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (1977): This order directs 

all Federal agencies to avoid, if possible, adverse impacts to wetlands and to 

preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. Each 

agency shall avoid undertaking or assisting in wetland construction projects unless 

the head of the agency determines that there is no practicable alternative to such 

construction and that the proposed action includes measures to minimize 

harm. Also, agencies shall provide opportunity for early public review of 

proposals for construction in wetlands, including those projects not 

requiring an EIS. 

Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice (1994): This order 

provides minority and low-income populations an opportunity to comment 

on the development and design of Reclamation activities. Federal agencies 

shall make achieving environmental justice part of their missions by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, 

and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. 

Executive Order 12996 Management and General Public Use of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (1996): Defines the mission, purpose, 

and priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It also 

presents four principles to guide management of the System. 

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996): Directs Federal land 

management agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of 

Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid adversely 

affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, 

maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 

Tribal Governments (1998): The United States has a unique legal relationship 

with Indian tribal governments as set forth in the Constitution of the United 

States, treaties, statutes, Executive orders, and court decisions. Since the 

formation of the Union, the United States has recognized Indian tribes as 

domestic dependent nations under its protection. In treaties, our Nation 

has guaranteed the right of Indian tribes to self-government. As domestic 

dependent nations, Indian tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers over 

their members and territory. The United States continues to work with Indian 

tribes on a government-to-government basis to address issues concerning Indian 

tribal self-government, trust resources, and Indian tribal treaty and other 

rights. 

Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act of August 9, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 777­

777k), as amended: This Act, commonly referred to as the “DingellJohnson Act”, provides aid to the States for management and restoration 

of fish having material value in connection with sport or recreation in 

marine or fresh waters. Funds from an excise tax on certain items of sport 

fishing tackle are appropriated to the Secretary of Interior annually and 

apportioned to States on a formula basis for approved land acquisition, 

research, development and management projects. 

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of September 2, 1937 (16 U.S.C. 

669-669i), as amended: This Act, commonly referred to as the “PittmanRobertson Act”, provides to States for game and nongame wildlife restoration 

work. Funds from an excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition are 

appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior annually and apportioned to 

States on a formula basis for approved land acquisition, research, development 

and management projects and hunter safety programs. 

130 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): Requires the use of integrated 

management systems to control or contain undesirable plant species; and 

an interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of other Federal and 

State agencies. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of March 10, 1934 (16 U.S.C. 661­

66c), as amended: This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

assist Federal, State and other agencies in development, protection, 

rearing and stocking fish and wildlife on Federal lands, and to study effects 

of pollution on fish and wildlife. The Act also requires consultation with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the wildlife agency of any State wherein the 

waters of any stream or other water body are proposed to be impounded, 

diverted, channelized or otherwise controlled or modified by any Federal 

agency, or any private agency under Federal permit or license, with a view 

to preventing loss of, or damage to, wildlife resources in connection with 

such water resource projects. The Act further authorizes Federal water 

resource agencies to acquire lands or interests in connection with water 

use projects specifically for mitigation and enhancement of fish and 

wildlife. 

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a comprehensive national fish 

and wildlife policy and broadened the authority for acquisition and 

development of refuges. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958): Allows the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to enter into agreements with private landowners for wildlife 

management purposes. 

Food Security Act of 1985 (Title XII, Public Law 99-198, 99 Stat. 1354; 

December 23, 1985), as amended: This Act authorizes acquisition of 

easements in real property for a term of not less than 50 years for 

conservation, recreation, and wildlife purposes. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965): Uses the receipts from 

the sale of surplus Federal land, outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, 

and other sources for land acquisition under several authorities. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes procedures for 

acquisition by purchase, rental, or gift of areas approved by the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Commission. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934): Authorized 

the requirement of an annual stamp for the hunting of waterfowl whose 

proceeds go towards the purchase of habitat for waterfowl and other 

wildlife. Duck stamps are also purchased for entry into some refuges, by 

conservationist and for stamp collections. Authorized the opening of part of 

a refuge to waterfowl hunting. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates the protection of 

migratory birds as a Federal responsibility. This Act enables the setting of 

seasons, and other regulations including the closing of areas, Federal or 

nonfederal, to the hunting of migratory birds. 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969): Requires the disclosure of 

the environmental impacts of any major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment. 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966) as amended: Establishes as 

policy that the Federal Government is to provide leadership in the 

preservation of the nation’s prehistoric and historic resources. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 131 
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 as 

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee. (Refuge Administration Act): Defines the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the Secretary to permit 

any use of a refuge provided such use is compatible with the major 

purposes for which the refuge was established. The Refuge Improvement 

Act clearly defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; establishes 

the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education 

and interpretation); establishes a formal process for determining 

compatibility; established the responsibilities of the Secretary of Interior 

for managing and protecting the System; and requires a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended 

portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997: Sets the 

mission and administrative policy for all refuges in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Clearly defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; 

establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public 

uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or 

environmental education and interpretation); establishes a formal process 

for determining compatibility; establishes the responsibilities of the 

Secretary of the Interior for managing and protecting the System; and 

requires a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each refuge by the year 

2012. This Act amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990): 

Requires Federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine 

ownership of, and repatriate cultural items under their control or 

possession. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of December 13, 1989 (16 

U.S.C. 4401-4412). Public Law 101-233 provides funding and administrative 

direction for implementation of the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan and the Tripartite Agreement on wetlands between 

Canada, U.S. and Mexico. 

Refuge Recreation Act (1962): Allows the use of refuges for recreation 

when such uses are compatible with the refuge’s primary purposes and 

when sufficient funds are available to manage the uses. 

Rehabilitation Act (1973): Requires programmatic accessibility in addition 

to physical accessibility for all facilities and programs funded by the Federal 

government to ensure that anybody can participate in any program. 

Water Resources Planning Act (1965): This Act establishes a cabinetlevel Water Resources Council to study, coordinate and review water and 

related land resources requirements, policies and plans, and authorizes 

funding for states to plan and implement related programs. 

132 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Appendix F. 

Finding of No Significant Impact and
 

Environmental Action Memorandum
 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex
 

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 

Three management alternatives for Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex were presented and evaluated as to 

their effectiveness in achieving Refuge purposes and their impact on the human environment. A “Custodial” alternative 

(discontinue management actions and close to public use), a “No Action” alternative (maintain the status quo), and an 

“Implement the CCP” alternative were assessed in the Environmental Assessment. Based on this analysis and 

comments received, I have selected the preferred alternative (implement the CCP) to be enacted on the Complex. 

The preferred alternative was selected because it best meets the purposes of the Complex to manage for migratory 

birds, assist in the protection and restoration of native prairie habitats, provide public access for wildlife-dependent 

recreation, and provides environmental education opportunities related to fish and wildlife resources. 

I find that the proposed action will not have a significant impact on the human environment in accordance with 

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act and in accordance with the Service’s Administrative Manual 

{30 Ams.9B(2)(d)} and concluded that an environmental impact statement is not necessary. 

My rationale for this finding follows: 

■	 The preferred alternative will not adversely impact endangered or threatened species or their habitats. 

■	 The preferred alternative will not adversely affect or cause the loss or destruction of any archaeological or 

paleontological resources. 

■	 The preferred alternative will have no adverse impact on wetlands or floodplains. 

■	 The preferred alternative will have a positive effect on habitat and wildlife management, prairie wetland 

management, public use and recreation, and environmental education through restoration of grassland and 

wetland habitats, biological data gathering and analysis, facilities improvements, and effective program 

evaluation. 

■	 The preferred alternative will have no negative impact on wildlife or wildlife habitat. 

■	 No impact will occur on minority and low-income populations of communities. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 133 
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
 

Region 6
 

Environmental Action Memorandum
 

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

Environmental Policy Act and other statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and wildlife resources, I have 

established the following administrative record and have determined that implementing the Tewaukon NWR 

Complex CCP will not have a significant environmental effect, based on the Tewaukon NWR Complex Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, and is therefore authorized to be implemented. 

134 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Appendix G. Compatibility 

Determinations 

Station Name: Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Date Established: 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge: June 26, 1945 

Tewaukon Wetland Management District: August 1, 1958 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: The Tewaukon National 

Wildlife Refuge, located in Sargent County in southeastern North Dakota, 

was originally established as an easement refuge by Executive Order No. 

6910 on November 26, 1934. Tewaukon was then established as a Refuge 

under the authority of Public Land Order 286 on June 26, 1945; additional 

lands were added with the approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

commission, under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. 

Tewaukon Wetland Management District was authorized by Congress with 

the passage of Public Law 85-585 on August 1, 1958. The first tract of land 

acquired in the District was in 1961. Additional lands were added to the 

District under the authority of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation 

Stamp Tax. The Tewaukon WMD is comprised of approximately of 105 

Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA’s) (over 14,000 acres), 35,000 acres of 

wetland easements, 10,400 acres of grassland easements, and 112 wetland 

and 45 acres of grassland in FmHA easements located in Richland, 

Ransom, and Sargent Counties, North Dakota. Enabling legislation 

includes: the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 

USC 718-718h, 48 Stat. 452), and the Wetlands Loan Act (16 USC 715k-3 ­

715k-5; Stat. 813). Funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act, are 

merged with duck stamp receipts in the fund and appropriated to the 

Secretary for the acquisition of migratory bird refuges under provisions of 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715 et seq.; 45 Stat. 1222), 

as amended, and since August 1, 1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for 

acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas.” 

Purpose(s) for which Established: For lands acquired under the Executive 

Order, dated April 24, 1943, the purpose of the acquisition is to reserve and 

set apart certain public lands for the use of the Department of the Interior 

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

■	 For lands acquired under Public Land Order 286, dated June 26, 1945, 

the purpose of the acquisition is “... as a refuge and breeding ground 

for migratory birds and other wildlife...” 

■	 For lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 

U.S.C. S 715d, as amended, the purpose of acquisition is “... for uses as 

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

migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. S 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

■	 For District lands acquired under the Public Law 85-585, dated August 

1, 1958, the purpose of the acquisition is to assure the continued 

availability of habitat capable of supporting migratory bird populations 

at desired levels. 

■	 For lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation 

Stamp Tax, 16 U.S.C. S 718, as amended, for the purpose: “ ... as Waterfowl 

Production Areas” subject to go ... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions ... 11 16 

U.S.C. S 718© (Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Tax). 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The Mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System is “to administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration 

of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United Sates 

for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 135 
Description of Proposed Use: Wildlife Observation, Wildlife 

Photography, Interpretation and Environmental Education 

Provide opportunities that support wildlife-dependent recreation, education, 

and outreach to the public. From general observations conducted in the 

Refuge visitor center and along Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake, it is 

estimated that over 20,000 visitors utilize Tewaukon National Wildlife 

Refuge annually for wildlife/wildland observation, photography, interpretation / 

education, picnicking, and hiking. The majority of the use is focused on the 

east side of County Road 12 which includes the visitor center, Lake 

Tewaukon, the Prairie Lake Auto Tour, several picnic areas, and a scenic 

overlook. The District has substantially less visitation for the above uses 

(300 visits). A recent addition of a prairie walking trail at the Hartleben 

WPA is expected to increase this use. 

Interpretation and environmental education services are provided when 

staff are available and include talks or guided tours for groups such as 

school groups, scouts, 4-H clubs, and special groups. The public is invited 

to participate in Refuge open houses and other events throughout the year. 

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan proposes to continue with the 

above uses and add the following to improve interpretation and access for 

visitors: 

■	 Develop a wildlife observation platform and interpretive hiking trail. 

■	 Improve visitor center availability to visitors with staff and expansion 

of hours of operation during times of high use. 

■	 Improve and expand the visitor center displays and group presentation 

area. 

■	 Develop new Refuge brochures and update old brochures to new 

Service standards. 

■	 Develop a tallgrass prairie interpretive trail near the visitor center. 

■	 Develop and maintain a web site for the Complex. 

136 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Availability of resources: 

Currently, sufficient resources are available to continue the existing 

wildlife-dependent recreation. The additional items to be added from the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan are tied to funding requests in the form 

of the attached RONS projects (Appendix J). 

Anticipated impacts of the use: 

Some disturbance to wildlife will occur in areas of the Refuge frequented 

by visitors. However, with limiting of areas open to public use and Refuge 

road closures at specific times of the year, these impacts can be lessened 

(See CCP Wildlife Disturbance Section). Monitoring of activities and their 

impacts and limiting the location and time of year for wildlife-dependent 

visits will maintain use at an acceptable level. 

Justification: 

Based upon biological impacts described in the CCP and in the Environmental 

Assessment, it is determined that wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

interpretation, and environmental education within the Tewaukon Complex 

will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which 

this Complex was established. 

One of the secondary goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to 

provide opportunities for the public to develop an understanding and 

appreciation for wildlife when found compatible. The four uses are 

identified as priority public uses in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 and will help meet that goal at the Tewaukon 

NWR Complex with only minimal conflicts with the wildlife conservation 

mission of the Refuge System. 

Determination: Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography, Interpretation, 

and Environmental Education are compatible. 

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: 

■	 During peak concentrations of migratory waterbirds, areas will be 

closed and access limited to minimize any wildlife disturbance. 

■	 Monitor use, regulate access and maintain necessary facilities to 

prevent habitat degradation in high public use areas. 

■	 Monitor levels of use and effects on wildlife. 

■	 Implement additional educational and interpretive programs that 

discuss wildlife disturbance. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 137 
Description of proposed use: Recreational Fishing 

Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake are utilized as open water rest areas for 

migratory birds. A secondary use is public sport fishing according to State 

and Federal Regulations. Year-round bank fishing is allowed with seasonally 

limited access and boat fishing from May 1 through September 30 to avoid 

conflicts with migratory bird use of the Lakes. Visitors participating in this 

use at the Refuge are estimated at 9,000 per year. Facilities available 

include five boat ramps (two are accessible), picnic areas, fishing docks, 

informational kiosks, parking areas, and rest room facilities. A kids fishing 

day is held in conjunction with the Tewaukon Field Day sponsored by the 

ND Extension Service. A fishing tournament is held each year by local 

sportsmen’s groups with proceeds going towards Lake developments. The 

CCP does not propose any additional improvements beyond maintaining 

the existing use. The District Waterfowl Production Areas are legally open 

to fishing as per their establishing legislation and the Federal Code of 

Regulations. 

Availability of resources: 

Currently, sufficient resources are available to continue the existing 

recreational fishing. 

Anticipated impacts of the use: 

Fishing and other human activities cause disturbance to wildlife (see CCP 

Section on Wildlife Disturbance). Impacts could occur during waterbird 

nesting season. However, the physical characteristics of these lakes and 

their shorelines make them poor areas for breeding waterbird populations. 

Justification: 

When Refuge and flowage easements were secured in the 1930s, it was 

with the understanding that recreational fishing use of the lake would be 

continued and improved. Recreational fishing, on Lake Tewaukon and 

Sprague Lake, causes minimal disturbances for waterbirds and benefits 

other wildlife species. 

Based upon biological impacts described in the CCP and in the Environmental 

Assessment, it is determined that recreational fishing within the Tewaukon 

Complex will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for 

which this Complex was established. 

One of the secondary goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to 

provide opportunities for public fishing when compatible, and it is identified as a 

priority public use in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997. Recreational fishing at the Tewaukon NWR Complex will 

support this goal with only minimal conflicts with the wildlife conservation 

mission of the Refuge System. 

Determination: Recreational fishing is compatible. 

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: 

■	 Both lakes will be closed to boat fishing and open to limited bank 

fishing during the spring and fall migrations periods for waterbirds. 

■	 Parking lot, road, trail, and related access facilities will be maintained 

as necessary to prevent erosion or habitat damage. 

■	 No additional lakes or marshes on the Refuge will be open to fishing. 

■	 Boat use will be limited to recreational fishing (no jet skis, power 

boating, etc.,). 

■	 Limit access for ice fishing to established areas (boat ramps and 

normal County and township roads). 

■	 Waterfowl production areas will maintain only natural fish populations 

(no stocking). 

■	 Monitor existing use to ensure that facilities are adequate and 

disturbance to wildlife continues to be minimal. 

138 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Description of proposed use: Recreational Hunting 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge is open to pheasant hunting and whitetailed deer hunting in the fall. Visitation for these activities is estimated at 

4,000. Parking areas are made available for this use. The District Waterfowl 

Production Areas are legally open to hunting as per their establishing 

legislation and the Federal Code of Regulations. The CCP does not propose 

any additional improvements beyond maintaining the existing use. 

Availability of resources: 

Currently, sufficient resources are available to continue the existing 

recreational hunting. 

Anticipated impacts of the use: 

Recreational hunting will remove individual animals from the wildlife 

populations ensuring that carrying capacity is not exceeded (possibly 

impacting other species habitat). Some wildlife disturbance will occur 

during the hunting season. 

Justification: 

Hunting is a legitimate wildlife management tool that is used to manage 

deer populations. This is necessary to ensure that populations above the 

carrying capacity are controlled to reduce impacts to habitat and other 

wildlife that also depend upon that habitat. Some wildlife disturbance will 

occur during the hunting seasons. Proper zoning, regulations, and Refuge 

seasons will be designated to minimize any negative impact to wildlife 

populations using the Refuge. Based upon biological impacts presented in 

the CCP and in the Environmental Assessment, it is determined that 

recreational hunting within the Tewaukon Complex will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the purposes for which this Complex was 

established. 

One of the secondary goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to 

provide opportunities for public hunting when it is found to be compatible, 

and it is identified as a priority public use in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997. Recreational pheasant hunting on the 

Tewaukon NWR Complex will support this goal, with only minimal conflicts 

with the wildlife conservation mission of the Refuge System and purposes 

of the Refuge. 

Determination: Recreational hunting is compatible. 

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: 

■	 Use of nontoxic shot is required on the Refuge for pheasant hunting 

and the District for waterfowl hunting and upland game hunting to 

minimize exposure to lead by waterfowl. 

■	 Hunting must be in accordance with Federal and State regulations 

(seasons predominately open after migrating waterbirds have left the 

Complex). 

■	 Hunting on Tewaukon NWR will take place in a manner that will 

minimize disturbance to migrating waterbirds. 

■	 Hunting will be evaluated to provide a safe hunt (reduce the conflict of 

the variety of hunting seasons). 

■	 The Refuge deer hunt will be coordinated with the ND Game and Fish 

Department to determine number of permits to manage the populations. 

■	 Monitor these uses to assure they do not interfere with and are 

compatible with other wildlife-dependent recreational activities. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 139 
Description of proposed use: Trapping 

Provide for trapping on the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge and on 

District lands. Provide for spring predator trapping to improve upland 

nesting bird success on the Complex. The District Waterfowl Production 

Areas are legally open to recreational trapping according to State regulations 

as per their establishing legislation and the Federal Code of Regulations. 

Availability of resources: 

Currently, insufficient funding and staffing exists to manage the recreational 

trapping and spring predator trapping on the Complex. Trapping funding 

requests are described in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan as Refuge 

Operation Needs System (RONS) projects (Appendix J). Spring predator 

trapping requires staff, funding of contracted trapper, monitoring of 

predator populations, and upland bird production. 

Anticipated impacts of the use: 

Trapping removes individual animals from wildlife populations, and predator 

populations are temporarily reduced up to and during the nesting season. 

Spring predator trapping allows for the increased nesting success of 

upland nesting birds. Direct mortality would occur of target animals, some 

vegetation trampling by personnel, and some minor increase in general 

wildlife disturbance in trapping areas due to human and vehicular traffic. 

The possibility of injury exists to nontarget wildlife that are caught in 

traps such as badgers, weasels, rabbits, domestic dogs, and feral cats. 

Justification: 

Recreational trapping removes excessive wildlife populations and provides 

public recreational opportunity. Spring predator trapping will benefit 

upland nesting birds, including many species of waterfowl, when predator 

populations are reduced during the nesting season. Long-term negative 

effects to these predator populations will not take place as conducted 

trapping activities cannot feasibly remove enough animals to permanently impact 

these populations. An environmental assessment of trapping is available at the 

Refuge office for review (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). 

Determination: Trapping is compatible with additional funding. 

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: 

■	 Trapping will be conducted in a manner that will remove only targeted 

upland nest predators. 

■	 Recreational trapping will occur within regular State seasons and will 

not conflict with other public uses. 

■	 Trapping for predators outside of the regular season will be coordinated 

with the ND Game and Fish Department. 

■	 Detailed trapping records will be maintained for Refuge trappers, staff 

trappers, and contracted trappers. 

■	 No trapping will take place in areas of high public use especially 

surrounding Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake. 

■	 No exposed bait would be placed near traps that might attract eagles 

or other raptors. 

■	 Traps used will be legal traps as per the State of North Dakota and 

snares for specialize spring trapping. 

■	 Traps must be checked at least once every 24 hours. 

■	 Monitoring of nest success in areas targeted for predator removal to 

determine effectiveness and need for next years trapping (only when 

nest success falls below 30 percent Mayfield will trapping be conducted - see section on Waterfowl in CCP). 

140 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Description of proposed use: Management Tools with 

Economic Uses: Farming, Grazing, Haying 

Continue upland management activities that are conducted under permit 

by private individuals such as haying, grazing, and farming. Currently, 

these economic uses are used as management tools to manage habitat for 

wildlife. Up to 500 acres are farmed each year in the Complex including 

Refuge fields and food plots on WPA’s. Cattle grazing is currently used as a 

management tool on the Gainor WPA (about 800 acres) and sheep grazing 

is used on the Refuge and District to control leafy spurge (about 200 acres). 

Haying is used on the Refuge and District to improve grassland conditions 

with approximately 450 acres hayed per year by cooperators. The CCP 

proposes to maintain the number of crop acres and may include increasing 

grazing and haying if these tools are required for improving habitat. 

Projects in the CCP will improve the administrative and monitoring 

aspects of these programs. 

Availability of resources: 

Current resources are stretched thin to maintain existing programs. If 

additional staff support was available, these programs could be expanded to 

utilize these tools more effectively and monitoring could be accomplished. 

RONS Project Number 1, listed in Appendix J, would accomplish the goals 

of the CCP and improve the existing program. 

Anticipated impacts of the use: 

Current management affects approximately 10 percent of the upland 

habitat annually. This would increase to approximately 15 percent under the 

CCP. This management is not evenly distributed over the entire Complex, and 

the percentage of upland receiving optimum management is considered to 

be much less that 10 percent. General habitat conditions on the Complex 

would gradually deteriorate due to long periods of non-prescribed rest. 

While some wildlife disturbance does occur with these activities, the 

benefits to wildlife far outweigh these disturbances. No cultural resources 

would be impacted. No impact to endangered species should occur; however, 

habitat suitability for the Dakota skipper, regal fritillary, and white lady’s 

slipper would continue to deteriorate without some form of defoliation 

treatment. 

Justification: 

Upland habitat conditions would deteriorate without the use of a full range 

of upland management tools. Exotic and noxious weed species would 

increase, and habitat diversity would decrease causing a decline in wildlife 

diversity. Migratory bird production and diversity would decrease as habitat 

suitability for these species declined. Consumptive and non-consumptive 

wildlife oriented recreational opportunities would decline as wildlife 

diversity and populations decreased. Although the prescribed management 

techniques listed in the proposed use are not adequate in scope to prevent 

such declines from taking place in all upland habitat sites, the limited 

upland management which does take place will diversify and improve 

treated grasslands. An environmental assessment that evaluates upland 

habitat management (including these uses) is available at the Refuge office 

for review (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 141 
Determination: Farming, Grazing, Haying are compatible when used as 

management tools. 

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: 

■	 General and special conditions are required for each permit to ensure 

consistency with management objectives. 

■	 Farming permittees are restricted to a list of approved chemicals 

which are less detrimental to wildlife, use only necessary amount to 

control problem spots, and report their use yearly. 

■	 Farming permittees must leave a portion of the crop for wildlife use. 

■	 Farming permittees must not cut or plow under clover until after July 

15 and alfalfa after July 1. 

■	 Farming permittees must obtain permission from the Refuge Manager 

to work in the fields after opening of waterfowl season. 

■	 Grazing permittees will be restricted to after June 1 to avoid some 

disturbance to nesting birds. 

■	 Cattle grazing permittees are required to follow a short-term rotational 

grazing system to provide appropriate stimulation of grasses. 

■	 Grazing permittees must comply with State Livestock Health Laws. 

■	 Haying will be restricted to after July 15 to avoid disturbance to nesting 

birds. 

■	 Haying permittees are required to report and mow noxious weeds in 

their areas. 

Signatures: 

142 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Appendix H. ND/SD Draft 

Ecosystem Goals and Objectives 

Grassland Habitat Goals and Objectives 

Mission:	 Protect, restore, and maintain North and South Dakota’s native 

prairie and other grasslands to ensure its diversity and 

abundance of native flora and fauna. 

Goal A: Prevent degradation and conversion of native prairie 

grassland to other uses. 

Objectives: 

■	 Locate, categorize, evaluate, and map existing native grassland 

within the Dakotas for baseline information within the next five 

years. 

■	 Protect grasslands by easement on 50,000 acres of grassland per 

year for the next 10 years. 

■	 By the year 2003, develop and implement public education 

programs to promote awareness and advocacy for native prairie. 

■	 Maintain and develop partnerships to protect 10,000 acres native 

prairie over the next 10 years. 

Goal B:Establish and maintain a network of large prairie grassland 

including native and planted grasslands on public and private 

lands. 

Objectives: 

■	 Promote and implement prescribed burning and rotational grazing 

on a minimum of 20 percent of private lands to enhance and 

maintain healthy native prairie. 

■	 By the year 2003, develop a public education program on types of 

defoliation and importance of proper defoliation of native prairie. 

■	 Over the next 10 years, develop partnerships to enhance and 

manage native prairie, including invasion by alien species. 

■	 Develop criteria within six months and identify within the next five 

years the most biologically significant landscape to meet the needs 

of trust species and species of special concern. 

■	 Develop criteria and treat a minimum of 20 percent of agencyowned grasslands annually. 

Goal C: Reduce fragmentation effects to flora and fauna in native 

prairie communities. Maintain and develop corridors between 

large prairie conservation reserves to facilitate dispersion of 

native species and enhance gene flow. 

Objectives: 

■	 Develop an education program by the year 2003 to help the public 

understand why corridors are important. 

■	 By 2003, develop management plans for these corridors to ensure they 

are properly managed to maintain the health and vigor of the plants. 

■	 By 2003, develop statewide plans to determine where corridors are 

needed to connect blocks of native prairie. 

■	 Develop and maintain corridors between large grassland 

landscape within five years of identification to reduce 

fragmentation. In addition, create public support for seeding 

native grasses and forbs along road rights-of-way. 

■	 Use road rights-of-way, where applicable, to develop corridors by 

planting native grasses and forbs. 

■	 Seek other avenues to develop, retain, and enhance corridors 

where road rights-of-way will not be sufficient. 

■	 Over the next 10 years, maintain and develop statewide partnership 

programs to get people involved in identifying methods and locations 

for corridors, and their management. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 143 
Goal D:Protect, restore, and enhance trust species and species of 

special concern. 

Objectives: 

■	 Identify what species are in trouble and why by the year 2003. 

■	 Develop at least three management approaches within the next 10 

years for each species not covered at the landscape level. 

■	 Develop education programs of why these species are important to 

conserve, what approaches will be taken for their recovery, and 

what the public can do to help. 

■	 Develop statewide partnership programs to get people involved in 

species recovery. 

Goal E:Maintain and increase planted grasslands. 

Objectives: 

■	 Within the next two years, identify the key areas to maintain and 

to increase planted grasslands. 

■	 By 2003, develop a plan to connect the different corridors. 

Goal F: Protect native prairie from industrial/chemical 

contamination. 

Objectives: 

■	 Identify what contaminants are entering native prairie and what 

adverse impact each contaminant may have on native prairie. 

■	 Develop a plan on how to prevent and/or reduce further
 

contaminants from entering native prairie.
 

■	 Develop a public education program explaining what contaminants 

are out there, what impact they are having, how to reduce or 

eliminate these, and how the public can help. 

144 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Wetlands and Watershed Goals and Objectives 

Mission:	 Protect, restore, manage, and create wetlands and their watersheds 

in North Dakota and South Dakota to ensure the abundances 

of fish and wildlife species for the benefit of the American 

public. 

Goal A: Increase recognition of wetland values by the various publics 

(community, conservation, communication, Congressional, 

and corporate entities) and develop a wetland advocacy. 

Objective: 

■	 Over the next three years, implement informational and educational 

opportunities that develop advocates for wetland conservation. 

Goal B: Prevent or reduce the conversion or degradation of wetland 

habitats, and restore, replace, and enhance wetland habitats, 

qualities, and functions for trust species and species of concern. 

Objectives: 

■	 Annually protect 10,000 acres of wetlands, and 20,000 acres of 

uplands through fee, easement, and PFFW agreements for the next 

10 years in North Dakota. 

■	 Assist partners and other agencies in protecting, creating, 

restoring, managing, and enhancing 5,000 acres of wetlands and 

associated uplands annually in North Dakota. 

■	 Develop partnerships with neighbors and local conservation 

organizations to annually manage 20 percent of Service uplands 

for trust species and species of concern. 

■	 On a statewide (ND) basis, assure that easement violations are 

brought to conclusion within a one year period. 

■	 Over the next 10 years, prepare easement maps for all North 

Dakota wetland easements. 

Goal C: Maintain and restore the quality and health of existing prairie 

wetlands in order to preserve their natural productivity, 

longevity, and function. 

(Objectives 1 and 2, Goal B, support this) 

Goal D: Protect the water supply and property interests of wetlands 

on Service lands or easements. 

Objective: 

■	 File for water rights on eligible Service properties or easements 

over the next 10 years. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 145 
Riparian Goals and Objectives 

Mission:	 Maintain, restore, and enhance riparian, floodplain, and watershed 

functions to river systems for the benefit of trust resources, Fish and 

Wildlife Service properties, and the American public. 

Goal 1: Reduce the conversion of riparian habitats. 

Objectives: 

■	 Inventory and determine the quality of riparian habitats within 

North and South Dakota which influence National Wildlife Refuges 

by 2003 to provide baseline information. 

■	 Implement a public education program in North and South Dakota 

by 2003 to promote a public appreciation and understanding for 

the benefits of and the threats to riparian habitats. 

Goal 2: Maintain, restore, or enhance riparian habitats, quality, 

functions, and biotic communities. 

Objectives: 

■	 Use existing programs and opportunities in North and South Dakota 

by 2008 to provide river buffer zones on 10 percent of the 2 to 5 year 

floodplain 50 miles upstream of National Wildlife Refuges. 

■	 Facilitate the location and control of all purple loosestrife populations 

upstream of national wildlife refuges in North and South Dakota by 

2003 to maintain quality habitat. 

■	 Use existing programs and opportunities in North and South Dakota by 

2003 to restore or enhance the functions of oxbow wetlands within 50 

miles of national wildlife refuges. 

■	 National wildlife refuges with river impoundments in North and 

South Dakota shall collect water quality and biotic community 

data from inflows, outflows, and impoundment pools to determine 

baseline parameters by the year 2003. 

■	 Support State efforts to monitor water quality and biotic communities in 

impaired waters in North and South Dakota to promote 

compliance with State water quality standards. 

■	 Conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic systems and fish populations in 

North and South Dakota to provide increased recreational opportunities 

by increasing fishing access, education and outreach, and 

partnership opportunities by 2003. 

Goal 3: Conserve and recover endangered, threatened, and species of 

special concern. 

Objectives: 

■	 Inventory endangered, threatened, and species of special concern 

along riparian corridors in North and South Dakota by 2001 to 

provide baseline information. 

■	 Develop strategies for conserving and recovering endangered, 

threatened, and species of special concern along riparian habitat in 

North and South Dakota by 2003 to prevent any species from 

becoming listed. 

Goal 4: Conserve, restore, enhance and create habitat resources in 

watersheds that influence the quality and quantity of water 

flowing into rivers and streams. 

Objectives: 

■	 Use existing oversight, coordination, and technical assistance to 

promote sound watershed management on an additional 10,000 

acres in North and South Dakota by 2003. 

■	 Use existing programs and opportunities in North and South 

Dakota by 2003 to conserve, enhance, or restore grasslands and 

wetlands in the immediate vicinity of national wildlife refuges to 

provide quality water runoff. 

146 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Missouri River Goals and Objectives 

Goal 1: Reestablish the natural form and function and prevent 

degradation for prioritized riverine sections. 

Objectives: 

■	 Achieve a more ecologically beneficial hydrograph below Ft. Peck, 

Garrison, Ft. Randall, and Gavins Point Dams by working with 

COE, States, and other stakeholders by 2000. 

■	 Work with the COE, States, and stakeholders to achieve compatible 

ecologically beneficial water quality parameters including 

temperature, sediment transport, and turbidity by 2003. 

■	 Work with local zoning authorities and regulators to develop and 

implement policies that influence floodplain development and bank 

stabilization to maintain/restore river functions by 2003. 

■	 Increase functional habitat base in prioritized riverine sections 

through restorations, creations, and modification/enhancement 

where opportunities allow. Attempt one major project per year 

beginning in 1999. 

■	 Continue an environmental contaminants presence on the Missouri 

River that monitors conditions, identifies issues and problem areas, 

and develops strategies for rehabilitation. 

■	 Promote restoration of river functions and values through
 

proactive outreach.
 

Goal 2: Conserve and recover endangered, threatened, and species of 

special concern in riverine and impounded reaches. 

Objectives: 

■	 Augment current pallid sturgeon populations in: 1) Missouri and 

Yellowstone Rivers above Lake Sakakawea, and 2) below Ft. 

Randall through hatchery production to develop a genetically 

sound natural population structure by 2004. 

■	 Achieve a 5-year average fledged success rate of 0.79 for 325 pairs of 

least terns, and 1.44 for 350 pairs of piping plovers below Garrison 

and Gavins Point Dams by 2004. 

■	 Develop recovery actions or conservation plans for the sicklefin 

chub and the sturgeon chub by 1999, and seek funding and 

implementation of plans by 2000. 

■	 Establish priority and complete status reviews for species of special 

concern, such as the blue sucker, flathead chub, western silvery 

and plains minnows, initiating one species per year beginning in 

1999. 

Goal 3: Fulfill commitments for mitigation of fishery resources 

brought about by construction of the mainstem dams. 

Objectives: 

■	 Through hatcheries, management, and conservation, support State 

fisheries objectives for the Missouri River and its impoundments 

annually. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 147 
Appendix I. Partnerships
 

The Tewaukon Complex staff works with a variety of organizations and 

individuals on natural resource projects such as the following: 

Drift Prairie Wetland Enhancement North American Wetland Conservation 

Act Grant cooperators: 

✓ North American Wetlands Conservation Council 

✓ ND Game and Fish Department 

✓ Ducks Unlimited 

✓ The Nature Conservancy 

✓ North Dakota Wetlands Trust 

✓ Delta Waterfowl Foundation 

✓ Barnes County Wildlife Federation 

✓ Cass County Wildlife Club 

✓ private landowners 

North Dakota Jr. Duck Stamp Contest contributors: 

✓ Cogswell Gun Club 

✓ Tewaukon Rod and Gun Club 

✓ Red River Sportsmen’s Club 

✓ Hannaford Conservation and Wildlife 

✓ Rutland Sportsmens Club 

✓ Barnes County Wildlife Federation 

✓ American Foundation for Wildlife 

✓ ND Chapter of The Wildlife Society 

✓ Richland County Wildlife 

✓ Cass County Wildlife Club 

✓ United Sportsmen of Jamestown 

✓ Falkirk Mining Company 

✓ Lake Region Improvement Club 

✓ Bottineau County Wildlife Federation 

✓ Dakota Territory Gun Collectors 

Fishery Habitat Improvement: 

✓ ND Game and Fish Department 

✓ Tewaukon Rod and Gun Club 

✓ Cogswell Gun Club 

✓ Rutland Sportsmens Club 

U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

✓ Natural Resources Conservation Service ­

easements, EQUIP, and CRP programs 

✓ Farm Service Agency - easement program 

✓ APHIS-depredation program 

✓ U.S. Forest Service 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation: 

✓ Kraft Slough Acquisition and Management 

ND Game and Fish Department: 

✓ wildlife surveys, habitat management, wildlife law enforcement 

Partners For Fish and Wildlife program: 

✓ private landowners 

Sargent County Extension Service: 

✓ youth programs, community projects 

148 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Water Quality Monitoring: 

✓ Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe 

✓ North Dakota Department of Health 

✓ Wild Rice Conservation District 

Adopt-A-WPA: 

✓ Sargent County Pheasants Forever 

✓ Red River Sportsmen’s Club 

Annual Tewaukon Fishing Derby and projects: 

✓ Cogswell Gun Club 

✓ Tewaukon Rod and Gun Club 

Other cooperators and projects include: local law enforcement agencies; 

The Wahpeton Zoo, conservation districts (no-till drill, native seed harvest); 

Ducks Unlimited (water control structures, predator fences); The North 

Dakota Wetlands Trust (grassland easements, water control structure 

repair); The Delta Waterfowl Foundation (predator research); Rural Fire 

Districts (wildfire suppression on- and off-Refuge); various universities 

(research); and the General Federation of Women’s Cultura Club of 

Hankinson (native prairie restoration, walks, and nature trail). 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 149 
Appendix J. RONS and MMS Projects 

The two following tables show the top 12 RONS projects and the top 11 MMS projects associated with the CCP. The 

“Goal or Objective” column on the RONS table links back to the Goals, Objectives, and Strategies section in the CCP. 

For more information on these projects, please contact the Refuge Manager. 

RONS Projects 

RONS 

No. 

Goal or Objective 

(R=Refuge; D=District; 

E=Easement) 

Project Description Construction 

Funding 

First 

Year 

Need 

Recurring 

Annual 

Need 

FTE* 

97020 R1.3, D1.5 Upland restoration for grassland 

nesting birds. 

$209,000 $100,000 1.5 

97005 R1.1, R1.2, R1.3, R1.4, 

R1.5, R1.7, R1.10, 

R1.11, R2.1, R2.3, R2.4, 

R2.7, R2.8, R3.1, R4.1, 

D1.1, D1.2, D1.5, D2.5, 

D3.2, D3.4, D3.6, D3.7 

Biological information collecting and 

monitoring to support management of 

wildlife and habitat. 

$254,000 $133,000 2.0 

97009 R1.10 Nonnative plant control to improve 

habitat for wildlife. 

$118,000 $60,000 1.0 

97001 R1.1, R1.2, R1.4, R2.4, 

R3.1, D1.1, D1.2, D1.6, 

D2.2, D3.2, D3.4 

Tallgrass restoration for declining 

grassland nesting birds. 

$325,000 $92,000 .5 

97007 R1.6, R2.11, R2.12, 

R2.13, R4.1, R4.3, R4.8, 

D1.4, D1.10, D4.1, 

D4.2, D4.4, E1.1, E1.3 

Protection of resources including 

wetlands, grasslands, and safety of 

public. 

$270,000 $88,000 1.0 

97032 R5.1, D1.3, D1.11, D3.1, 

D5.1 

Assistance to private landowners to 

improve wildlife habitat. 

$185,000 $103,000 1.0 

98033 R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, 

D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, E1 

Improvement of staff facilities and 

support. 

$1,000,000 $155,000 $64,000 1.0 

97003 R4.2, R4.3, R4.4, R4.5, 

R4.6, R4.7, R4.8, R4.9, 

R5.1, R5.2, D4.1, D4.2, 

D4.3, D4.4, D5.1 

Improvement of public education and 

recreation facilities and staff. 

$1,500,000 $515,000 $118,000 1.0 

99042 R1.1, R1.2, R1.4, R1.5, 

R1.10, R1.11, R1.12, 

D1.1, D1.2, D1.6, D1.7, 

D3.1, D3.3, D5.1 

Fire management program to improve 

wildlife habitat and protection of 

wildfires. 

$242,000 $93,000 1.0 

99040 R4.5, R4.6, R4.8, R4.9, 

R5.1, D4.2, D4.3, D4.4, 

D5.1 

Protection, documentation, and 

interpretation of existing cultural 

resources. 

$77,000 $20,000 -

98029 R1.5, R1.6, D1.8, D1.9, 

D1.10 

Protection and clarifying of water 

rights on Complex to support water 

bird needs. 

$467,000 $30,000 -

98003 R2.1, D2.1 Predator control to improve grassland 

bird nesting success on the complex. 

$382,000 $55,000 -

TOTALS $2,500,000 $3,199,000 $956,000 10.0 

*FTE=Full-time Equivalency 

150 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
MMS Projects 

MMS 

No. 

Goal or Objective 

(R=Refuge; D=District; 

E=Easement) 

Description Cost 

89013 R1.1, R1.2, R1.3, R1.4, 

R1.11, R1.12, D1.1, 

D1.2, D1.5, D1.6 

Replace deteriorated and worn disk needed for 

preparing seedbed for planting of natives and for 

creating fire lines. 

$37,000 

89008 R1.2, R1.5, R1.11, 

R1.12 

Replace deteriorated heavy equipment (dozer) used to 

assist in repairs to flood damage and 12-year 

maintenance backlog. 

$148,000 

99043 R1.2, R1.4, R1.10, R4.5, 

R5.1, D1.2, D1.5, D1.6, 

D4.2, D5.1 

Replace worn 1986 1-ton diesel truck. $45,000 

00084 R1.2, R1.3, R1.5, R1.10, 

R4.5, R5.1, D1.2, D1.5, 

D1.6, D4.2, D5.1 

Replace worn 1979, 18,000 lb 5th wheel trailer used to 

haul fence supplies, culverts, and small equipment. 

$10,000 

97003 R4, R5 Replace 12 worn and faded public safety signs. These 

signs guide our visitors to points of interest and 

interpret management activities. They also address

many important safety concerns on the Refuge. 

$39,000 

98031 R2.1 Replace existing predator exclosure fence with a chain 

link fence. 

$100,000 

00087 A R1.5 Replace water control structure in Pool B and repair 

existing dike. 

$50,000 

00087 B R1.5 Replace water control structure in Pool C and repair 

existing dike. 

$50,000 

99039 R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, D1, 

D2, D3, D4, D5 

Replace worn maintenance truck (1993 Ford). $35,000 

96002 R4, R5 Replace Refuge map display located in visitor center. 

This map is used extensively to orient visitors to the 

Refuge natural resource features, recreational facilities 

and opportunities, roads, trails, and boundaries. 

$30,000 

99045 R1.10 Replace worn 1991 Dodge utility 1-ton used for 

spraying noxious weeds on the Refuge and District to 

comply with State regulations. 

$45,000 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 151 
Appendix K. Literature Cited
 

Åhlund, M., and F. Götmark. 1989. Gull predation on eider ducklings 

Somateria mollissima: effects of human disturbance. Biological 

Conservation 48:115-127. 

Axelrod, D. I. 1985. Rise of the grassland biome, central North America. 

Bot. Rev. 51: 163-201. 

Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. 2nd ed. 

Rev. and expanded. Misc. Publ. No. 1391. Washington, DC: USDA 

Forest Service. 108p. 

Bailey, V. 1926. A Biological Survey of North Dakota. I. Physiography and 

Life zones. II. The Mammals. U. S. Department of Agriculture, 

Bureau of Biological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burk, and W.D. Pitts. 1987. Interrestial plant ecology, 

second edition, Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., Menco 

Park, CA. 634 pp. 

Berkey, G., R. Crawford, S. Galipeau, D.H. Johnson, D. Lambeth, and R. 

Kreil. 1993. A review of wildlife management practices in North 

Dakota. Unpublished report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 6, Denver, Colo. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center home page, Jamestown, N.D. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/ 

resource/othrdata/wildmgmt/wildmgmt.htm (Version 16JUL97). 

Blaustein, A.R. 1994. “Chicken Little or Nero’s Fiddle? A Perspective on 

Declining Amphibian Populations.” Herpetologica 50:85-97 

Bowles, M.L. 1983. The tallgrass prairie orchids Platanthera leucophaes 

(Nutt.) Lindl. And Cypreipedium candidum Muhl. Ex Wild: some 

aspeces of their status, biology and ecology, and implications toward 

management. Natural Areas Journal 3(4):14-37. 

Bragg, T.B. 1982. Seasonal variation in fuel and fuel consumption by fires 

in a bluestem prairie. Ecology 63: 7-11. 

Bragg, T.B., and L.C. Hulbert. 1976. Woody plant invasion of unburned 

Kansas bluestem prairie. J. Range Manage. 29: 19-23. 

Burger, L.D., L.W. Burger Jr., and J. Faaborg. 1994. Effects of prairie 

fragmentation on predation on artificial nests. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 58:249-254. 

Case, J.W. 1987. Orchids of the Western Great Lakes Region. Cranbrook 

Institute of Science Bulletin 48. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, 147 p. 

Clark, R.G. and T.D. Nudds. 1991. Habitat patch size and duck nesting 

success: the crucial experiments have not been performed. Wildl. Soc. 

Bull. 19:534-543. 

Collins, S.L. and S.C. Barber. 1985. Effects of Disturbance on Diversity in 

Mixed-grass Prairie. Vegetation 64:87-94. 

Copes, F.A. and R.A. Tubb. 1966. Fishes of the Red River Tributaries in 

North Dakota. Contributions of the Institute for Ecological Studies 

number 1. University of North Dakota, Grand Forks. 

152 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Corn P.S., 1994. “What We Know and Don’t Know about Amphibian 

Declines in the West.” In Sustainable Ecological Systems: 

Implementing an Ecological Approach to Land Management, edited 

by W. W. Covington and L. F. DeBano, 59-67. Fort Collins: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Corn P.S. and C.R. Peterson, 1996. “Prairie Legacies - Amphibians and 

Reptiles” In Prairie Conservation, Preserving North America’s Most 

Endangered Ecosystem, edited by F. B. Samson and F. L. Knopf, 125­

134. Island Press, Washington D.C. 

Costello, D.F. 1969. The Prairie World. Crowell Company, New York. pp 

86-87. 

Coues, E. 1878. Field-notes on birds observed in Dakota and Montana 

along the forty-ninth parallel during the seasons of 1873 and 1874. 

Bull. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Survey of the Territories 4:545-661. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification 

of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. 40 pp. 

_____, D.S. Gilmer, and C.W. Shaiffer. 1985. Mallard recruitment in the 

agricultural environment of North Dakota.. Wildl. Monogr. 92. 37 pp. 

Crum, H. 1988. A Focus on Peatlands and Peat Mosses. The University of 

Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Dahlgren, R.B. and C.E. Korschgen. 1992. Human Disturbances of 

Waterfowl: An Annotated Bibliography. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Res. Publication 188. Washington D. C. 

Delisle, J. 1995. Avian use of fields enrolled in the conservation reserve 

program in southeast Nebraska. These. University of Nebraska, 

Lincoln, Nebraska. 

Dillaha, T.A., R.B. Reneau, S. Mostaghimi, and D. Lee. 1989. Vegetative 

filter strips for agricultural nonpoint source pollution control. 

Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 

32:513-19. 

Duebbert, H.F., E.T. Jacobson, K.F. Higgins, and E.B. Podoll, 1981. 

Establishment of seeded grasslands for wildlife habitat in the Prairie 

Pothole Region. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep. - Wildl. 234.21 

pp. 

Edington, J.M., and M.A. Edington. 1986. Ecology, Recreation, and 

Tourism. Cambridge University Press, New York. 198 pp. 

Eldridge, J. 1992. Management of habitat for breeding and migrating 

shorebirds in the Midwest. Fish and Wildlife leaflet 13.2.14. USDI, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

Erhardt, A. and J.A. Thomas. 1991. Lepidoptera as indicators of change in 

the semi-natural grasslands of lowland and upland Europe. Pages 213­

237. In the Conservation of Insects and Their Habitats: 15th Symposium 

of the Royal Entomological Society of London 14-15 September 1989. N. 

M. Collins and J. A. Thomas, eds. Academic Press, London. 

Gibbs, E.L., et. al. 1971. The Live Frog is Almost Dead. BioScience 21: 1027-34. 

Giles, N. 1994. Tufted duck (Aythya fuligula) habitat use and brood 

survival increases after fish removal from gravel pit lakes. 

Hydrobiologia 279/280: 387-392. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 153 
Gilmore, M.R. 1977. “Uses of Plants by the Indians of the Missouri River 

Region”. In Cultural Resources Overview Studies of the Tewaukon 

National Wildlife Refuge, Sargent County, North Dakota, and the 

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge, Day County, South Dakota by 

Michael A. Jackson, and Dennis L. Toom, 1999. Department of 

Anthropology, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks. 

Gleason, R.A. and N.H. Euliss, Jr. 1998. Sedimentation of prairie wetlands. 

Great Plains Research 8 (1). Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center Home Page. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/ 

pprwtlnd/pprwtlnd.htm (Version 03NOV98). 

Greenwood, R.J. 1986. Influence of striped skunk removal on upland duck 

nest success in North Dakota. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 14:6-11. 

Haberman, T.W. 1978. Archaeological Test Excavations at Lake Tewaukon 

(32SA211): A Protohistoric Occupation Site in Southeastern North 

Dakota. Department of Anthropology, University of North Dakota, 

Grand Forks. 

Heidel, B.L. 1986. Bluestem Prairie Inventory in the Red River Valley, 

North Dakota. In Chambey, G. K. and R. H. Pemble, editors, The 

Prairie: Past, Present, and Future; Proceedings of the Ninth North 

American Prairie Conference. Tri-College University Center for 

Environmental Studies, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North 

Dakota. 

Helzer, C.J. 1996. The effects of wet meadow fragmentation on grassland 

birds. Thesis. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. 

Helzer, C.J. and D.E. Jelinski 1999. The Relative Importance of Patch Area 

and Perimeter-Area Ratio To Grassland Breeding Birds. Ecological 

Applications 9(4) pp. 1448-1458. 

Herkert, J.R. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on Midwestern 

grassland bird communities. Ecological Applications 4:461-471. 

_____. 1995. An analysis of Midwestern breeding bird population trends: 

1966-1993. American Midland Naturalist 134:41-50. 

Hill, D., R. Wright, and M. Street. 1987. Survival of mallard ducklings 

Anas playtrhynchos and competition with fish for invertebrates on a 

flooded gravel quarry in England. Ibis 129:159-167. 

Hill, E.F., and M.B. Camardese. 1986. Lethal dietary toxicities pesticides to 

coturnix. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Tech. Rep. 2. 147 pp. 

Hine, R.L., et al. 1981. Leopard Frog Populations and Mortality in 

Wisconsin, 1974-1976. Technical Bulletin 122. Madison: Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources. 

Hoberg, T. and C. Gause. 1992. Reptiles and Amphibians of North Dakota. 

North Dakota Outdoors. Number 1, Vol. LV. Pages 7 - 18. 

Howe, H.F. 1994. Managing species diversity in tallgrass prairie: 

Assumptions and implications. Conservation Biology 8: 691-704. 

Hudson, R.H., R.K. Tucker, and M.A. Haegele. 1984. Handbook of toxicity of 

pesticides to wildlife, 2nd ed. Fish Wildl. Serv. Resour. Publ. 153. 90 pp. 

Jackson, M.A. and D.L. Toom, 1999. Cultural Resources Overview Studies 

of the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge, Sargent County, North 

Dakota, and the Waubay National Wildlife Refuge, Day County, South 

Dakota. Department of Anthropology, University of North Dakota, 

Grand Forks. 

154 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Johnson, D.H., L.D. Igl and C.J. Johnson. 1997. North Dakota Bird Life: 

Tracking changes over a quarter century. North Dakota Outdoors 59 

(10) 10-15. 

Johnson, J.R. and G.E. Larson. 1999. Grassland Plants of South Dakota 

and the Northern Great Plains. South Dakota University College of 

Agriculture and Biological Sciences. Brookings South Dakota. pp. 270­

277. 

Johnson, M.D. 1964. Feathers From The Prairie. ND Game and Fish 

Department, Bismarck. 

Johnson, R.G. and S.A. Temple. 1986. Assessing habitat quality for birds 

nesting in fragmented tallgrass prairies. Pages 245-249 in J. Verner, M. 

L. Morrison, and C. J. Ralph, editors. Modeling habitat relationships 

of terrestrial vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 

Wisconsin, USA. 

_____ and S.A. Temple. 1990. Nest predation and parasitism of tallgrass 

prairie birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:106-111. 

Judd, E.T. 1892. North Dakota Game. Forest and Stream. 39(15):314. 

Kantrud, H.A., G.L. Krapu and G.A. Swanson. 1989. Prairie Basin 

Wetlands of the Dakotas: A Community Profile. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Biological Report 85 (7.28). Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 

Klett, A.T., T.L. Shaffer, and D.H. Johnson. 1988. Duck nest success in the 

Prairie Pothole Region. J. Wildl. Manage. 52:431-440. 

Knopf, F.L. 1995. Declining grasslands birds. Pages 296-298 in E. T. LaRoe, 

G. S. Farris, P. D. Puckett, and M. J. Mac, editors. Our living resources: 

A report to the Nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of 

U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Biological Service, Washington, D. C. 530 pp. 

Koel, T. M. 1997. Distribution of fishes in the Red River of the North Basin 

on Multivariate environmental gradients. Ph.D. thesis, North Dakota 

State University, Fargo, North Dakota. 275 pp. 

Koford, R.R., J.B. Dunning Jr., C.A. Ribic, D.M. Finch, 1994. A Glossary 

for Avian Conservation Biology. Wilson Bulletin. 106(1): 121-137. 

Jamestown, ND Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/avian/avian.htm 

Lee, F.B., C.H. Schroeder, T.L. Kuck, L.J. Schoonover, M.A. Johnson, H.K. 

Nelson, and C.A. Bequduy. 1984. Rearing and Restoring Giant Canada 

Geese in the Dakotas. ND Game and Fish Department Bismarck. 78 pp. 

Lincoln, F.C. 1925. Notes on the bird life of North Dakota with particular 

reference to the summer waterfowl. Auk 42:50-64. 

Madden, E.M. 1996. Passerine communities and bird-habitat relationships 

on prescribe-burned, mixed-grass prairie in North Dakota. M.S. thesis. 

Montana State University, Bozeman. 153 pp. 

Madson, J. 1982. Where the Sky Began - Land of the Tallgrass Prairie. 

Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. 326 pp. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 155 
Mathews, G.V.T. 1982. The control of recreational disturbance. Chap. 42. 

Pages 325-330 in D.A. Scott, editor. Managing wetlands and their birds, 

a manual of wetland and waterfowl management. Proceedings 3rd 

Technical Meeting on Western Palearctic Migratory Bird Management, 

Biologische Station Rieselfelder Munster, Federal Republic of 

Germany, 12-15 October 1982. 

Martin, Kathy. 1993. Personal communication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Ecological Service Botanist. 

Mayewski, P.A. et al. 1981. “The Last Wisconsin Ice Sheets in North 

America.” In The Last Great Ice Sheets, edited by G. H. Denton and T. 

J. Huges, 67-128. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 

McGregor, R. L., T. M. Barkley, R. E. Brooks, and E. K. Schofield. 1986. 

Flora of the Great Plains. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS. 

1392 pp. 

Nudds, T.D., and R.G. Clark. 1992. Landscape ecology, adaptive resource 

management and the North American waterfowl management plan. 

Pages 180-190 In G. L. Holrody, H. L. Dickson, M. Regnier, and H. C. 

Smith, eds. Proc. Third prairie conservation and endangered species 

workshop. Nat. Hist. Occas. Pap. 19, Prov, Mus. Alberta, Edmonton. 

Orwig, T.T. 1995. Butterfly surveys in Southeastern North Dakota: 1995. 

Report to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Cayuga, ND, 22 pp. 

Orwig, T.T. 1996. Butterfly surveys in Southeastern North Dakota: 1996. 

Report to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Cayuga, ND, 20 pp. 

Peterka, J.J. and T.M. Koel. 1996. Distribution and dispersal of fishes in the 

Red River Basin. Report submitted to Interbasin Biota Transfer 

Studies Program, Water Resources Research Institute, Fargo, ND. 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. http:// 

www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/others/fishred/fishred.htm (Version 

29AUG97). 

Pielou, E.C. 1992. After the Ice Age: The Return of Life to Glaciated North 

America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Pyne, S.J. 1994. Historical Fire: The Coming of Fire to America.. In 

Proceedings of the Fire in Ecosystem Management Workshop. 

National Advanced Resource Technology Center. Marana Arizona. 

Reichholf, J. 1976. The influence of recreation activities on waterfowl. 

Pages 43 - 44 In Dahlgren and Korschgren, eds. Human Disturbances 

of Waterfowl: An Annotated Bibliography. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Res. Publ. 188. Washington D. C. 1992. 

Renken, R.B. and J.J. Dinsmore. 1987. Nongame bird communities on 

managed grasslands in North Dakota. Canadian Field-Naturalist 

101:551-557. 

Royer R.A. 1997. A Final Report on the Conservation Status of the Dakota 

Skipper [Hersperia doacotae (Skinner, 1911)] in the State of North 

Dakota During the 1996 and 1997 Flights, Including Observations on 

Its Potential for Recovery in the State. Minot State University. 

Royer R.A. and G.M. Marrone. 1992. Conservation Status of the Powesheik 

Skipper (Oarisma powesheik) in North and South Dakota. Minot State 

University. 

156 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Royer R.A. and G.M. Marrone. 1992. Conservation Status of the Regal 

Fritillary (Spyeria idalia) in North and South Dakota. Minot State 

University. 

Ryan, M.R. 1986. Nongame management in grassland and agricultural 

ecosystems. Pages 117-136 in J.B. Hale, L.B. Best, and R.L. Clawson, 

editors. Management of nongame wildlife in the Midwest: A developing 

art. North Central Section of the Wildlife Society. BookCrafters, 

Chelsea, Mich. 

Samson, F.B. 1980. Island biogeography and the conservation of prairie 

birds. Pages 293-299 in C. L. Kucera, editor. Proceedings of the 7th 

North American Prairie Conference, Southwest Missouri State 

University, Springfield, Missouri, USA. 

Sargeant, A.B., R.J. Greenwood, M.A. Sovada and T.L. Shaffer. 1993. 

Distribution and Abundance of Predators that Affect Duck Production 

- Prairie Pothole Region. Fish and Wildlife Service Res. Publication 

194. Washington D. C. 

_____, M.A. Sovada, and T.L. Shaffer. 1995. Seasonal predator removal 

relative to hatch rate of duck nests in waterfowl production areas. 

Wildl. Soc. Bull. 23:507-513. 

_____, S.H. Allen, and R.T. Eberhardt. 1984. Red fox predation on 

breeding ducks in midcontinent North America. Wildlife Monographs 

89:1-41. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 

Home Page. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/redfox/ 

redfox. (Version 02JUN99). 

_____, and D.H. Raveling. 1992. Mortality during the breeding season. 

Pages 396-422. In B.D. J. Batt, A.D. Afton, M.G. Anderson, C.D. 

Ankney, D.H. Johnson, J.A. Kadlec, and G.L. Krapu, eds. Ecology and 

management of breeding waterfowl. Univ. Minnesota Press, 

Minneapolis. 635 pp. 

Sauer, J.R., B.G. Peterjohn, S. Schwartz, and J.E. Hines. 1995. The 

Grassland Bird home page. Version 95.0 Patuxent Wildlife Research 

Center, Laurel, MD. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/grass/ 

grass.htm. 

Schlicht, D.W. and T.T. Orwig. 1998. The Status of Iowa’s Lepidoptera. 

Jour. Iowa Acad. Sci. 105(2):82-88. 

Schroeder, R.L. and K.L. Askerooth. 2000. A Habitat-Based Approach to 

Management of Tallgrass Prairies at the Tewaukon National Wildlife 

Refuge. Department of the Interior, USGS Tech. Rep. 2000-0001. Fort 

Collins, CO. 

Sherwood, G.A. 1965. Canada Geese of the Seney National Wildlife Refuge. 

Compl. Rep. For Wildlife Management Studies 1 and 2., Seney 

National Wildlife Refuge, Seney, Michigan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Minneapolis, MN 222 pp. 

Skagen, S.K. 1997. Stopover Ecology of Transitory Populations: The Case 

of Migrant Shorebirds. Ecological Studies 125: 244-269. 

Skinner, R.M., T.S. Baskett, and M.D. Blendon. 1984. Bird habitat on 

Missouri prairies. Missouri Department of Conservation. Terrestrial 

Series 14. 37 pp. 

Steinauer, E.M. and S.L. Collins. 1995. “Effects of Urine Deposition on 

Small-scale Patch Structure in Prairie Vegetation..” Ecology 76:1195-205. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 157 
_____. 1996. “Prairie Ecology-The Tallgrass Prairie” In Prairie 

Conservation, Preserving North America’s Most Endangered 

Ecosystem edited by F.B. Samson and F.L. Knopf 39-52. Washington D. 

C. Island Press. 

Stewart, R.E. 1975. Breeding birds of North Dakota. Tri-College Center 

for Environmental Studies, Fargo, North Dakota. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center home page. Jamestown, N.D. http:// 

www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/birds/bb_of_nd/bb_of_nd.htm 

(Version 16JUL97). 

Stewart, R.E. and H.A. Kantrud. 1972. Vegetation of Prairie Potholes, 

North Dakota, in Relation to Quality of Water and Other 

Environmental Factors. Geo. Survey Professional Paper 585-D. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D. C. 

Swengel, A.B. 1996. Effects of Fire and Hay Management on Abundance of 

Prairie Butterflies. Biological Conservation 76: 73-85. 

Tiner, R.W. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: current status and recent 

trends. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 59 pp. 

Tordoff, H.B. 1988. Minnesota’s Endangered Flora and Fauna. Edited by 

Barbara Coffin and Lee Pfannmuller; University of Minnesota Press, 

Minneapolis. 473 pp. 

Troester, H.G.L. Refuge Manager. Inventory of Historic Districts: Historical 

Trails on the Tewaukon Wetland Management District. Memo to 

Regional Director dated January 31, 1972. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1974. Final Environmental Statement, Initial 

stage. Garrison Diversion Unit. Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program 

North Dakota. U.S. Department of the Interior, INT FES 74-3. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1994. Final Environmental Assessment of 

Alternatives for Managing Upland Habitats on the Tewaukon National 

Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cayuga, North 

Dakota. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. North Dakota’s federally listed 

endangered, threatened, and candidate species 1995. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Bismarck, ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center Home Page. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/ 

resource/distr/others/nddanger/nddanger.htm (Version 16Jul97). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Platanthera praeclara (western 

prairie fringed orchid) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. vi + 101 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1999. Fulfilling the Promise: The National 

Wildlife Refuge System. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, 

Virginia. 

U.S. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Board, 1995. U.S. Prairie Pothole Joint 

Venture Implementation Plan Update. 

Vander Zouwen, W.J. 1983. Waterfowl use and habitat changes of a refuge 

in southern Wisconsin: 1947 - 1980. M.S. thesis, University of Wisconsin, 

Madison. 

Vickery, P.D., M.L. Hunter Jr., and S.M. Melvin. 1994. Effects of habitat 

area on the distribution of grassland birds in Maine. Conservation 

Biology 8:1087-1097. 

158 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Volkert, W.K. 1992. Response of grassland birds to a large scale prairie 

planting project. Passenger Pigeon 54: 190-196. 

Weaver, John Ernest, 1954. North American Prairie. Johnsen Publishing, 

Lincoln, NE. In Cultural Resources Overview Studies of the Tewaukon 

National Wildlife Refuge, Sargent County, North Dakota, and the 

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge, Day County, South Dakota by 

Michael A. J., and D. L. Toom, 1999. Department of Anthropology, 

University of North Dakota, Grand Forks 

Wiens, J.A. 1969. An approach to the study of ecological relationships 

among grassland birds. Ornithological Monographs 8:1-93. 

Wilson, S.D. and J.W. Belcher. 1989. Plant and bird communities of native 

prairie and introduced Eurasian vegetation in Manitoba, Canada. 

Conservation Biology 3:39-44. 

Woolman, A. J. 1896. Report on ichthyological investigations in western 

Minnesota and eastern North Dakota. Appendix 3. Extracted from the 

report to the U.S. Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries for 1893. 

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Yoffe, E. 1992. “Silence of the Frogs,” New York Times Magazine, 13 

December. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 159 
Appendix L. Waterfowl Production Area 

Priority Tables 

WPA Units County Acres Mean Pair 

Density 

Unique 

Resources 

Priority 

Level 

Englevale Complex Ransom 1,187.75 68 pair High 

Smith/Tanner/Buckmiller Ransom 646.62 68 pair High 

Strander/Skonseng/Peterson Ransom 280.30 45-68 pair Tallgrass prairie High 

McCann/McGill/Isley Ransom 324.93 45-68 pair Tallgrass prairie High 

Weaver/Coit/Schiffner Ransom 403.53 68 pair Tallgrass prairie High 

Biggs/Berndt Richland 479.35 27-45 pair Tallgrass prairie 

Rare butterflies 

High 

Biggs/Anderson/Anderson/ 

Larson/Swanson/Ostby 

Richland 609.47 27-45 pair Tallgrass prairie High 

Krause/Ahrens/Arndt Richland 117.85 45-68 pair Tallgrass prairie High 

Bladow Richland 275.97 45-68 pair High 

Gunness/Boldt/Hentz/Elsen Richland 657.10 27-45 pair Tallgrass prairie 

Rare butterflies 

s slipper'White lady 

High 

Hartleben/Aaser/Prochnow Richland 1,627.23 27-45 pair Tallgrass prairie 

Rare butterflies 

s slipper'White lady 

High 

Kuehn Richland 317.52 68 pair Tallgrass prairie High 

Willprecht/Nechas/Hegar Richland 240.96 45 pair High 

Chris Schuler/East Leack Richland 240.00 45 pair Tallgrass prairie High 

Wollitz/Paetzke/Stenson Richland 506.46 45-68 pair High 

Palensky/Widmer Sargent 449.64 93-113 pair Tallgrass prairie High 

Evanson Sargent 169.52 93 pair High 

Evanson/Anderson Sargent 198.80 93 pair High 

Gainor Sargent 843.96 45 pair Tallgrass prairie High 

Krause Sargent 200.00 68 pair Tallgrass prairie 

Rare butterflies 

High 

Nelson/Klefstad Sargent 390.16 68 pair High 

Palensky/Wyum/Kaske Sargent 238.83 68 pair High 

160 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
WPA Units County Acres Mean Pair 

Density 

Unique 

Resources 

Priority 

Level 

Blikre/Chose Ransom 129.09 27-45 pair Moderate 

Compson Ransom 162.08 27-45 pair Moderate 

Warner Ransom 160.00 27 pair Moderate 

Wiltse/Kaspari Ransom 239.16 27-45 pair Moderate 

Ford Richland 128.94 68 pair Tallgrass prairie 

small tract 

Moderate 

Gaukler Richland 162.71 45 pair Moderate 

Smith Richland 159.81 68 pair Moderate 

Vogeler/Haaland Richland 162.41 27 pair Moderate 

Asche Sargent 159.44 68 pair Moderate 

Bauer Sargent 322.52 45 pair Moderate 

Even Sargent 84.86 68 pair Moderate 

Litchfield Sargent 156.68 45 pair Moderate 

Mahrer Sargent 119.20 68 pair Moderate 

Olson/BN Sargent 157.37 68 pair Moderate 

Olson, H. Sargent 159.24 68 pair Moderate 

Saunders Sargent 143.29 68 pair Moderate 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 161 
WPA Units County Acres Mean Pair 

Density 

Unique 

Resources 

Priority 

Level 

Arneson Ransom 40.00 27 pair Low 

Bachmans Ransom 100.19 68 pair Low 

Boeder Ransom 99.78 45 pair Low 

Bueling, A. Ransom 55.08 27-45 pair Low 

Bueling, L. Ransom 56.28 27-45 pair Low 

Carlson Ransom 43.62 93 pair Low 

Dick, L. Ransom 32.11 45 pair Low 

Kaspari, L. Ransom 55.00 27 pair Low 

Metzen Ransom 52.50 27-45 pair Low 

Reinke/Anderson Ransom 84.36 45 pair Low 

Shelver Ransom 85.32 27 pair Low 

Boehning Richland 97.06 45 pair Low 

Korth Richland 47.46 27-45 pair Tallgrass prairie 

small tract 

Low 

West Leack Richland 80.00 45 pair Low 

Novetzke Richland 60.08 45 pair Low 

Lunstad Sargent 52.93 68-93 pair Low 

162 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Appendix M: Section 7 Consultation
 

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM 

Originating Person: Allison Banks, Refuge Planner 

Telephone Number: 303-236-8145, ext. 626 

Date: 8/18/00 

I. Region: 6 

II. Service Activity (Program): 

Division of Realty, Branch of Land Acquisition and Refuge Planning 

III. Pertinent Species and Habitat: 

A. Listed species and/or critical habitat within the action area: 

Bald eagle, gray wolf, whooping crane, and western prairie fringed orchid. For a list of other species 

of management concern please see Draft CCP attachment, Endangered Species sections, pages 64 

and 98-103. 

B. Proposed species and/or critical habitat within the action area:
 

None
 

C. Candidate species within the action area:
 

None
 

D. Include species/habitat occurrence on a map: 

None of these species occur regularly on Service lands. The bald eagle is seen passing through 

during spring and fall migration. Gray wolves occasionally disperse from Minnesota and have been 

recorded for counties within the Wetland Management District. For a map of the Complex please see 

Map #15 in the Draft CCP. 

IV. Geographic area or station name and action: 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

V. Location: (please see map attachments) 

A. Ecoregion Name: 

Prairie Pothole Ecoregion, Hudson’s Bay Ecosystem and Mainstem Missouri Ecosystem 

B. County and State:
 

Ransom, Richland, and Sargent Counties, North Dakota
 

C. Section, township, range or latitude/longitude: 

The Complex consists of 22,362 acres of fee title tracts scattered throughout 3 counties and 45,386 

acres of easement interests on many smaller tracts. Please see Map #2 and #15 in the Draft CCP 

for locations. 

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: 

Refuge headquarters is 5 miles south of Cayuga, North Dakota. Waterfowl Production Areas (fee 

title ownership), wetland and grassland easement interests and the Refuge itself are located 

throughout 3 counties. Please see page 15 of the Draft CCP for locations. 

E. Species/habitat occurrence: 

The bald eagle is regularly sighted during fall and spring migrations, though no nesting occurs on 

the Complex. Nesting attempts have been verified on private lands within the District. 

The western prairie fringed orchid is found in native, calcareous prairies and sedge meadows. 

Currently, the largest population exists on the Sheyenne National Grasslands in Ransom and 

Richland Counties north of the Refuge. The remaining plants are found on adjacent private land, 

some of which is protected under Service grassland easement. No known populations have been 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 163 
recorded on Waterfowl Production Areas or on the Refuge.
 

The whooping crane and the gray wolf likely used the Complex historically. There are only
 

occasional sightings of migrating or dispersing individuals today. Whooping cranes have been
 

observed once in spring on private land in the District (1998, Sargent County, by Refuge staff).
 

VI. Description of proposed action: 

The action is to implement the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan over the next 15 years. Briefly, the CCP will emphasize native prairie, other grasslands, and wetland 

ecosystem protection, management, and reestablishment. Management that favors native fauna and flora of 

the tallgrass prairie ecosystem will be selected. For detailed descriptions of proposed actions, please refer to 

the Management by Unit sections (pages 26-106) of the Draft CCP. 

VII. Determination of effects: 

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in items 111. A, B, C: 

1. Preservation and enhancement of tallgrass prairie and other grasslands. 

No long-term detrimental effects from preserving and enhancing prairie habitats are anticipated. 

Currently there are no known populations of fringed orchids on Service property. Protection of 

grasslands will preserve existing populations by preventing loss of habitat. 

The Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Recovery Plan identifies protection and appropriate management 

of known populations as the first priority. The CCP objectives for the District include: 1) preserving 

remaining native prairie tracts through a combination of voluntary partnerships, easements, and fee 

title acquisition; and 2) working cooperatively with landowners and providing technical assistance to 

develop grassland management plans and guidelines to maintain western prairie fringed orchid 

populations and promote healthier grasslands. Both objectives contribute to recovery of the species. 

2. Restoration and maintenance of prairie wetlands. 

No long-term detrimental effects from wetland restoration and maintenance are anticipated, as 

actions would mimic natural cycles. These activities would not affect bald eagles as they are 

opportunistic and other pools including Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes are better suited for 

feeding areas. 

Wetland restoration and maintenance benefit the bald eagle and whooping crane by increasing the 

amount of habitat available for use during migration periods. Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes 

are managed as large, open water areas which support fish populations; both sites have been used 

by migration eagles. 

3. Increasing biological data gathering and monitoring of habitat conditions. 

Increasing biological surveys and sampling can identify important habitat areas for threatened and 

endangered species. 

4. Providing access for public recreation on Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake. 

Eagle use on the Refuge is generally associated with migrating flocks of waterfowl. Eagles roost in 

trees around lakes and are often seen on the ice. Most of this use is associated with Lake Tewaukon 

and Sprague Lakes, but eagles also use other Refuge sites. During primary eagle use periods 

(October and early November, late March and April) perimeter roads and trails around these lakes 

are closed. Tewaukon and Sprague Lakes are closed to boats during these primary eagle use 

periods. Very rarely mild weather in November during the early deer hunting season may result in 

hunters using the Refuge when eagles are present. A buffer zone may be utilized of nesting is 

initiated on the Refuge. 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects: 

None anticipated. 

164 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
 

 

VIII. Effect determination and response requested: 

A. Listed species/designated critical habitat: 

Determination Response Requested 

no effect/no adverse modification 

whooping crane X Concurrence 

gray wolf X Concurrence 

may affect, but is not likely to adversely
 

affect species/adversely modify
 

critical habitat
 

bald eagle X Concurrence 

western prairie fringed orchid X Concurrence 

may affect, and is likely to adversely
 

affect species/adversely modify
 

critical habitat
 

None ____ Formal Consultation 

C. Candidate species: 

None 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 165 
State Agencies

Appendix N: ■	 Minneopa State Park 

■	 MN DNR, Baudette, Fergus Falls, and St. Paul, MN Mailing List ■	 MN Pollution Control Ag 

■	 ND Dept of Health 

Federal Officials 

■	 Congressman Earl Pomeroy, Fargo, ND and Washington, D.C. 

■	 Senator Kent Conrad, Fargo, ND and Washington, D.C. 

■	 Senator Byron Dorgan, Fargo, ND and Washington, D.C. 

Federal Agencies 

■	 BIA - Aberdeen Area Office 

■	 Bureau of Land Management 

■	 Bureau of Reclamation 

■	 Corps of Engineers, Bismarck ND and St. Paul MN 

■	 EPA, Region 8 - Denver CO 

■	 FSA - Ransom, Richland, and Sargent Counties 

■	 NRCS - Ransom, Richland, and Sargent Counties 

■	 Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, Planning Commission 

and Land Mgr. 

■	 Theodore Roosevelt Nat’l Park 

■	 USDA-Aphis - Bismarck & McLeod 

■	 US Forest Service, Bismarck ND (Larry Dawson, Darla 

Lenz) and Lisbon ND 

■	 USFWS Albuquerque, NM; Anchorage, AK; Arapaho 

NWR, CO; Arlington, VA; Arrowwood NWR, ND; 

Atlanta, GA; Bismarck, ND; Crescent Lake/N. Platte, NE; 

Denver, CO; Des Lacs NWR, ND; Devils Lake WMD, 

ND; Fort Snelling, MN; Hadley, MA; Juneau, AK; Lake 

Andes NWR, SD; Air Quality Branch, Lakewood, CO; 

Manhattan, KS; Medicine Lake NWR, MT; Portland, OR; 

Sacramento, CA; Sand Lake NWR, SD; Sherwood, OR; 

Shepherdstown, WV; Waubay NWR, SD 

■	 USGS - BRD, Fort Collins, CO and Jamestown, ND 

State Officials 

■	 Governor Ed Schafer 

■	 Rep. Wesley Belter 

■	 Rep. Rick Berg 

■	 Rep. Leroy Bernstein 

■	 Rep. Al Carlson 

■	 Rep. Byron Clark 

■	 Rep. Rachael Disrud 

■	 Rep. John Dorso 

■	 Rep. Bruce Eckre 

■	 Rep. Mary Ekstrom 

■	 Rep. Bette Grande 

■	 Rep. Howard Grumbo 

■	 Rep. Pamela and Bill Gulleson 

■	 Rep. Kathy Hawken 

■	 Rep. Robert Huether 

■	 Rep. Scott Kelsh 

■	 Rep. Myron Koppang 

■	 Rep. Kim Koppelman 

■	 Rep. Chet Pollert 

■	 Rep. Sally Sandvig 

■	 Rep. Laurel Thoreson 

■	 Sen. Tom Fischer 

■	 Sen. Tony Grindberg 

■	 Sen. Joel Heitkamp 

■	 Sen. Judy Lee 

■	 Sen. Deb Mathern 

■	 Sen. Tim Mathern 

■	 Sen. Carolyn Nelson 

■	 Sen. Russel Thane 

■	 ND Forest Service 

■	 ND Game and Fish Dept., Bismarck, Jamestown, and 

Wyndmere ND 

■	 ND State Historic Preserv. Officer 

■	 ND State Water Commission 

■	 NDSU Extension Service, Forman, Wahpeton, and 

Fargo, ND 

■	 North Dakota Ag Department 

City/County/Local Governments 

■	 Cass County Commissioners 

■	 Mayor Dean Ankerfelt 

■	 Mayor Robert Billing 

■	 Mayor Marty Bjugstad 

■	 Mayor Chuck Campbell 

■	 Mayor Bob Cookson 

■	 Mayor Roger Dienert 

■	 Mayor Steven Domm 

■	 Mayor Marc Enderson 

■	 Mayor Leanne Even 

■	 Mayor Dale Fuhrman 

■	 Mayor Bruce Furness 

■	 Mayor Robert Fust 

■	 Mayor Marilyn Gunderson 

■	 Mayor Brad Hejtmanek 

■	 Mayor Dennis Klosterman 

■	 Mayor Loren Larsen 

■	 Mayor Ed Morrow 

■	 Mayor Ronald Narum 

■	 Mayor Grover Riebe 

■	 Mayor John Richards 

■	 Mayor Morris Saxerud 

■	 Mayor Bud Schmitz 

■	 Mayor Carl Taubert 

■	 Ransom Co Commissioners; Sheriff ’s Office; Water 

Resource District; Weed Board 

■	 Richland Co Commissioners; Historical Society; Sheriff ’s 

Office; Water Resource District; Weed Board 

■	 Sargent Co Commissioners; Sheriff ’s Office; Water 

Resource District; Weed Board 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Elwood Anderson 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Luann Anderson 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Perry Anderson 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Marcia Asche 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Duane Baldwin 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Ray Bartholomay 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Mark Bartle 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Leroy Berg, Jr 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Richard Birklid 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Ralph Bladow 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Jim Bosse 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Emily Braaten 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Leslie Brandvold 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Renae Branson 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Janice Breker 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Beverly Brezicka 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Marie Brown 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Noreen Bubbers 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Glora Claeys 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Sheila Coleman 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Lynnae Decker 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Russell Falk 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Kim Froemke 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Jodi Fugl 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Mark Gauslow 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Tom Geffre 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Audrey Gilles 

166 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
■	 Twnshp Clerk Sonja and Grant Gulleson 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Wanda Haase 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Evelyn Hagen 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Harry Hakanson 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Lynn Hansen 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Sandra Hanson 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Don Heitkamp 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Susan Heitkamp 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Vernon Heitkamp 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Ken Heley 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Norma Jensen 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Dale Johnson 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Kenneth Johnson 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Thomas Kaczynski 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Myron Keller 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Doran Kersting 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Rick Kielb 

■	 Twnshp Clerk David Larson 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Deb Larson 

■	 Twnshp Clerk John Larson 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Ted Lee 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Hermann Lentz 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Ronald Lenzen 

■	 Twnshp Clerk James Lingen 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Marlene Luick 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Russell Martinson 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Robert McDaniel 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Wayne Meslow 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Mike Moellenkamp 

■	 Twnshp Clerk James Moffet 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Bonita Nelson 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Randy Pearson 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Bruce Peterson 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Jeff Peterson 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Leslie Rieger 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Joan Schlecht 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Michael Schutt 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Steven Smith 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Joann Solberg 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Bruce Stein 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Janice Swanson 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Denise Tangen 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Sandy Tiede 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Donald Vosburg 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Josephine Voss 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Beverly Walstead 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Connie White 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Korrine Wiesbrod 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Leslie Witt 

■	 Twnshp Clerk Anita Woodbury 

■	 Western Governors Association 

■	 Wild Rice SCD 

Organizations 

■	 4 Corners Wildlife Club 

■	 Agassiz Env. Ed Committee 

■	 Alice Wildlife Inc 

■	 American Birding Association 

■	 Animal Protection Institute 

■	 Barnes Co. Wildlife Federation 

■	 Bluestem Co. 

■	 Board Grazing Committee 

■	 CARE - Washington, D.C. 

■	 Cass County Wildlife Club 

■	 Cogswell Gun Club 

■	 Conservation Fund 

■	 Crookston Gun Club 

■	 Cure 

■	 Dakota Resource Council 

■	 Dakota Wildlife Trust 

■	 Defenders of Wildlife, Noah Matson and Tom Uniack 

■	 Delta Waterfowl 

■	 Dickey Co Wildlife Federation 

■	 Ducks Unlimited, Bismarck and Scott McLeod 

■	 Earth Island Institute 

■	 Environmental Defense Fund 

■	 Fargo Area Sportsmen 

■	 Farm Bureau - Fargo and Forman, ND 

■	 Friends of Animals 

■	 Ft. Ransom Sportsmen Club 

■	 General Federation of Women’s Cultura Club 

■	 Grand Forks County Wildlife Federation 

■	 In Defense of Animals 

■	 International Coalition 

■	 Izaak Walton League, New London and St. Paul, MN 

■	 Kaste, Inc 

■	 Keep ND Clean, Inc 

■	 Kindred Wildlife Club 

■	 KRA CORP/F&W Reference Service 

■	 L.A.N.D. 

■	 Lac Qui Parle Prairie Preserve 

■	 Lake Region Wildlife Club 

■	 Lewis and Clark Wildlife Club 

■	 Ludden Sportsmen Club 

■	 Minn-kota Sportsmen Club 

■	 MN Bow Hunters, Inc 

■	 MN Conservation Federation 

■	 MN Deer Hunters Assoc, Duluth, Fergus Falls and 

Mankato, MN 

■	 MN State Archery Association 

■	 MN Waterfowl Assoc, Minneapolis and Willmar 

■	 MN Wildlife Federation 

■	 North American Prairies Co. 

■	 National Audubon Society, Fargo, ND, Minneapolis, MN and 

Washington, D.C. 

■	 National Wildlife Refuge Assoc., Burnsville, MN and 

Colorado Springs, CO 

■	 Native American Fish and Wildlife Society 

■	 Nature Conservancy, Glyndon, MN, Minneapolis, MN, 

Helena, MT, Arlington, VA 

■	 ND Birding Association 

■	 ND Chapter of The Wildlife Society 

■	 ND Natural Science Society 

■	 ND Soil and Water Consv. Society 

■	 ND Stocksmen’s Association 

■	 ND Water Education Foundation 

■	 ND Wetlands Trust 

■	 ND Wildlife Federation 

■	 Nobles Co Envirn. Service 

■	 Pheasants Forever, Lisbon, Milnor, and West Fargo, ND, 

St. Paul, MN 

■	 Phillips Petroleum Company 

■	 Prairie Restorations 

■	 Prairie Visions 

■	 Prairie Woods Elc 

■	 Red River Area Sportsmen 

■	 Red River Valley Potato 

■	 Richland Wildlife Club, Paul Berg, Coletta German 

■	 Rutland Sportsmen Club 

■	 Safari Club International 

■	 Sierra Club, Fargo, ND and Minneapolis, MN 

■	 Sisters St Francis 

■	 Tewaukon Rod and Gun Club 

■	 The Fund for Animals 

■	 The Prairie is My Garden 

■	 Trumpeter Swan Society 

■	 Trust For Public Land 

■	 TWS - Cent. Mtn. And Plains 

■	 Wilderness Society 

■	 Wildlife Forever 

■	 Wildlife Management Institute 

■	 Wildlife of America 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 167 
Newspapers, Radio, TV Individuals 

■	 Bird Dog News 

■	 Daily News 

■	 Detroit Lakes Tribune 

■	 Enderlin Independent 

■	 Fargo Forum 

■	 Fergus Falls Daily Journal 

■	 Fertile Journal 

■	 Flickertails 

■	 Gun Dog News 

■	 Hawley Herald 

■	 KBMW Radio 

■	 KCCM MN Public Radio 

■	 KDDR Radio 

■	 KDSU Radio 

■	 KFGO Radio 

■	 KFNW Radio 

■	 KOVC Radio 

■	 KQDJ Radio 

■	 KQLX Radio 

■	 KSJB Radio 

■	 KTHI-TV 

■	 KXJB-TV 

■	 Lake Park Journal 

■	 MN Ornithologist’s Newsletter 

■	 Morris Sun and Tribune 

■	 Northland Outdoors 

■	 Oakes Times 

■	 Outdoor News 

■	 Ransom County Gazette 

■	 Richland County News 

■	 St Paul Pioneer Press 

■	 Star Tribune 

■	 The Teller 

■	 Tony Dean Outdoors 

■	 WDAY Radio 

■	 WDAY-TV 

Schools/ Universities 

■	 Central Elementary 

■	 Enderlin Public School 

■	 Fairmount Public School 

■	 Hankinson Public School 

■	 Kindred Public School 

■	 Lidgerwood Public School 

■	 Lisbon Public School 

■	 Milnor Public School 

■	 Minot State University 

■	 North Sargent Public School 

■	 North Dakota State University 

■	 Northwestern University 

■	 Sargent Central School 

■	 Sheldon Public School 

■	 South Dakota State University 

■	 Southwest State University 

■	 St John’s School 

■	 University of Minnesota 

■	 University of North Dakota 

■	 Wahpeton High School 

■	 Wahpeton Middle School 

■	 West Fargo High School 

■	 Wyndmere Public School 

■	 Zimmerman Grade School 

Libraries 

■	 Fargo Public Library 

■	 Forman Public Library 

■	 Hankinson Public Library 

■	 Lidgerwood Public Library 

■	 Lisbon Public Library 

■	 ND State College of Science 

Library 

■	 NDSU Library 

■	 Oakes Public Library 

Karolyn Ahrens 

Larry and Barb Albertson 

Virgil Alfson 

Duane Aman 

Bill Amerman 

Bill Anderson 

Charles Anderson 

Gary Anderson 

Edwin Anderson 

Harris Anderson, Cogswell 

Harris Anderson, Havana 

Helen Anderson 

Larry Anderson 

Lyle Anderson 

Richard Anderson 

Arndt Brothers Partnership 

Harlow and Jeanette Arneson 

Harold Asche 

Robert Asche 

Douglas Askerooth 

Elvoy and Grace Askerooth 

Mark Askerooth 

Bruce Atterberg 

Jim Azure 

Dennis Babcock 

Ed Backer 

Vernon Bakken 

Arnold Banish 

James Banish 

Tom Banish 

Dana and Sandy Banish 

Jack Barber 

Larry Bartholomay 

Roland Barvels 

Bob Beeson 

Rus Bellin 

Ronald Bellin 

Bill Berg 

Jerry Berg 

Roman Berg 

Brian Bergh 

Duane Bergh 

Jon Bergh 

Paul Bergh 

Ronald Bergh 

Todd and Monica Bergh 

Ross Bergland 

Eugene Bergman 

Harvey Bergstrom 

Wayne Beyer 

Richard Biewer 

Leonard Birnbaum 

John Birnbaum 

George Bishoff 

Dale Bladow 

David Bladow 

Lowell Bladow 

Lyle Bladow 

Kevin Bleecker 

Karen Blilie 

Alfred Boehning 

Duane Boeder 

James Bommersbach 

Robert Boughton 

Larry Brash 

Clarence Breker 

David Breker 

Delores Breker 

Esmeralda Breker 

Jeff and Jodi Breker 

Jim and Mary Breker 

Joe and Patty Breker 

Kurt Breker 

Mark and Debbie Breker 

MJ Breker 

Shane Breker 

Ray Brickzen 

Lawrence Brown 

John Brummond 

Larry Brunkhorst 

Elmer Buckhaus 

Donald Buckhaus 

Lyle Buckhouse 

Karin Bueling 

Lance Bueling 

Bob Bulik 

Anna Busta 

Stephen Campbell 

Terry Carlen 

Arthur Carlson 

Kurt Carlson 

Kent Carpenter 

Karlton Chapin 

Fred Christensen 

Guy and Marilyn Christiansen 

Jerry Christianson 

Brendan Ciesynski 

Lysle Coleman 

Jeff Colemer 

Mike Cooper 

Raymond Cossette 

Butch Craig 

Arnam Crandall 

DarWayne Crandall 

DeVaar Crandall 

Kevin Crandall 

Lawrence and Neola Cross 

Royce Dahl 

Don Dathe 

Marvin David 

Loren and Dawn David 

John Davis 

Harvey Dawson 

Jeff Dick 

James Diekman 

Greg Donaldson 

Wayne Doty 

Jim Duerr 

Steven Dunn 

Lee Dusek 

Terry Dusek 

Michael Dwyer 

Steve Ehli 

Randy Ehni 

David Eklund 

Todd and Jackie Ekstrom 

Loren Ellefson 

Steve Ellefson 

Dwain Ellenberger 

John Emme 

Kenneth Emmel 

Richard Engst 

Greg Ennis 

Edwin Erickson 

Larry Erickson 

Lyle Erickson 

Raymond Erickson 

Roger Erickson 

Patricia Farrar 

Charles Foster 

Patrick Freeberg 

Phillip Freeman 

Allan Fugl 

William Fugl 

Earl and Susan Fust 

Robert Fust 

R.E. Gabel 

Walter Gardner Jr. 

Andy Gaukler 

Clint Gaukler 

Jim and Dawn Gaukler 

Jim and Kathryn Gaukler 

Louie Gaukler 

Richard Gerriets 

Roger Gibbon 

Audrey Gilles 

Tawny Gilles 

LeRoy Gisi 

Hilda Giske 

Randy Gjestuang 

Doug and Nancy Glarum 

Charles Goltz 

Dennis Goltz 

Janet Green 

Randall and Collin Greenley 

Todd Greenmeyer 

Joe Gregor 

Howard Grumbo 

Gary Gulsvig 

Murdean Gulsvig 

Rex Guthrie 

Jerry Haahr 

Dan and Matthew Handt 

Allan Hankel 

Hanson Farms JV 

Mark Hardina 

Dan Hare 

Steve Haring 

Ted Harles 

Brittany Hasbargen 

Julie Hassebroek 

Charles Haus 

Barbara Hayen 

John Heley 

Warren Henderson 

Dale Henry 

Robert Herding 

Arthur Herman 

Herman Brothers 

Alver Hermsen 

Dave Hestdaler 

Betty Hewitt 

Leonard Heyen 

Geddy Hicks 

Wayne Hinrichs 

Maynard Hitchcock 

Weldon Hoesel 

Andy Hoflen 

Darren Hoistad 

Rick Hoistad 

Quentin and Doris Hoistad 

Ray Holcomb 

Ruth Holm 

Alexis Holtz 

Roger Hom 

Russel Hosford 

Lynn Hoverman 

Charles Hrdlicka 

Jim and Darlene Huckell 

LuVern Illies 

Blake Ista 

Calvin Jacobson 

Dan Jacobson 

168 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Mark Jensen Melvin Manock Dennis and Ione Pherson 

Bob Johnson Kenneth Marohl Lenny Pherson 

Dewey Johnson Donald Marquette Richard Pickell 

Charles Jorgenson Jim Marquette Debbie Podliska 

Steve Jorgenson Jim and Mavis Marquette Bernard Polansky 

Loy Justesen Kyle Marquette John Popp 

Paul Kadoun Ed Marrow Randy Ptacek 

Joe and Jaci Kaler LeRoy Martin Dennis Quam 

Dean Kaseman Rodney Mathais Adam Quintanilla 

Dale Keller Wayne Mattson Ronald Raatz 

Jerome Kelsh Ronald McBeth Kim Rasmussen 

Terry Kempel Alvin McLaen John Remson 

Don Kiefer Clayton McLaen Gerald Riba 

George Kiefer Dennis and Lori McLaen John Richards 

Joe Kiefer Milton McLaen Gerald Ringdahl 

Paul Kiefer Steve and Janell McLaen Wesley Robertsdahl 

Pete Kiefer Tammy Metzen Thomas Robey 

Thomas Kiefer Tom Meyer Wayne Robey 

Elroy Kiefert Keith Mikesh Doyle and Linda Roeder 

Harvey Kleingarn Bruce and Denise Milbrandt Roland Roeder 

David Kleven Eugene Miller Gene Rossow 

David Kluge Bill Mitchell John Rotenberger 

Kevin and Barb Kohoutek John Mlnarik Al Rusch 

Ray Kotchin Larry Moxness Sean Russell 

Ken and Kermit Koube Curt Mund Lynn Sabbe 

Rich Kostecke Alan and Pam Murack Lee Sagvold 

Dareld Koziol Don Murack Paul Sandman 

Roger Kratcha Nick Nankivel Keith Saunders 

Dennis Krause Alfred and Sheila Neiber Jack Saunders 

John Krentz Gerald Neiber Mark and Mary Saunders 

Duane Krivarchka Joe and Elizabeth Neiber Charles Schiele 

Elaine Kroeger Joseph and Judy Neiber Gary Schiltz 

Arlene Krump Gary Nelson Roger Schiltz 

Arnold Kruse Hal Nelson Allan Schram 

Bob Kuchera Jerry Nelson Lois Schuler 

Mike Kulzer Orville Nelson Robert Schuler 

Norbert Kulzer Ray Nelson Steve Schumacher 

James Kutter Richard and Janet Nelson Allyn Schwab 

Neal Kutter Roger Nelson Mark Schwan 

Greg Lague Trent and Eva Nelson Mitchell Sebens 

Greg Laine Wyatt Nelson Joseph Siekaniec 

Dean Langenwalter Nickeson Farms LeRoy Siemieniewski 

David Lauer George Novotny Louis Siemieniewski 

Allen and Jennifer Lawrence Chris Nundahl Peter Siemieniewski 

Catherine Lawrence Dean Nundahl Ray Siemieniewski 

Harold Lawrence LeRoy Odenbrett Tom Siemieniewski 

Earl Lehmann Curt Ohm Curtis Silseth 

Howard Lere David Ohm Orvis Silseth 

James Levery David Olson Ronald Sitts 

Annette Lewis Harold Olson Mike Skroch 

Paula Lewis Neil Olson Bill Smith 

Ellery Liebelt Alan Olstad Lowell Smith 

Randy Lien Danny O’Meara Jim Smykowski 

Michael Lindsey Joe O’Meara Ken Smykowski 

Thomas Lindsey Brian Orn James Sorby 

Duane Lock Robert Orn Al Soukup 

Mike and Penny Lock Mike Paczkowski Don Stallman 

Loff Farms Matt Parrow Jeff Steffens 

Jim Lyon David Paulson Todd and Diane Stein 

Lester Lyons Douglas Payne Mark Stenson 

Richard and Delores Lysne Daniel Pearson Kari Sterna 

Mitch Mahrer Gordon Pearson Mark Stortroen 

Rick Mairs Marvin Pearson Harris Strege 

Arden Malheim Roger Pearson Steve Strege 

Joe Malheim Alberta Pederson Farren Stroehl 

Pam Maloney Jeffery Pederson Ken Stroh 

Joe Malstrom Harvey Peterson Lawrence Strouse 

John Manikowski Richard Peterson Earl Sulerud 

Stan Manikowski Peterson Brothers Colin Sundquist 

William Manikowski Tom Pettersen Robert Sundquist 

Kevin Manock Dennis Pherson David Susag 

Dan Svingen 

John Szatkowski 

Jens Tennefos 

Nevin Tergensen 

Aaron Teschner 

Ron Teschner 

Stanley Theisen 

Kristie Thohe 

Harlo Thol 

Gene Thompson 

Gary Thornberg 

Doug Thorstad 

David Tiegs 

Debbie Tiegs 

Paul Tiegs 

David Titus 

Dale Torreson 

Einar Tosse 

John Totenhagen 

Herb Troester 

Russ Turchin 

Trevor Vanberkom 

Gene Van Eeckhout 

Brian Vculek 

Roy Vig 

Chad Wagner 

Larry Walden 

G. Douglas Walker 

Tom Walock 

Gary Walstead 

Mike Walstead 

Roger Walstead 

Robert Washnieski 

Joe Wateland 

Allen Weber 

Earl Weber 

Mark and Vickie Weber 

Donald Wehlander 

Kenny Weiderholt 

Curt Wells 

Joe and Betty Wettstein 

Dennis Wheeler 

Roger and Connie White 

Terry Wieser 

Arlen Willprecht 

Bud Wisnewski 

Jerome Wisnewski 

Alan Wittich 

Allen Wittich 

Clayton Wohlwend 

Louis Wohlwend 

Larry Woodbury 

Bill Woytassek 

John Woytassek 

Jerry and Patty Woytassek 

Virgil and Ivadelle Woytassek 

Brad and Tracy Wyum 

Mark and Kathy Wyum 

Mike and Phyllis Wyum 

Robert Wyum 

Steve Wyum 

Thomas Wyum 

Paul Zavada 

Dave Zentner 

Dave Zetocha 

Garth Zimbelman 

Terry Zimbelman 

Don Zirnhelt 

Mike Zirnhelt 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 169 
Appendix O: Glossary
 

Academia: pertaining to colleges or universities. 

Accessible: areas and activities allowing the physical access of areas to 

people of different abilities especially those with physical impairments. 

Adaptive Resource Management (ARM): refers to a process in which 

decisions are implemented within a framework of scientifically driven 

experiments to test predictions and assumptions inherent in the 

management plan. Analysis of results help managers determine 

whether current management should continue as is or whether is 

should be modified to achieve desired conditions. 

Advocacy: the act or process of supporting a cause or proposal; to actively 

support. 

Amphibians: a class of cold-blooded vertebrates including frogs, toads or 

salamanders. 

Anadromous: fish which swim up rivers from the sea at certain seasons for 

breeding (i.e., salmon). 

Avian Cholera: is a contagious disease resulting from infection by the 

bacterium Pasteurella multocida that affects migratory birds. High 

concentration of the bacteria con be found for several weeks in waters 

where birds die from the disease. The bacteria can be transmitted 

through ingestion by birds and other animals scavenging off of 

diseased carcasses, direct contact between birds, and by air borne 

particulate. (Field Manual of Wildlife Diseases, 1999-001). 

Baseline: a set of critical observations or data used for comparison or a 

control. 

Big Game: large animals sought for hunting or fishing for sport including 

species such as white-tailed deer, antelope, mule deer, and elk. 

Biological Control: reduction in numbers or elimination of unwanted 

species by the introduction of natural predators, parasites or diseases. 

Biomass: the total amount of living material, plants and/or animals, above 

and below the ground in a particular habitat or area. 

Biotic: pertaining to life or living organisms; caused or produced by or 

comprising living organisms. 

Botulism: (Avian botulism) is a often fatal disease of birds that results 

when they ingest toxin produced by the bacterium, Clostridium 

botulinum. The bacteria persists in spores in wetland soil and are 

resistant to heating and drying and can remain viable for many years. 

Botulism outbreaks occur during the summer and fall when air 

temperatures are high and decaying vegetation is present. These 

conditions enable the spores to germinate. The cycle for botulism 

starts with birds dying, maggots begin feeding on carcass, maggots 

with the toxic bacteria are eaten by other birds, those birds die and the 

cycle continues. (Field Manual of Wildlife Diseases, 1999-001). 

Breeding Bird Survey (BBS): a cooperative program of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the Canadian Wildlife Service for monitoring 

population changes in North American breeding birds by using point 

counts along roads (Koford et al. 1994). 

170 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Bureau of Reclamation: a Federal government water management 

agency whose mission is to assist in meeting the increasing water 

demands of the west while protecting the environment and the public’s 

investment in these structures. Responsible in the District for carrying 

out the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986 and 

implementing the wetland wildlife mitigation in the Kraft Slough area. 

Calcareous: refers to soils with moderate to large amounts of calcium, 

usually calcium carbonate. 

Categorical Exclusion (CE, CX, CATEX, CATX): a category of actions 

that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect of the 

human environment and have been found to have no such effect in 

procedures adopted by a Federal agency pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4) 

Central Migratory Bird Flyway: migrating birds follow specific pathways 

in their travel from their wintering grounds to their nesting grounds. 

Several major pathways are evidenced by their travels. The Central 

flyway occurs along the great plains states. 

Climax: a community that has reached a steady state under a particular 

set of environmental conditions; a relatively stable plant community; 

the final stage in ecological succession. 

Colony: the nests or breeding place of a group of birds (such as herons) 

occupying a limited area. 

Compatibility: a wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a 

refuge that, in the sound professional judgement of the Refuge 

Manager, will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the Mission of the System or the purposes of the refuge 

(Draft Service Manual 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility determination 

supports the selection of compatible uses and identified stipulations of 

limits necessary to ensure compatibility. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP): A document that describes 

the desired future conditions of the refuge; and provides long-range 

(15-year) guidance and management direction for the refuge manager 

to accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute to the mission of 

the System, and to meet other relevant mandates (Draft Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.5) 

Cool Season Grasses: begin growth earlier in the season and often 

become dormant in the summer. These grasses will germinate at lower 

temperatures (65 to 750 F). Examples of cool season grasses at Refuge 

are green needlegrass, porcupine grass, intermediate wheatgrass and 

tall wheatgrass, smooth brome, quackgrass, and Kentucky bluegrass. 

Cultural Resources: the remains of sites, structures, or objects used by 

people in the past. 

Cultural Resource Inventory: A professionally conducted study designed 

to locate and evaluate evidence of cultural resources present within a 

defined area. Inventories may involve various levels, including 

background literature search (Class I), sample inventory of project site 

distribution and density over a larger area (Class II), or comprehensive 

field examination to identify all exposed physical manifestation of 

cultural resources (Class III). 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 171 
Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Project: a project within the eastern portion of 

North and South Dakota that includes parts of 32 counties (North 

Dakota: Dickey, Ransom, Richland, Sargent; South Dakota: Beadle, 

Bon Homme, Brookings, Brown, Clark, Clay, Codington, Davison, Day, 

Deuel, Grant, Hamlin, Hanson, Hutchinson, Kingsbury, Lake, Lincoln, 

Marshall, McCook, Miner, Minnehaha, Moody, Roberts, Sanborn, 

Spink, Turner, Union, Yankton). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 

working to protect, enhance, and restore uplands. A project proposal 

to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Data Loggers: equipment that when installed in water impoundments will 

be able to read the water level remotely at anytime of the year and 

save the data for managers to assist in carrying out the goals of the 

water management plan. 

Defoliation: the removing of vegetative parts, to strip of leaves from 

animals and fire. 

Dense nesting cover (DNC): a composition of grasses and forbs that allow 

for a dense stand of vegetation which protects nesting birds from the 

view of predators. Usually consists of one to two species of wheatgrass, 

alfalfa, and sweet clover. 

Depredation: Damage inflicted upon agricultural crops or ornamental 

plants by wildlife. 

Drawdown: the act of manipulating water levels in an impoundment to 

allow for the natural drying out cycle of a wetland. 

Drift Prairie: an area of small, gently rolling hills, dotted with thousands 

of small wetlands with densities of up to 100 wetlands per square mile. 

It was formed by the melting and retreat of the Wisconsin glacier 

about 10,000 years ago. 

Drift Prairie Wetland Enhancement Project: a project within the 

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture that includes 14 Counties in southeastern 

North Dakota (Barnes, Cass, Eddy, Griggs, Ransom, Richland, 

Sargent, Steele, Trail, and portions of Dickey, Foster, LaMoure, 

Stutsman, and Wells counties). Various governmental and 

nongovernmental agencies are working together to protect, enhance, 

and restore wetlands and uplands. Funded by the North American 

Wetlands Conservation Act. 

Easement Refuges: areas where easements for flowage and refuge 

purposes and filing of water rights were purchased. A perpetual 

agreement with the landowner and any successive landowners that 

provided the exclusive and perpetual right and easement to flood with 

water, and to maintain and operate an artificial lake, and/or to raise the 

water level of a natural lake or stream, by means of dams, dikes, fills 

ditches, spillways and other structures for water conservation, drought 

relief, and for migratory bird and wildlife conservation purposes, and/ 

or upon said land and waters to operate and maintain a wildlife 

conservation demonstration unit and a closed refuge and reservation 

for migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Ecological Diversity: The variety of life and its processes, including the 

variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and 

the communities and ecosystems in which they occur (USFWS Manual 

052 FW 1.12B). 

Ecosystem: a dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal 

communities and their associated non-living environment; the totality 

of components of all kinds that make up a particular environment 

(Koford et al. 1994). 

172 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Emergent: a plant rooted in shallow water and having most of the 

vegetative growth above water. Examples are cattail and hardstem 

bulrush. 

Endangered Species (Federal): A plant of animal species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act that is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range. 

Endangered Species (State): A plant or animal species in danger of 

becoming extinct of extirpated in North Dakota within the near future 

if factors contributing to its decline continue. Populations of these 

species are at critically low levels or their habitats have been degraded 

or depleted to a significant degree. 

Environmental Assessment (EA): a concise public document, prepared in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly 

discusses the purpose and need for an action, alternative to such 

action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to 

determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or 

finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

Extinction: the complete disappearance of a species from the earth; no 

longer existing. (Koford et al. 1994). 

Extirpated: the elimination of a species from an island, local area or region 

(Koford et al. 1994); to destroy completely; wipe out. 

Fauna: all the vertebrate and invertebrate animals of an area; the animals 

characteristic of a region, period or special environment. 

Fen: A fen, also called an alkaline bog, is a wetland primarily composed of 

organic soil material (peat or muck) that take thousands of years to 

develop. 

Feral: having escaped from domestication and become wild. 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): A document prepared in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, supported by 

an environmental assessment, that briefly presents why a Federal 

Action will have no significant effects on the human environment and 

for which an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared (40 

CFR 1508.13). 

Flora: all the plant species of an area; plant or bacterial life characteristic 

of a region, period or special environment. 

Floristic: referring to studies of the species composition of plant 

associations (Koford, et al. 1994); of or relating to flowers. 

Forb: a broad-leaved, herbaceous plant; a seed producing annual, biennial 

or perennial plant that does not develop persistent woody tissue but 

dies down at the end of a growing season. 

Fulfilling the Promises: a document that has the visions and recommendations 

on leadership in serving wildlife, habitat and people to fulfill the 

promise of America’s National Wildlife Refuge System first made by 

President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903 to preserve wildlife and habitat 

for its own sake and the benefit of the American People (Fulfilling the 

Promise: The National Wildlife Refuge System, July 1999). 

Geographic Information System (GIS): a computer system capable of 

storing and manipulating spatial data; a set of computer hardware and 

software for analyzing and displaying spatially referenced features 

(i.e., points, lines and polygons) with nongeographic attributes such as 

species and age (Koford et al. 1994). 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 173 
Goal: descriptive, open-ended and often broad statements of desired future 

conditions that convey a purpose but do not define measurable units 

(Draft Service Manual 620 FW 1.5). 

Global Positioning System (GPS): a system which by using satellite 

telemetry can pinpoint exact locations of places on the ground. 

Grassland Easements: a legal perpetual agreement between willing 

landowners and the Service to permanently keep land in grass for 

wildlife. Land covered by a grassland easement may not be cultivated. 

Mowing, haying and grass seed harvesting must be delayed until after 

July 15 of each year. Grazing is not restricted. 

Habitat: the place or environment where a plant or animal naturally or 

normally lives and grows. 

Habitat fragmentation: the alteration of a large habitat to create isolated 

patches of the original habitat that are interspersed with a variety of 

other habitat types (Koford, et al. 1994); the process of reducing the size 

and connectivity of habitat patches, making movement of individuals or 

genetic information between parcels difficult or impossible. 

Habitat and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET): a team of Service 

scientists who with GIS and research data devised the Thunderstorm 

Map which indicates the areas preferred by mating and nesting ducks 

in the Prairie Pothole Region. This map is used to focus management 

efforts, restoration efforts and protection efforts in the area. 

Herbivory: an animal feeding on plants 

Holistically: ecology views humans and the environment as a single 

system; relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems 

rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts. 

Impoundment: A body of water created by collection and confinement 

within a series of levees or dikes thus creating separate management 

units although not always independent of one another. 

Incompatible: any use (recreational or nonrecreational) of a refuge that, in 

the sound professional judgement of the Director of the Service, will 

materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the Mission 

of the System or the purposes of the refuge. Incompatible uses are not 

allowed to occur on Service areas. 

Indicator species: A species of plant or animal that is assumed to be sensitive to 

habitat changes and represents the needs of a larger group of species. 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM): The control of pest species (plant 

or animal) using a practical, economical, and scientifically based 

combination of biological, mechanical, cultural, or chemical control 

methods. A balanced approach to controlling pest species populations. 

Interseeding:: a technique of planting in which seed is sowed directly into an 

existing turf. It protects the valuable soil resource and also promotes less 

competition from weed species that would invade in a plow seeding operation. 

Introduced species: a species present in an area due to deliberate release 

by humans (including re-introductions, transplants, and restocked 

species) or due to accidental release through escape or indirect 

assistance (Koford et al. 1994). 

Inviolate Sanctuary: A place of refuge or protection where animals and 

birds may not be hunted. 

Lacustrine: relating to, formed in, living in, or growing in lakes. 

174 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Lek: an assembly area where animals (such as the sharp-tailed grouse) 

carry on breeding and courtship behavior. 

Mayfield method: a method used to calculate the rate of nesting success 

based on the number of days that a nest was under observation (i.e., nest 

days of “exposure”); developed by Mayfield in 1975 (Koford et al. 1994). 

Maintenance Management System (MMS): a national database which 

contains the unfunded maintenance needs of each refuge. Projects 

included are those required to maintain existing equipment, buildings 

and to correct safety deficiencies for the implementation of approved 

plans, and meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates. 

Mechanical Control: reduction in numbers or elimination of unwanted 

species through the use of mechanical equipment such as mowers, 

clippers etc. 

Mesic: characterized by, relating to or requiring a moderate amount of 

moisture; having a moderate rainfall. 

Migration: regular, extensive, seasonal movements of birds between their 

breeding regions and their “wintering” regions (Koford et al. 1994); to 

pass usually periodically from one region or climate to another for 

feeding or breeding. 

Migratory birds: birds which follow a seasonal movement from their 

breeding grounds to their “wintering” grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, 

raptors, and song birds are all migratory birds. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act: Authorized the 

requirement of an annual stamp for the hunting of waterfowl whose 

proceeds go towards the purchase of habitat for waterfowl and other 

wildlife. Duck stamps are also purchased for entry into some refuges, 

by conservationist and for stamp collections. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act: Designates the protection of migratory birds 

as a Federal responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and 

other regulations including the closing of areas, Federal or nonfederal, 

to the hunting of migratory birds. 

Mississippi Migratory Bird Flyway: migrating birds follow specific 

pathways in their travel from their wintering grounds to their nesting 

grounds. The Mississippi flyway where birds follow the general path of 

the Mississippi River. 

Mitigation: measures designed to counteract environmental impacts or to 

make impacts less severe. 

Mixed-grass Prairie: a transition zone between the tallgrass prairie and 

the shortgrass prairie dominated by grasses of medium height that are 

approximately two to four feet tall. Soils are not as rich as the tallgrass 

prairie and moisture levels are less. This causes changes in the 

vegetative composition and plants characteristic of this area include 

little bluestem, Junegrass and needle grasses. 

Monitoring: the process of collection information to track changes of 

selected parameters over time. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA): Requires all agencies, 

including the Service, to examine the environmental impacts of their actions, 

incorporate environmental information, and use public participation in 

the planning and implementation of all actions, Federal agencies must 

integrate NEPA with other planning requirements, and prepare 

appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental 

decision making (from 40 CFR 1500). 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 175 
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR): a designated area of land, water, or an 

interest in land or water within the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System (System): Various categories of areas 

administered by the Secretary of the Interior for the conservation of 

fish and wildlife, including species threatened with extinction, all lands, 

waters and interests therein administered by the Secretary as wildlife 

refuges, areas for the protections and conservation of fish and wildlife 

that are threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, 

wildlife management areas, or waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997: Sets the 

mission and administrative policy for all refuges in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Clearly defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; 

establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority 

public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation); establishes a formal process 

for determining compatibility; establishes the responsibilities of the 

Secretary of the Interior for managing and protecting the System; and 

requires a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each refuge by the 

year 2012. This Act amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act 

and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. 

Native Species: species which are part of the original plant and animals of 

an area. In general, meaning from the same continent (Johnson and 

Larson, 1999). 

Necrotic Enteritis: Necrotic enteritis has occurred on highly alkaline 

lakes and wetlands where sodium, magnesium, and sulfate levels have 

been relatively high. The bacteria that causes necrotic enteritis is 

normally found in nonlethal amounts in intestines of healthy animals. 

It is believed that abrupt dietary changes, stress, infections from other 

diseases, and bacterial imbalances could be the reason this bacteria is 

suddenly produced at higher rate causing death. In southern Canada, 

geese can die soon after their arrival following their diet change from 

grass in northern regions to grain. These birds are also using alkaline 

bodies of water which seems to upset the normal bacterial balance. 

Neotropical Migrant: a bird species that breeds north of the United 

States and Mexican border and winters primarily south of this border. 

Nest Success: The percentage of nests that hatch (one or more eggs hatch) 

successfully of the total number of nests initiated in an area. 

ND Natural Heritage Program: A State program administered by the ND 

Parks and Recreation Department. The Natural Heritage Program will 

protect and preserve elements of North Dakota’s natural heritage on 

private and public lands, for the benefit of present and future generations 

before such areas are destroyed. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP): the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan, signed in 1986, recognizes 

that the recovery and perpetuation of waterfowl populations depends 

on restoring wetlands and associated ecosystems throughout the 

United States and Canada. It established cooperative international 

efforts and Joint Ventures composed of individuals; corporations; 

conservation organizations; and local State, provincial, and Federal 

agencies drawn together by common conservation objectives. Tewaukon 

Complex falls into the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture. 

176 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
North American Wetland Conservation Act (NAWCA): an act to conserve 

North American wetland ecosystems and waterfowl and the other migratory 

birds and fish and wildlife that depend upon such habitats. The act 

established a council to review project proposals and provided funding 

for the projects. This act was passed to further implement the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan and included Canada, Mexico, 

and the United States. 

Objective: An objective is a concise target statement of what will be 

achieved, how much will be achieved, when and where it will be 

achieved, and who is responsible for the work. Objectives are derived 

from goals and provide the basis for determining management 

strategies. (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

Parasitism: an intimate association between species of two or more kinds, 

one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually 

injures. 

Partners in Flight: a Western Hemisphere program designed to conserve 

neotropical migratory birds and officially endorsed by numerous 

Federal and State agencies and nongovernment organizations; also 

known as the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Program 

(Koford et al. 1994). 

Patch: a part or area distinct from that around it; area distinguished from 

their surroundings by environmental conditions. 

Perennial: plants which live for three years or more (Johnson and Larson 1999). 

Prairie Pothole Region: an area rich in natural depressions that capture 

precious water in a relatively dry prairie landscape which provides the 

most productive breeding habitat in North America for waterfowl and 

many other birds. Covers portions of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. 

Predation: a mode of life in which food is primarily obtained by the killing 

or consuming of animals. 

Preferred Alternative: this is the alternative determined to best achieve 

the Refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to the Refuge 

System mission, addresses the significant issues; and is consistent with 

principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

Prescribed Burning: Controlled application of fire to the landscape that 

allows the fire to be confined to a predetermined area while producing 

the intensity of heat and rate of spread required to achieve planned 

management objectives. 

Priority Public Uses: six uses authorized by the Refuge Improvement Act 

to have priority and are found to be compatible with the refuge 

purposes. This includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, environmental education, and interpretation 

Raptor: a carnivorous bird (as a hawk, falcon, or vulture) that feeds wholly 

or chiefly on meat taken by hunting or on carrion (dead carcases). 

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS): a national database which 

contains the unfunded operational needs of each refuge. Projects 

included are those required to implement approved plans, and meet 

goals, objectives, and legal mandates. 

Resident species: a species inhabiting a given locality throughout the year, 

nonmigratory species. Examples include white-tailed deer, sharp-tailed 

grouse, muskrat, raccoon, mink, and fox. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 177 
Riffle: a shallow, extending across the bed of a river; also a rapid; to form, 

flow over, or move in riffles. 

Riparian: refers to areas adjacent to water; influenced by water associated 

with streams or rivers. 

Rough Fish: a fish that is neither a sport fish nor an important food for 

sport fishes (i.e., carp). 

Scoping: the process of obtaining information from the public for input 

into the planning process. 

Sediments: material deposited by water, wind, or glaciers. 

Shelterbelts: single to multiple rows of trees and/or shrubs planted around 

cropland or buildings to block or slow down the wind. 

Shorebird: any of a suborder (Charadrii) of birds (as a plover or snipe) that 

frequent the seashore or mud flat areas. 

Spatial: relating to, occupying, or having the character of space. 

Special Use Permit: a permit for special authorization from the refuge 

manager required for any refuge service, facility, privilege, or product 

of the soil provided at refuge expense and not usually available to the 

general public through authorizations in Title 50 CFR or other public 

regulations (Refuge Manual 5 RM 17.6) 

Species of Concern (Federal): species which are (1) documented or 

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

dependence on restricted or vulnerable habitats. 

Species Richness: the absolute number of species in an assemblage or 

community; the number of species in a given area (Koford et al. 1994). 

Stakeholder: a person who has an interest in activities of the Complex. 

Strategy: a specific action, tool or technique or combination of actions, 

tools and techniques used to meet unit objectives (Draft Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

Tallgrass Prairie: a habitat zone dominated by grasses of tall height that are 

approximately four to eight feet tall. Soils are rich and precipitation is the 

more than in any other prairie area. The vegetative composition and 

plants characteristic of this area include big bluestem, Indian grass, 

prairie cordgrass, switchgrass, and needle grasses. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex): a management unit 

of the Service that is located in the Southeast corner of North Dakota (see 

Map 1). The Complex encompasses the Refuge including the Sprague 

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

Refuge and the Tewaukon Wetland Management District (WMD). 

Threatened Species (Federal): Species listed under the Endangered Species 

Act that are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of their range. 

Threatened Species (State): a plant or animal species likely to become 

endangered in North Dakota within the near future if factors contributing to 

population decline or habitat degradation or loss continue. 

Thunderstorm Map: a map which depicts areas (wetland complexes) that 

are preferred by mating and nesting ducks in the Prairie Pothole 

Region. This map is used to focus management efforts, restoration 

efforts, and protection efforts in the area. 

178 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Till: unstratified glacial drift consisting of clay, sand, gravel, and boulders 

intermingled. 

Turbidity: the cloudy condition of a water body caused by suspended silt, 

mud, pollutants, or algae. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, FWS): the principal Federal 

agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and 

wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 

people. The Service manages the 93-million-acre National Wildlife 

Refuge System comprised of more than 500 national wildlife refuges and 

thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 national fish 

hatcheries and 78 ecological service field station, the agency enforces 

Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations restores 

national significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat 

such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act, and helps 

foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees 

the Federal Aid program which distributes of millions of dollars in 

excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to State wildlife agencies. 

U.S. Geological Survey: a Federal government agency whose mission is to 

provide reliable scientific information to describe and understand the 

earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage 

water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and 

protect our quality of life. 

Visual Obscurity: a measurement of the density of a plant community; the 

height of vegetation that blocks the view of predators to a nest. 

Wading Birds: birds that have long legs that enable them to wade in 

shallow water. Includes egrets, great blue herons, black crowned night 

heron, and bitterns. 

Warm Season Grasses: begin growth later in the season (early June). 

These grasses require warmer soil temperatures to germinate and 

actively grow when temperatures range from approximately 85 to 950

F. 

Examples of warm season grasses are switchgrass, big bluestem, 

Indian grass, little bluestem, and tall wheatgrass. 

Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA): prairie wetlands with associated 

uplands managed to provide nesting areas for waterfowl and owned in 

fee title by the Service. These lands are purchased from willing sellers 

with funds from Duck Stamp sales. They are open to public hunting, 

fishing, and trapping according to State and Federal regulations. 

Waterfowl: Includes ducks, geese, and swans. 

Watershed: the region or area draining into a river, river system, or body 

of water. 

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN): consists 

of wildlife agencies, scientists, private conservation groups, and 

governments who endeavor to preserve and manage wetland habitat 

on a hemispheric scale to aid shorebird survival. 

Wetland Easements: a perpetual agreement entered into by a landowner 

and the Service. The easement covers only the wetlands specified in the 

agreement. In return for a single lump sum payment the landowner agrees 

not to drain, burn, level, or fill wetlands covered by the easement. 

Wetland Management District (WMD): an area covering several Counties 

that acquires (with Federal Duck Stamp funds), restores, and manages 

prairie wetland habitat critical to waterfowl and other wetland birds. 

The Tewaukon Management District covers the Counties of Ransom, 

Richland, and Sargent. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 179 
 

Appendix P. Summary of 

Public Involvement 

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Service’s 

comprehensive conservation planning process, the planning team initiated a 

public scoping process to determine what issues the public would like to see 

addressed in the CCP and environmental assessment. Issues, concerns, 

and opportunities were identified at five open houses in the Tewaukon 

Complex. Prior to the public meetings, the Complex staff discussed the 

planning process with local county commissioners, sportsmen’s groups, 

other interested groups, and advertised in the local media. Information on 

the planning process was also available in cafes frequented by community 

members throughout the Complex. Worksheets on Refuge issues were 

provided to the public to stimulate additional public input for the planning 

process. From this initial scoping period, we received 50 worksheets and 11 

individual letters. The CCP only addresses some of the issues and is not 

written at a level of detail that addresses all the input that was received. If 

further discussion on an issue is included in the CCP, a reference section is 

noted. Some input was similar and was grouped together. Comments that 

were received from the scoping process and responses to the input from 

the planning team follow. 

Scoping Input and Responses 

1. Fishing 

Input: Improve and increase opportunities for fishing on the Refuge. Close 

fishing access seasonally including boat closure and 10 pm hour limit. Appreciate 

the fisheries management that has been done on Refuge. Continue to support 

fishing tournament. Allow quiet boating (canoes)- but no motors or jet skis. 

Keep area pristine. Extend fishing from 10:00 pm to 12:00 am for additional 

night time fishing (specifically around the Lake Tewaukon culvert area). 

Allow fall fishing by boat restricted to the morning hours only, after 

September 30. New boat ramp on the western side of Lake Tewaukon near 

the culverts. Response: The Refuge staff will continue to follow recommendations 

made by the Service Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Assistance Office in 

Bismarck who consult with the ND Game and Fish Department regarding 

fishery management on Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake. Each year the 

fishery is evaluated for size class and stocking numbers are adjusted to 

maintain the fishery. The current Tewaukon Fishery Management Plan 

does not recommend developing fisheries in any other Refuge wetlands. 

Water management for migratory birds (Refuge primary purpose) does not 

provide water depths to support an overwinter fishery on other water 

bodies. Plans are to continue the current Refuge regulations which permit 

seasonal boat use (including motor boats), and fishing from one-half hour 

before sunrise to 10 pm. Current staffing is not adequate to support 

increased angling hours. Waterfowl Production Areas are open to fishing 

according to ND State regulations. Refuge will continue to sponsor the 

Tewaukon Fishing Tournament as long as cooperation continues with the 

local sportsmen’s clubs. Proceeds of the fishing tournament are used to 

improve facilities on Refuge lakes. Boat ramps were evaluated, added, and 

upgraded in 1997 and no plans exist at this time to add additional ramps. 

See Refuge Public Use Fishing Section for further information on 

fisheries. 

Input: Raise or remove horsepower limit on lakes. No jet skis or waterskiing. 

Response: In May 1998 the horsepower limit was removed from Tewaukon 

and Sprague Lakes. However power boating, skiing, and jet skis are still 

not allowed on the lakes. Boating for fishing purposes supports one of the 

six priority public uses on refuges. 

180 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Input: All night fishing or longer hours. Response: Current Refuge hours 

of one-half hour before sunrise until 10:00 pm will remain in place. Expanding 

fishing hours on the Refuge may be compatible with Refuge purposes, but it 

has been determined that funding and personnel needed to support additional 

hours are not available. Waterfowl Production Areas are open to fishing by 

State regulations and may be fished all night. 

Input: Open Mann Lake to ice fishing. Response: Mann Lake is managed 

for waterfowl and, at certain times, may not have sufficient water for a 

sustained fishery. We have opened areas where it is cost effective to stock 

and maintain a fishery that can overwinter with little die-off to protect the 

investment (i.e., Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake). No plans exist to 

open additional Refuge wetlands to ice fishing or any fishing if they are not 

going to be managed at depths that support fish. See Refuge Public Use 

Section for further information on fisheries. 

Input: Continue size limits on fish. Response: Refuge will continue size limits 

until other recommendations are made by the Service Missouri River Fish 

and Wildlife Assistance Office. So far test netting has shown a definite size 

increase of sport fish since the limits were put in place and angler success 

appears to have improved. See Refuge Public Use Fishing Section for 

further information on fisheries. 

Input: Concerned about priority of pelicans over fish. Response: Management of 

the Refuge does focus on migratory birds because the Refuge was established for 

migratory birds. Pelicans frequent other areas besides Lake Tewaukon and 

Sprague Lake. Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake will be managed for migratory 

birds at levels that support sport fish populations. Management actions that would 

discourage migratory bird use on the Refuge in favor of fisheries management are 

incompatible with Refuge purposes and will not be pursued. 

Input: More control of carp, either commercial or chemical. Response: Chemical 

control of carp over the whole system has been determined to be cost prohibitive 

and harmful to other species. The Refuge staff will continue to utilize water 

management to freeze out carp upstream and, when conditions are right, may do 

limited chemical control. Commercial harvest has been used in the past, but 

markets and water conditions do not always favor this method. The objective of 

introducing size limits on walleye and pike was to increase predation on carp. 

Input: Stock more pan fish (perch). Suggest stocking perch, sunfish, 

crappie in lakes for kids. Response: The Service has stocked yellow perch 

and black crappie in Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake. Most recent 

releases in 1998 included 63,000 perch fry and 23,400 black crappie fry in 

Lake Tewaukon and 15,000 perch fry in Sprague Lake. In 1999, 50,000 

perch fry were stocked in Lake Tewaukon. Panfish will continue to be 

stocked in Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake and are likely to do better in 

Sprague Lake due to the vegetative growth in the lake. 

Input: Stock fish in Kennedy Slough and Park Lake. Response: Kennedy 

Slough is part of a Waterfowl Production Area whose main purpose is breeding, 

nesting, and migratory waterfowl habitat. Since recent research indicates 

fish and ducklings compete for the same food sources, the Service will not 

actively support stocking of these waters. High water conditions may 

introduce fish from other areas. The majority of Park Lake is privately 

owned. 

Input: Remove snow from roads and ramps for winter fishing. Improve access for 

vehicles on east boat ramp (more hard surface area for parking, turn-arounds, and 

roads). Response: Mild winters do not require snow removal for winter fishing 

access. In some years snowfall makes these areas inaccessible. Snow removal 

by Refuge staff has been done in the past and will continue to be dependent 

upon equipment condition, staff availability, and funding. The limited use of 

snowmobiles has been approved for access to fish houses during severe winters. 

No plans exist to improve surfaces on the east side of Lake Tewaukon. A period 

will occur during spring thaw when access to these facilities will be difficult. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 181 
2. Hunting/Trapping
 

Input: Continue pheasant and deer hunting. Response: Pheasant and deer 

hunting will continue on the Refuge since harvestable populations are 

available and this use is compatible with the Refuge purpose (See Compatibility 

Determination Appendix G). Pheasant and deer hunting are also available on 

Waterfowl Production Areas according to ND State regulations. Non-toxic 

shot will continue to be a required on all Complex properties for all upland 

game hunting. See Refuge Public Use Hunting Section. 

Input: Englevale Rest Area, there is confusion about waterfowl/deer/ 

pheasant seasons with rest areas. Like this site as a rest area. Response: 

The WPAs in this area were set aside as a waterfowl rest area which also 

restricted small game hunting and fishing from September 25 through 

November 30. Due to high waterfowl numbers and landowner response, 

this rest area was dropped in 1998 and is now open to waterfowl hunting 

and other wildlife hunting according to ND State Regulations. The use of 

non-toxic shot for waterfowl and upland game hunting is required. 

Input: Close pheasant hunting on Refuge after December 15. Response: The 

Refuge will continue a pheasant season on the day after deer gun season to 

the end of the ND general pheasant season. The Refuge currently has a 

limited pheasant season (approximately 42 days compared to the 96 days by 

ND State regulation) to reduce conflicts with other hunting opportunities and 

migratory bird use. Research has shown that the removal of 90 percent or 

more of the pheasant roosters will have no affect on pheasant populations. 

Most of the roosters not managed by hunting would die from natural 

causes, predation, starvation, disease, exposure or other threats. Weather 

dictates population trends in northern pheasant habitat. No sound 

biological reason exists to shorten the pheasant season (See Refuge Public 

Use Hunting Section). 

Input: Want a youth waterfowl season on or near the Refuge. Response: 

The Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge’s purpose is for migratory birds. 

This use conflicts with a Refuge primary purpose, serving as a waterfowl 

rest area during migration. Opportunities for youth waterfowl hunting 

exist on the adjacent ND Game and Fish property and on all Waterfowl 

Production Areas in Ransom, Richland, and Sargent Counties. 

Input: Have recreational muskrat trapping on Refuge. Response: The 

Refuge had recreational trapping prior to 1998; however, the interest in 

trapping decreased due to the fur prices which made it difficult to justify 

the staff time for only one interested trapper. If fur price and interest 

increases, this use will be reevaluated. Recreational trapping is available on 

all Waterfowl Production Areas in Ransom, Richland, and Sargent Counties. 

Input: Continue Youth Deer hunt. Response: Refuge will continue the 

youth deer hunt on the Refuge to encourage youth hunters. This use is 

compatible with the purposes of the Refuge and provides valuable 

experience for the youth hunters. See Refuge Public Use Hunting Section. 

Input: Open Refuge to predator hunting. Encourage shooting of fox, raccoon, 

and skunk. Response: At this time, the Refuge will not be opened to predator 

hunting. A long process must be completed to open any new hunting 

programs on a National Wildlife Refuge including public input ,which takes 

up to two years to complete. Since an opportunity for this type of hunting 

exists on the neighboring State land and on all Waterfowl Production 

Areas, it is viewed as a non-priority issue for the Refuge. Expanding 

hunting opportunities may be compatible with Refuge purposes, but it has 

been determined that funding and personnel needed to support additional 

hunting are not available. Research indicates that fall and winter predator 

hunting do not affect ground nesting bird success that following spring. 

182 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
 

Input: Snow goose hunting on Refuge (both open a season and keep the 

Refuge closed). Response: The Refuge will not be opened for any waterfowl 

hunting as it conflicts with Refuge purposes. Snow geese typically use 

adjacent private land to feed during migration, providing opportunities for 

hunters. Providing a closed rest area also gives waterfowl a place where 

they are not disturbed which generally allows birds to remain in the area 

for a longer period of time. Birds tend to leave an area sooner if they are 

continually disturbed. 

Input: Establish waterfowl retrieval zone. Response: Currently, no plans 

exist to provide for a waterfowl retrieval zone on the Refuge. Retrieval 

zones can be exceptionally difficult to enforce and can increase waterfowl 

disturbance. The majority of the waterfowl shooting in the area occurs on 

open crop fields and marshes located on the adjacent ND Game and Fish 

Wildlife Management Area. 

Input: Take care of wildlife for hunters. Response: The Tewaukon National 

Wildlife Refuge was established as a Refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife. Management will benefit many species of wildlife 

and hunting will continue where compatible with the Refuge purpose (i.e., 

deer and pheasant). District lands were acquired to assure the continued 

availability of habitat capable of supporting migratory bird populations at 

desired levels. Waterfowl Production Areas are open to hunting of all 

species according to ND State regulations and Service special regulations. 

Input: Make sure hunting access continues, as it may not be available 

elsewhere. Response: Public hunting access will continue on Waterfowl 

Production Areas and for deer and pheasant on the Refuge. See Refuge 

and District Public Use Hunting Section. 

Input: Do not change deer hunting program; it is a safe place to hunt. 

Response: The Refuge provides a deer hunt that restricts the number of 

deer gun permits and schedules other season dates of hunting seasons to 

limit conflict and provide safe hunting experiences. Unless problems occur, 

this program will be conducted as it has been in the past. See Refuge Public 

Use Hunting Section. 

Input: Refuge staff hunt on other Refuges as self evaluation. Response: 

Currently, no formal arrangement exists, however, many of the Refuge 

staff do hunt at other Refuges in this State as well as other states. 

Input: Have hunters provide feedback on hunting experiences. Response: 

The Complex does receive some informal feedback from hunters who hunt 

on the Refuge or on the District. Many of the comments are positive and 

support the current Refuge programs. Periodically Refuge deer hunters 

are surveyed to determine how they rate their experience. 

Input: Refuge is a Refuge for wildlife foremost. Use hunting to control excess 

populations. Concerned about the attack on hunting by groups such as 

PETA. No one should have a say about the use of hunting (or not) except 

Service and the State F&G involved. Response: The Refuge currently uses 

the deer hunting for population management. We also have concerns that antihunting sentiments may restrict our ability to use a very useful management tool 

for the purpose of controlling wildlife populations. Congress, in recent 

legislation (1997 Improvement Act), has identified hunting as one of the six 

priority wildlife-dependent public uses on Refuges. We actively discuss our 

hunting seasons and regulations with the ND Game and Fish Department. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 183 
3. Habitat 

Input: More emphasis on tallgrass prairie and grasslands for migratory 

birds. More grassland easements with perennial cover to improve wetland 

and water quality. Put emphasis on grasslands on the District. Decline in 

grassland birds: Accept what we cannot change. If weather keeps potholes 

wet, we will have a lot of birds, when dry, we won’t. Response: The Tewaukon 

Complex staff intends to increase its efforts in the protection (easement and fee), 

restoration, and reestablishment of tallgrass prairie especially for grassland 

nesting birds as well as improving the wetland and water quality of the area. See 

Refuge Habitat Section. 

Input: Use seed source from adjacent private landowners (pay them). 

Response: The Complex is dependent upon budgets from year-to-year that 

determine the amount of seed we can buy. We have relied on past seed 

sources in North Dakota and Minnesota from reputable companies that 

have seed with a genetic makeup that is similar to those from this area. If a 

good seed source was available from private landowners, we would be 

interested in knowing about it. 

Input: Less grassland. Response: Grassland habitat is needed in the area 

to provide sufficient nesting cover for many species of migratory birds and 

resident wildlife including pheasants. Managing grassland habitat will still 

be a primary focus of Refuge management efforts as this is the limiting 

factor affecting ground nesting birds in the Complex. See Refuge Habitat 

Grassland Section. 

Input: Refuge needs to be a reservoir of all types of wildlife for whole area 

around, as there is no habitat in surrounding lands. More efficient cropping 

has meant less grassland habitat. Response: Managing Refuge habitats 

will still be a primary focus of Refuge management efforts. These habitats 

will support a variety of wildlife populations that are found in this area. See 

Refuge Habitat Section. 

Input: More weed management, especially for thistles. More control with 

chemicals and mowing. Give Refuge staff more leeway to use chemical 

controls, and more discretion at local level to use available chemicals that 

minimally affect wildlife. Wants to continue working with the Service on bio 

controls and bug releases. The Refuge doesn’t manage its weeds, so why is 

private landowner penalized for not controlling weeds? Weed control and 

options at local level. Spray weeds if can’t use insects. Response: Current 

management for weeds include spurge beetles (over a million and a half 

beetles released to date on the Complex), mowing of thistle, and chemical 

control of thistle and spurge. Expenditures in 1999 included $13,464 in 

chemical cost and $6,551.05 in labor. Control of weeds included 511 acres of 

spurge chemically treated, 115 acres of thistle chemically treated, 154 

acres of spurge grazed by sheep, 297 acres of thistle mowed, 40 acres of 

spurge beetles, and 12 acres of thistle insect control. Current limitations on 

spraying include staff size and high water areas making it impossible to 

access some locations. Because of the size of the District, the staff asks that 

the public provide information on problem areas. The Complex is limited to 

certain chemicals that have prior approval through the Regional Office and 

are low in toxicity to wildlife. The Complex makes every effort to control 

weeds on fee title properties and will continue to do so. We will continue 

working with local groups to establish spurge beetles in other areas as our 

released beetle populations increase. See Refuge Habitat Grassland 

Section. 

184 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Input: More trees on WPA’s for food and cover for deer. Shelterbelts, if 

planned right, winter deer and other wildlife and melt down snowbanks to 

fill wetlands. Response: Research indicates that some grassland nesting 

migratory birds avoid nesting adjacent to trees or other tall (over 31⁄2 feet) 

woody vegetation. Grassland nesting bird populations are in sharp decline 

due in part to loss of grassland habitat lacking in trees. Deer populations in 

the area are currently on the rise and reaching a maximum that the local 

habitat can support. The historical natural vegetation of the area was primarily 

grass. Only a few trees were located in riparian areas. White-tailed deer 

populations historically were limited to these riparian areas. The Service 

will continue to emphasize managing grassland habitat for migratory birds 

which does not include planting of additional trees. This management will 

still support white-tailed deer populations. 

Input: Suggest grazing as the only grassland tool used. Use grazing and 

fire as management tools as we get more grassland. Grasslands: Hay with 

sickle mower set low only-objective is to renovate grassland. Use livestock 

for improving streambank vegetation. Done correctly it can be effective. 

High impact/low duration approach. Response: Managers prefer to have 

several tools to utilize for the management of grasslands and other vegetation. 

This allows for the most efficient and beneficial management for each area. Some 

of the tools currently being used for grassland management include 

haying, grazing, and fire. In degraded areas, some additional tools include: 

interseeding for additional vegetative diversity, farming or chemicals to 

control undesirable vegetation. Many of the District properties are too 

small to sufficiently rotate cattle through or no cattle are available in the 

area. Difficulties also exist in funding the cross fencing of areas and 

providing sufficient staff time to manage and monitor areas See Refuge 

Habitat Grassland Section. 

Input: Need more emphasis on District linking habitat blocks to offset 

habitat fragmentation. Will increase nest success. Response: This is a 

concern of the Complex staff and the Service. The Service will continue to 

look for ways to connect habitat blocks not only for nest success but to 

facilitate dispersion of native species and enhance gene flow. See District 

Habitat Grassland Section. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 185 
4. Management
 

Input: Common sense management. Management decisions at local level. 

Local input to management decisions. Response: The management of the 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex is based on scientific research, 

years of experience, and is guided by legislation and Service policies. Local 

management decisions often take into account the local concerns and 

history of the area. 

Input: Focus on pro-active approach to issues. Improve Service credibility. 

Response: The Complex staff has and will continue to focus efforts on 

keeping the public informed, provide education and assistance when required. 

We are also concerned about credibility and will continue to make efforts to 

communicate Complex directions, strategies, and policies. See Refuge 

Public Use Environmental Education and Outreach Section. 

Input: Wants Refuge to pay same property taxes as a private owner would 

for same piece. Response: Federal agencies are exempt from paying real 

estate taxes. However, Congress realized the hardship placed on local 

government and implemented payments in-lieu-of-taxes. In the case of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, these payments are called Refuge Revenue Sharing 

payments. Each year the Refuge pays their Refuge Revenue Sharing from 

funds generated by the National Wildlife Refuge System from commercial 

activities on Refuges such as oil, grazing, haying, etc. The Refuge Revenue 

Sharing Act stipulates that 3/4 of 1 percent of the appraised value of Service lands 

would be paid to counties (not based on the counties evaluation for taxes, 

sometimes results in higher or lower payments). From 1965 to 1975, 100 

percent of this entitlement was paid to the counties. Since then, Refuge 

revenues have not been sufficient to pay 100 percent. Congress has passed 

some supplemental appropriations but never enough for full entitlement. 

For newly acquired properties in North Dakota, a one-time lump sum is 

paid (at the current Treasury Bill rate) to make up the difference between 

the current County taxation rate and the last Refuge Revenue Sharing 

payment to the County. Currently, several ND Congressional offices are 

working on legislation to ensure that 100 percent of the Refuge Revenue 

Sharing Payment is available in the future. Passage of the current CARA 

bill would provide additional funding to increase Refuge Revenue Sharing. 

Voicing your concern to the congressional offices is one way to encourage 

full payment to counties. This issue is of concern to Fish and Wildlife Service 

staff throughout ND who wish to continue a good working relationship with 

the counties. The Refuge also pays property tax on the house located near 

the headquarters, this is a Regional Service decision and is not done in 

other parts of the country. 

Input: Requests to gas pocket gophers along fence lines or ditches. Requests 

to control muskrats on road right-of-Way through Refuge. Response: The 

management of rights-of-way through Complex lands are a joint responsibility 

between the lead road management agency (Township, County, or State) and 

the Complex staff. The staff has worked with, and will continue working with 

these agencies to address road issues. For example, we have agreed to 

control muskrats along Refuge roads with Complex staff when we get 

specific requests. The staff has no plans to control, or permit others to 

control pocket gophers along Complex lands. 

Input: Continue to have flexibility to burn wetland vegetation on wetland 

easements. Response: The wetland easement policies allow for the issuance of a 

permit to burn wetland vegetation once every five years. This allows for 

the regeneration of these wetlands with the removal of layers of dead 

vegetation layer. This is a written policy and the staff will continue to follow 

the written policy in the District. 

186 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
 

Input: Current easement enforcement is inflexible and detrimental. Need 

alternatives, balance of long-term and short-term contracts. Response: 

When the government initially purchased easements (real property interest) it did 

not expect to have to actively enforce the terms of the agreement. However, with 

the development of more effective and efficient draining equipment it has been 

necessary to enforce the property interests that were purchased. Easement 

enforcement follows specific policies and court decisions in order to protect 

the wetlands and grasslands for wildlife use. The wetlands may be farmed 

in dry years so the areas are not always inaccessible to the farmer. An analogy that 

could be used is a farmer leasing a landowners farm, planting a crop, and then the 

landowner removing the crop. This would not be fair to the lessee and 

would void the rental agreement. The Service is trying to protect the 

interest that was purchased in the agreement. Flexibility can occur in 

certain areas including health and safety issues. Complex staff have been 

working with landowners to resolve flooding issues that have developed in 

the last four years. Long-term contracts are the best value for the government’s 

money, protecting resources indefinitely, and we will continue to look at 

perpetual easements from willing sellers. Short-term contracts do not 

provide a large enough payment to the landowner to make them saleable in 

the area. 

Input: Hold water back in Refuge pools longer in spring runoff season. If 

feasible, provide some type of water control on lakes that allows flood control. 

Work with water commission. Water management plan should help prevent 

flooding in the Red River Basin. Response: Refuge pools were designed as 

shallow marshes for waterfowl use. They do not have the capability to hold 

large amounts of water, especially the runoff that we have seen in the last 

four years. Our management plans do take into account spring runoff, and the goal 

each year is to pass as much water in the spring as early as possible then slowly 

release flows to prevent excessive flooding downstream. Some rainfall events 

make this impossible and the frequency of flooding has increased in the 

recent wet cycle. Fluctuations from rainfall can increase water levels up to six 

feet in 12 hours. These large rain events can be very difficult to manage with 

our shallow pool capabilities. We will continue to work with local water 

boards, Resource Conservation Districts, and ND State Water Commission 

on water use and management. See Refuge Managed Wetlands Section. 

Input: Concerned about illegal collection of Echinacea species (Purple 

coneflower). Response: This is also a concern of the Complex staff and 

efforts have been made to patrol areas on the Complex where known 

populations exist. So far no illegal collection has been noted but if evidence 

is found, regulations will be enforced. It is illegal to remove any plants, 

animals or parts, historic and prehistoric artifacts from a National Wildlife 

Refuge property unless covered by hunting season or other valid permit. 

Input: Research seems to be focused on what will prove presumptions, not 

unbiased results. Research projects need to be longer term to be significant. 

Response: The majority of the research conducted on Complex lands are 

administered by colleges, universities, other governmental agencies or 

research groups. Each research project conducted on the Complex must be 

reviewed by Refuge staff and determined to be useful for management on 

Complex properties. The majority of the research projects are to resolve or 

answer management questions. The Service encourages long-term research 

projects on its properties. 

Input: Continue to get local input in the planning process periodically through the 

15 year period. The CCP should have at least a 100 year orientation. Build 

flexibility in the CCP to reflect changes in land use and farming practices 

adjacent to the Refuge, and adjust for resulting changes in wildlife needs. 

Response: The CCP will guide management on the Complex for the next 15 years. 

A copy of the Plan will be provided to all those that have interest and public input 

will continue to be a priority. The Complex staff will review the Plan every 

five years to determine if it needs revision. In the case of severe circumstances, the 

project leader has the authority to modify management actions to respond 

appropriately. The Plan will be revised no later than 2015. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 187 
Input: No more land acquisition. Enough taken out of production already. 

Work with private landowners instead. Response: The Complex staff will 

continue to look at all options in protecting wildlife habitat including 

acquisition from willing sellers (upon concurrence with County commissioners and 

the Governor), the purchase of long-term easements, and any other process that 

is available. See District Habitat Grassland Section. 

Input: Manage water for multiple benefits when possible. Response: The 

water management plan will continue take into account management for 

waterfowl, other migratory birds, fisheries, recreation, facilities maintenance, and 

limited flood control. Local conditions including weather, dam maintenance, 

and local water conditions will also be a factor. 

5. Resident Wildlife 

Input: Stock wild pheasants at Refuge. Work with Game and Fish and 

Pheasants Forever to transplant wild birds (Pheasants) on the Refuge. Put a 

wild flock of pheasants in predator fence. Response: Currently, the Refuge 

pheasant population is doing well. This nonnative species is thriving as a 

result of management practices that benefit waterfowl such as predator 

management, habitat management, and crop management. The National 

Wildlife Refuge System exists for the protection and management of plants 

and animals native to the United States. Service policy is to prevent 

further introduction of nonnative species except when a species would have 

value as a biological control agent. We do not plan to augment the Refuge 

pheasant population. See Refuge Wildlife Nonnative Section. 

Input: Has observed that pheasant hunting is best when there are large 

stands of cattails. Cattail cover more effective than food plots. Wants to see 

cattail spreads that are not allowed to flood and die off. Response: 

Providing a greater range of conditions as described in the wetlands 

section of the Plan should yield more cattails in a given year. Wetlands will 

still be managed to provide migratory bird benefits. See Refuge Habitat 

Managed Wetlands Section. 

Input: Work with ND Game and Fish and Pheasants Forever to transplant 

wild birds on the Refuge. Plant more food plots. Response: Since pheasants are a 

nonnative introduced species, the Refuge will not carry out management 

activities that specifically encourage population expansion. Other management 

activities for migratory birds that will benefit pheasants include cropland 

management, predator control, and grassland cover improvements. See 

Refuge Wildlife Nonnative Section. 

Input: Stock and provide food for wild turkeys. Response: Due to the lack 

of suitable turkey habitat, no plans exist at this time to stock wild turkeys. 

Input: Hawks, owls are taking too many pheasants. Wants more protection 

for pheasants from aerial predators. Need to deal with avian predators. 

Response: Raptors are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

and cannot be directly managed. However, historical records indicate that 

these species were less numerous when trees were limited to riparian 

areas. Raptor populations increased in response to the increase in nesting 

and perching trees. Some areas will be targeted for removal of these large 

trees. See Refuge Habitat Grassland Section. 

188 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
 

Input: Continue resident wildlife management. Response: Complex staff 

will continue to manage resident wildlife. The Refuge was established to 

benefit migratory birds and other wildlife. Most CCP management actions 

are planned to benefit migratory birds. These actions will benefit resident 

wildlife by providing habitat that will favor species that utilize grasslands. 

Several CCP goals directly address management for resident wildlife. See 

Refuge Wildlife Migratory Birds and Other Native Wildlife Sections. 

Input: Work with U.S. Forest Service and ND Game and Fish to encourage 

prairie chickens on Stacks Slough and south unit of Grasslands. Response: 

The Complex staff will continue to work with Forest Service and Game and 

Fish to evaluate Complex lands for prairie chicken releases. Currently, not 

many habitat blocks are on the Complex that are large enough to support 

prairie chicken releases. Efforts will continue on providing appropriate 

habitat for resident species. See Refuge Other Native Wildlife Section. 

6. Farming 

Input: Cropland for wildlife (more, less and none). Establish upper limit on 

cropland, wildlife needs come first. Put food plots on WPAs adjacent to 

CRP or on private lands. Unwise to plant crops for waterfowl on Refuges. 

Response: The Refuge will maintain no more than 500 acres of cropland to 

reduce depredation on adjoining properties; provide food for both migratory 

and resident wildlife; and to prepare a clean seedbed for grassland reseeding. Previously, up to 1,000 acres was farmed; however, this was more 

acreage than needed to provide food for wildlife. Grassland habitat will still 

be the primary focus of Refuge management efforts as this is a limiting 

habitat component in the area. Tewaukon Complex staff will continue to 

utilize crop management for seedbed preparation on Waterfowl Production 

Areas. See Refuge Wildlife Migratory Birds Section. 

Input: Feed geese in spring but not in fall to manipulate when they use the 

area. Response: Current cropland management provides for some green 

browse in the spring and fall. Only post harvest grain is available in the 

fall. Standing crops are mowed for waterfowl in the spring. Refuge wetlands 

also provide food sources throughout the year. Typically waterfowl rest on the 

Refuge in the fall and feed in the adjacent private farm fields. No plans 

exist to require additional tillage in the fall to limit food sources on 

harvested Refuge fields. 

Input: Put vegetative buffer zones around wetlands in Refuge farmland. 

Response: Biologically this is a good idea; administratively it is more 

difficult to achieve. Portions of wetlands in Refuge farmlands are only farmed 

in dry years. The Refuge staff recognize the negative effects cropland tillage 

can have on prairie wetlands with increased sedimentation and chemical 

impacts. These plowed wet areas provide important migratory habitat for 

shorebirds. 

Input: Less farming on the Refuge due to problems with chemical runoff 

into the wetlands. No farming on the Refuge. Farming on Refuge should be 

enough for deer and pheasant and no more. Response: The current farming 

program is conducted on less than 6 percent of Refuge lands (approximately 

500 acres) and provides benefits for migrating waterfowl and resident 

wildlife. It also reduces impacts to adjacent private crop and hay fields. 

Chemical use on these farmed areas is limited to chemicals with a low 

toxicity to wildlife. The Refuge staff will continue to evaluate the use and 

need of these areas and will modify the program as necessary. See Refuge 

Wildlife Migratory Birds Section. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 189 
7. Recreation 

Input: Provide overnight camping. Response: Overnight camping and 

developed facilities are available on an adjacent County property at Silver 

Lake. Current staffing and funding are not sufficient to support this activity 

on the Refuge. Overnight camping permits have been issued to groups that 

have incorporated camping into natural resource education (i.e. Boy 

Scouts). We will continue to consider special use permits in these cases. 

Input: No development of roads at Stacks Slough. Wants boat access to 

Stacks Slough and road access to marsh. Response: At this time, the Service 

has no plans to develop roads at Stacks Slough. Several section line roads 

and trails already allow access to the area. Vehicle traffic is not allowed off 

section line roads and trails on Waterfowl Production Areas. 

Input: Continue to monitor and evaluate public uses and its effect on wildlife. 

Response: Complex staff currently monitor public use and wildlife impacts 

in conjunction with their daily activities around the Refuge. For example, 

in 1999 boat use periods on Refuge lakes were modified to limit disturbance to 

migratory birds after boat use periods had been extended the previous year. 

Input: Jet ski regulations on Lake Elsie. Suggests a focus group for Lake 

Elsie. Keep Lake Elsie as an Easement Refuge and retain water rights. What 

does or how does the “No Boats” on south side of Lake Elsie relate to the 

easement language? Fall management of 1073 for 2 feet cushion to take winter 

increases. Create connection between Murphy Slough and Lake Elsie where Lake 

Elsie provides water to Murphy Slough. At 1073 water won’t go to Murphy. 

Response: Lake Elsie National Wildlife Refuge interests were divested by 

Congress by Public Law 105-312 in October of 1998 due to an increase in 

recreational use and a loss of waterfowl values. Water based recreation regarding 

types of craft, use zones, and water elevation management are the responsibility of 

the State and other local government now that the Service has divested its interest 

in Lake Elsie NWR (See Easement Refuge Section). The Service has retained an 

easement interest in Murphy Slough. Additional survey data would have to be 

available to determine the relationship of Murphys Slough and Lake Elsie at 1073. 

Input: More road access for wildlife viewing especially during migration 

and peaks. Response: Currently, no plans exist to open additional road 

areas which would increase migratory bird disturbance. One of the purposes that 

the Refuge was established was to serve as a rest area for migratory birds. 

Currently, a number of areas and observation points are available to the 

public for viewing of wildlife during migration and peaks. 

Input: Liked having picnic areas. Response: Refuge staff will continue to 

maintain the picnic areas as support for the Refuge fishing, hunting, and 

wildlife observation programs. These picnic areas are popular areas for 

anglers and hunters to rest, eat, use facilities, and are some of the primary 

access points for boat launching and fishing. These areas have little impact 

on wildlife due to the small amount of acreage involved. 

Input: Non-consumptive multiple use is best unless biological control of a species 

is needed. Response: The Complex staff attempts to provide multiple use on the 

Refuge including fishing and hunting of pheasants and deer. The Improvement Act 

stated that six priority public uses should be considered if they are compatible with 

the Refuge purpose. These include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, and interpretation. 

Input: The Refuge has become a “people Refuge” not a wildlife Refuge. Do 

not increase public use from present level unless it benefits wildlife. 

Response: Refuge staff have attempted to balance wildlife use and public 

use. The majority of public use is limited to the east side of County Road 

12, and the west side is closed to public access to provide for relatively 

undisturbed wildlife habitat. If people were excluded from the entire area, 

it would be difficult to obtain public support of our wildlife programs if no 

one realized they were there. Our primary mission of the Service also has 

the clause “for the benefit of the American People.” 

190 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
 

8. Education and Interpretation 

Input: Focus on pro-active approach on issues, also as a regular occurrence 

for coordination. Recognize the importance of outreach and continue efforts 

such as Jr. Duck Stamp, etc. Thinks school programs are great. Work on 

having joint programs with ND Game and Fish Department. Work with 4-H, 

Scouts, to have a Tewaukon Days at Stacks Slough. Education about good 

land management practices (be an example) and community involvement will 

allow the Refuge to impact a larger landscape. Work with others to educate 

and market products. Response: In the last 10 years, the Complex staff 

have expended considerable effort in trying to provide information, education, 

and outreach to the local communities and beyond. Our hope is to continue 

this effort as funding and staff allow. See Refuge Public Use Section. 

Input: Development of Stacks Slough: involve school, community, and 

other groups in a long-term environmental education center and effort 

along with a trail. Response: The Complex staff has worked with local 

groups to improve interpretive facilities and will continue to work towards 

improvement of educational and additional interpretive facilities. A prairie 

interpretive trail was developed in 1999. 

9. Ecosystem (Partners) 

Input: Continue to work with local waterboards and soil conservation districts for 

input, cost shares and funding, and grass seeding. Improve coordination 

with Regional Conservation Districts. Need to work together to implement 

wildlife management on large areas (landowners, ND Game and Fish, 

Service, and other groups). Response: The Tewaukon Complex staff will 

continue to work with local waterboards, government agencies, and 

nongovernmental agencies to provide for the best possible wildlife habitat 

in the area. The Complex staff realizes that the majority of the lands are in 

private landownership, and in order to implement best wildlife management 

practices on large areas, we need to work cooperatively. For a list of our current 

partnerships, see Appendix I. We will also continue to work with local, 

County, and State government to provide input on projects that may affect 

Complex resources. See Refuge and District Partnership Sections. 

Input: Continue to work with private landowners to create win-win results 

for wildlife and landowners. The CCP should make provisions for small 

family farm units that practice innovative techniques that are respectful of 

the environment. Response: Tewaukon Complex staff intends to continue 

to work with private landowners to improve and develop wildlife habitat. 

Efforts will continue to develop additional funding, share resources, and 

form additional partnerships for the benefit of wildlife on private lands. 

Other agencies may be better suited to provide benefits for the family farm. 

Complex staff will try to provide interested landowners with a variety of 

information on available opportunities. See Refuge and District Partnership 

Section. 

Input: Need more education and communication between managers, researchers, 

biologists, and private landowners. Go to annual community clubs meetings to get 

management input. Include U.S. Department of Agriculture representatives in 

CCP planning project. Response: In the last 10 years, the Complex staff 

have expended considerable effort in trying to provide information, education, 

and outreach to the local communities and beyond. Our hope is to continue 

this effort as funding and staff allow. Complex staff are available for group 

tours and presentations and educational programs. Outreach will continue 

to focus on improved education and communication. The Complex staff will 

continue to request input from all interested parties during the Comprehensive 

Conservation Planning process and when significant management changes 

are proposed. See Refuge and District Environmental Education and Public 

Outreach Section and Partnership Section. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 191 
Input Outside the Scope of the CCP 

The following Input is not addressed in the planning process because they are 

the primary responsibility of other government agencies or organizations or 

are outside the scope of this planning process (National topics): 

Input: Be careful of waterfowl. Numbers seem to be too high, i.e. snow geese. 

Some waterfowl populations need drastic reductions; spring seasons? 

Response: These items are handled by the Flyway Councils and the 

Migratory Bird Office in consultation with the States who set seasons and 

limits. Complex staff do provide input on large scale issues, like snow goose 

issues, at meetings and through other planning efforts. 

Input: More emphasis needs to be placed on keeping species from ending 

up on the T&E list, not waiting until they are already on it. Response: 

Endangered Species listings are handled by the Ecological Service branch of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Complex habitat programs like grassland 

easements can maintain habitat supporting rare species like Dakota skipper and 

white lady’s slipper that may help prevent endangered species listings. 

Input: Depredating birds on private land would be available for hunting there. 

Goose populations: Local numbers have reached top of acceptable levels. Problems 

with goslings in row crops. Spring goose depredation on crops-wants 

compensation or help running them out. In ND after November 20 would 

like 2 to 3 full days per week of goose hunting north of Highway 2 to push 

birds to southern North Dakota sooner. Longer hunting, day long hunting 

on snow geese, and a spring goose season. More discretion at local level to 

use available options for minimum wildlife damage. Continue coordination 

with Animal Damage Control to address damage control issues. Access to 

Federal land to help adjoining landowner depredation problems. Provide 

options to landowners for wildlife damage to crops. Response: The 

Migratory Bird Office works with the States and USDA, APHIS Animal 

Damage Control Program to resolve migratory bird crop depredation 

issues. The Complex staff will continue to work with the agencies and 

landowners involved, however, these other divisions have the primary 

responsibility for these problems. 

Input: Need to be locally sensitive to bird and deer populations when 

setting limits for State wildlife species. Out-of-state waterfowl hunter days. 

State control program of predators. Response: The agency with primary 

responsibility for these items is the ND Game and Fish Department and 

the North Dakota State Legislature. 

Input: Transplant wild pheasants from Refuge where population is high to 

Refuge or private land where population is low. Response: The ND Game 

and Fish Department has the primary responsibility for the management 

of resident game including pheasants. Any releases or transplants from or 

to Service lands would require discussions with the ND Game and Fish 

Department and Service approval. 

Input: Improve Nickeson Bottoms-access roads to transport boats and 

gear to the marsh. Response: The access point for this area is managed by 

the ND Game and Fish Department and is located on the Tewaukon 

Wildlife Management Area. 

Input: CRP weed control assistance and tree plantings in CRP. Response: 

The CRP program is the primary responsibility of the Department of 

Agriculture. ND Game and Fish also works with landowners to provide 

shrub plantings on CRP. 

Input: Suggest a Texas crossing on Hwy #1 (Richland County) instead of a 

culvert. Response: Road maintenance is the responsibility of the respective 

State, county, or township entity. The Complex staff consults with these 

agencies only when actions affect property interests of the Service. The 

agency can then select from a range of alternatives that will not impact the 

Service’s interests. 

192 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Other input which cannot be addressed in this Plan include items that are 

regulated by laws which would take an Act of Congress to change. * Avian predator hunting. 

* Endangered species; limit of number of listed species, target numbers for 

de-listing. 

* Changes in the migratory bird laws. 

Draft CCP Input and Responses 

The Draft CCP was released in June of 2000. It was mailed to over 400 

people and was available on the Service web site. An open house was held 

on June 27, 2000, to answer questions and take comments. Only a few comments 

were received by the end of the 30-day comment period, and several requests were 

made to extend the comment period for an additional 30-day period. The comment 

period was extended into August. During this time meetings were set up with local 

sportsmen’s clubs, county commissioners, and other groups to answer questions 

and discuss concerns. All public comments received were considered in the 

final plan. Sixteen letters were received from groups and individuals on the 

Draft CCP. Many of the comments included support for the Plan. Public 

input that was not previously addressed in the Scoping Input and 

Response Section and the planning team’s response to the input follow. 

National, Regional, and State Group Input 

Animal Protection Institute, The Fund for Animals, Friends of Animals, 

Earth Island Institute, and In Defense of Animals 

Input The preferred alternative is unacceptable because of its continuance 

and/or expansion of recreational and predator trapping of furbearing 

mammals and of hunting of deer and ring-necked pheasants (an exotic 

species) as well as the increase of other recreational activities that are 

potentially detrimental to wildlife. Response Deer hunting is utilized as a 

Refuge management tool to ensure that populations do not damage the 

habitat they need to survive or grow to levels that may be severely impacted 

by disease or winter weather. Hunters are the best tool managers have to 

replace large natural predators that were extirpated by human settlement. 

The population information in the Draft CCP was developed primarily 

through staff observations of deer herds (300 in the winter), impacts to 

vegetation, adjacent crops and hay supplies, and ND Game and Fish 

Department monitoring information. Pheasant hunting is a recreational 

opportunity offered on the Refuge. A wide variety of research indicates 

that pheasant hunting (limited to males) does not impact populations. 

Weather is the primary factor that regulates pheasant populations. 

The Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) attempts to balance 

wildlife needs and public recreational opportunities (see Public Use and 

Recreation Sections). The Refuge Improvement Act recognizes the importance of 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, and the refuge managers are charged 

with considering these recreational uses on Refuge lands where they are 

shown to be compatible with the purpose of the Refuge (see Compatibility 

Determinations Appendix G). Limited pheasant and deer hunting are compatible 

recreation opportunities on the Refuge that do not negatively affect these animal 

populations. Pheasant and deer hunting are permitted on WPAs by statute. 

Documentation of predator impacts on waterfowl nests has been conducted 

on the Refuge for the past 12 years. Ground nesting bird nest predation still occurs 

when predator control is conducted, which indicates that small predator 

populations are still healthy. The predator control strategy was developed 

to maintain a viable self sustaining population of ground nesting waterfowl 

that has the potential to increase (30 percent Mayfield). Research indicates 

that mallard nest success must be approximately 15 percent Mayfield to be 

self-sustaining. In some years, nest success has fallen below the selfsustaining level when predator control is not conducted on the Refuge. 

Recreational trapping has not taken place on the Refuge recently due to 

lack of interest, however, may be considered in the future based on demand. 

WPAs are open for recreational trapping by statute. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 193 
Input Need for a rigorous biological assessment and inventory of all flora 

and fauna inhabiting the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge. Complete 

prior to any management. Response Complex staff agree with a need for 

biological assessments and inventory of flora and fauna. Most objectives 

include monitoring strategies. Information on the particulars of the monitoring is 

included in the Monitoring Section of the Plan. Many of the strategies 

developed in the Draft CCP are attempts to collect better information 

about unknown populations such as grassland nesting songbirds, reptiles, 

and amphibians. Ideally, baseline data would have been gathered prior to 

management action. However, management has been ongoing since 1935 

and stopping that management at this stage would be detrimental to 

wildlife that management has favored. 

Since management was initiated, Refuge employees have tried to utilize 

available research to develop a best management practices approach. A 

great deal of the management work that has been done in the past is not 

likely to be detrimental to many species in a fragmented landscape. This 

approach is documented in past management planning efforts. For example, 

much of the Refuge was farmed prior to designation. Planting grassland 

cover on old farm fields based on research recommendations has provided 

a lot of important wildlife habitat for grassland nesting waterfowl. The CCP 

continues and refines this approach and includes strategies that consider 

block size, species composition, and structure components the grassland 

cover should have in order to benefit grassland nesting songbirds as well. 

The compatibility of management activities will continue to be reviewed as 

additional information becomes available. 

Input The incompatibility of recreational and commercial killing of wildlife 

on the Tewaukon NWR and the use of Refuges by consumptive and nonconsumptive users. Response Information was provided in the Compatibility 

Determinations (see Appendix G) concerning these uses. The proposed 

uses of recreational hunting and trapping were not found to be incompatible 

with the purposes of the Tewaukon NWR. Deer hunting and predator control 

are actually used to manage wildlife offsetting the loss of large natural 

predators or the growth of small predator populations caused by the drastic 

changes to the landscape over the last 100 years. Theodore Roosevelt, who 

established the National Wildlife Refuge System, was an avid hunter and 

supporter of active wildlife management. Wildlife populations are impacted by 

landscape changes which put them “out of balance.” Management strategies 

are developed to ensure that Refuge habitats will support healthy and 

balanced populations of wildlife. 

Near large population centers the demand for non-consumptive wildlife 

recreation may be higher than the demand for consumptive use. While nonconsumptive wildlife recreation on the Great Plains is growing, consumptive 

wildlife recreation is the most common form of wildlife recreation and the 

demand is high. The majority of our Refuge visitors are consumptive users. 

The CCP attempts to balance consumptive and non-consumptive uses on 

the Refuge and provide opportunities that are compatible with Refuge purposes. 

194 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Input Development of long-term, effective, humane, and socially acceptable 

management strategies to protect nesting waterfowl. Response In the 

Great Plains, trapping is a socially acceptable management tool. Other 

more humane tools that are used and identified as strategies in the Draft 

CCP include predator exclosure fences. At this time, animal population 

control through sterilization is cost prohibitive, labor intensive, and 

unproven as a management tool. 

A number of Draft CCP strategies address habitat loss and fragmentation 

and its impacts to nesting waterfowl. The Service is still acquiring habitat 

and utilizing predator fences on the Tewaukon Complex. As noted in your 

letter, without large budget increases, these approaches will not be funded 

at a level that will improve low waterfowl nest success significantly in the 

near future. As a result, in some years the Refuge waterfowl nest success 

will be too low to sustain populations. Predator control is the best tool to 

address waterfowl populations that are not sustainable. Your reference to 

the source, Rimmer and Deblinger 1990, provided to support the use of 

non-lethal predator management as more effective, discusses avian 

predator control on shorebirds. Only mammals are discussed in the Refuge 

CCP predator control strategy. 

Input Snowmobiles for ice fishing access and ice fishing should not be 

continued on the Refuge. Response The Final CCP devotes an entire section to 

wildlife disturbance where additional information can be reviewed. Information 

about the limitations and regulations concerning ice fishing and snowmobile use 

on Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake in order to reduce impacts to wildlife 

and provide safe wildlife-dependent recreation for the public is discussed. 

Snowmobiles are only used for access to ice fishing when snow conditions do 

not provide clear access for cars and trucks. Wintering wildlife populations 

seldom use lake ice. The Final CCP recognizes disturbance of wildlife 

associated with recreation and strives to balance the use. A strategy to 

monitor wildlife disturbance and evaluate additional research is still 

included in the Final CCP. The Refuge Improvement Act recognizes the 

importance of compatible wildlife-dependent recreation and the need to 

balance the needs of wildlife with the secondary use of public recreation. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 195 
Wildlife Management Institute 

Input Critical to have ND Game and Fish Department involvement. 

Response The Complex staff recognized this (especially with ownership of 

State lands adjacent to the Refuge and in the Complex) and requested 

involvement at the beginning of the planning process. The ND Game and 

Fish Department committed their area manager to be involved as a 

planning team member. The agency also provided comments on the Draft. 

Input Identification of outcomes without additional resources and priorities 

among goals. Response The majority of the objectives in the Draft CCP 

are already being accomplished in a limited capacity. Additional funding 

and staff will allow the staff to spend more time on monitoring and habitat 

management. Rather than prioritize goals or objectives, we chose to 

prioritize the additional requests for resources in the Implementation 

Section of the CCP. As these projects are funded, additional emphasis will 

be placed on the project objectives and strategies. 

Input Distribution of vegetative heights should include adjacent private 

lands in the Prairie Focus Area Objective (Refuge Tallgrass Prairie 

Management Approach Section). Response The Complex staff does not 

have management responsibilities or control adjacent private lands. Their 

management varies from year-to-year and were not considered. 

Input Maintain some of the existing DNC fields rather than converting all to 

native plant species. Use farming to manage DNC. Response The CCP includes a 

section on maintaining existing DNC (Introduced/Planted Cover - Dense Nesting 

Cover Section) on both the Refuge and District recognizing the importance of this 

habitat type to ground nesting birds, especially waterfowl. The Final CCP was 

modified to include farming as a tool to manage of DNC. 

Input A plan to increase independent operation of managed wetlands should 

be developed. Response While a flow through system of water management 

does make it more difficult to manage pools independently, installing a pumping 

system and the cost of operation and maintenance at this time would be cost 

prohibitive. Topography also plays a role in the feasibility of such a system. 

Input If a five year cycle of manipulation is used, the objective on pool 

management may over-emphasize dry pools and under-emphasize very 

shallow water and mudflats. Response The managed wetland objective 

provides a variety of water depths for the Refuge pools. This includes dry, 

shallow, mid-depth, and deep water as well as 20 percent to manage for 

what is missing in the system. Though the narrative for this section does 

not elaborate, many of the pools that are in various stages of drawdown will 

have mudflat areas, shallow water areas, and mid- and deep-water areas. 

When evaluating the objective, a wetland may be classified as mid-depth, 

but it will likely have zones that meet all of the objective depths. The 

objective’s purpose is to mimic natural wet and dry cycles and was written 

as a quantifiable goal that can be can be monitored and evaluated. Wetlands 

are not necessarily on a five year cycle; they may spend several years at 

any one stage depending on area weather conditions. 

Input Include strategies on reduction of nitrates and sediments; construct 

filtration marshes, and place buffers around non-managed Refuge wetlands. 

Response The water quality objective assumes that nitrates and sedimentation 

are problems, but the first strategy discusses the need to determine what 

the water quality problems are before determining what actions to take. 

The remaining strategies reflect the fact that the best opportunities to 

improve water quality are likely to occur off-Refuge in the watershed and 

that it is likely that the Service will only be part of any watershed quality 

effort rather than the initiating agency. One of the strategies listed under the 

Water Quality Objective included the restoration of wetlands to improve the 

water quality. Vegetative buffers around non-managed Refuge wetlands are 

discussed under the Refuge Non-managed Wetlands Section and the 

strategy to, “Implement management methods to reduce or eliminate threats to 

wetland productivity and function” could include buffers around wetlands. 

196 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
 

Input Accounting of CRP retirement schedules may afford opportunities 

to plan replacement nesting cover in key areas where CRP acreage is 

expected to be reconverted to cropland (possibly fee title). Response The 

Complex staff does monitor the CRP contracts in conjunction with private 

land activities. The political and social climate is not conducive to acquiring 

high wetland density CRP tracts that may be brought back into agricultural 

production. While the presence of adjacent CRP fields may afford the staff 

an opportunity to consider rejuvenating cover on adjacent Service lands, 

these decisions are primarily driven by willing cooperators since neighboring 

farmers do most of this work. 

Input The 135 acres of cropland on the Refuge seems insufficient. Human 

influences off the Refuge long ago eliminated any opportunity to passively 

manage the system as a pristine unaltered environment. Farming must 

remain a tool available to refuge managers, and it must be aggressively and 

effectively utilized. Response Staff observations of wildlife Refuge crop use 

indicates that during a difficult winter sufficient food is provided by the 

current 135 acre Refuge share. During milder winters, surplus corn has 

occurred in the Refuge share fields. Refuge wildlife populations also use 

food plots on the adjacent ND Game and Fish Department lands. The CCP 

describes the intent of managers to continue to utilize farming as a 

management tool for grassland rejuvenation and wildlife food. 

Input Departures from State hunting regulations should be made only 

when there is a body of supporting data relevant to specified management 

needs of the refuge. Response The few departures from State hunting 

regulations deal with herd management, Federal regulations (use of nontoxic shot for upland game birds), and public use management on the Refuge. 

The purpose of the Refuge, Refuge resources, recreational programs, 

public demand, State management goals, and the safety are all considered 

when evaluating hunting, fishing, and trapping opportunities. 

Input Consider another strategy involving contract, or no-fee, rough fish 

removal (carp) in relatively small waters that lack complete water level 

control as it may prove to be cost effective. Response Currently, commercial 

interest in Refuge carp is limited. Fish located in other lakes are easier to 

harvest. We contact commercial harvesters occasionally to see if they are 

interested. 

Input Refraining from carrying out additional management activities for 

nonnative species to the detriment of native species may imply intent to 

avoid management activities that benefit pheasants and are neutral to 

other species. Response This section has been modified in the Final CCP to 

make it clearer to the reader that the intent is to refrain from conducting 

activities to benefit nonnative species that would negatively effect the 

native species. 

Input The closure of the Refuge during October is appropriate, but should 

not unnecessarily limit recreation access, including hunting and trapping, 

especially where recreational opportunities can be provided without the 

use of vehicles, and without negative impacts to focus species. Response 

Closure strategies are designed to balance migratory bird and recreational 

use. Migratory bird use, a primary Refuge purpose, must be considered 

first under the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act and the 

National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act. Some recreational opportunities are 

available, but hunting seasons in October would produce a steady level of 

disturbance that would affect migratory bird use. 

Input Exceptions for access of areas normally closed to the public should be 

based on an equitable system that utilizes written permits for enforceability 

and potential monitoring. Response The exceptions for access would be 

evaluated to determine if the use is beneficial (research or education) or 

will have minimal wildlife impacts. Permits would be issued for exceptions if 

the visitors are not accompanied by staff. Examples of some of the possible 

exemptions include school group visits, research, and special events. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 197 
Input Hunting Section states that “Waterfowl and other migratory bird 

hunting is contrary to Refuge purposes as an ‘inviolate sanctuary for migratory 

birds.” While the function of a waterfowl refuge certainly requires some area of 

undisturbed sanctuary, at least seasonally, this sentence overstates the 

need to restrict hunting in a refuge climate. Response Policy requires that 

no more than 40 percent of an inviolate sanctuary refuge may be opened 

for waterfowl hunting. A compatibly determination must be completed 

prior to opening the Refuge to any hunting. Due to the availability of 

hunting on adjacent public lands and private lands, opening the Refuge to 

waterfowl hunting was considered, but not adopted as part of the hunting 

objective. The Final CCP Refuge Hunting Section has been modified to 

provide additional information and clarification. 

Input The reason for restricting of opening pheasant season to after the 

close of deer gun season is not stated. If this restriction is due to safety 

considerations it is unnecessary if pheasant hunters wear blaze orange. 

Response The reason for late opening of pheasant season is to avoid hunter 

conflicts and excessive wildlife disturbance which includes migrating 

waterfowl in October and movement of deer by pheasant hunters. Safety 

for deer and pheasant hunters is also a consideration since Refuge hunter 

concentrations are much higher than other areas. The density of pheasant 

hunters that would be expected during the deer season would likely reduce 

deer hunter success resulting in a harvest below herd management goals. 

Pheasant hunting on the Refuge is a popular pastime that draws a large 

number of hunters from the city of Fargo and surrounding areas in North 

Dakota and Minnesota. 

Input Should plan for at least one full-time and part-time interpreters. 

Response A request has been submitted for additional staff and funding to 

implement the interpretation and environmental education objectives and 

strategies. (see Implementation and Monitoring Section). 

Input Public Outreach Section would benefit from inclusion of components 

that recognize needs and opportunities to contact agricultural organizations 

and local farmers and ranchers regarding refuge issues. Response Refuge 

staff currently visit with agricultural producers and groups especially 

involving management of Refuge crops, haying and grazing, and private 

lands programs. Additional discussion about working with these groups 

and continuing those relationships is available in the Habitat Management 

and Partners Sections. 

Input The Cultural Resource Section would be strengthened by relating 

all of the cultural resources and interpretation thereof to either impacts on 

or influences of wildlife resources. Response Discussion of this relationship 

in the CCP can be found in the Historical Resouces, Cultural Values, and 

Uses Section and the Land Use and Wildlife Species Changes Section. 

Cultural wildlife relationships will be taken into consideration on any new 

interpretation efforts. 

Input The volunteer program should include a volunteer management plan 

and documents (job descriptions, training requirements, recognition, etc.) 

which may be obtained through and adopted from existing volunteer 

management programs. Response These suggestions will be fully implemented as 

funding and staff become available and the program grows. The Complex staff 

goal is to provide a quality experience for all volunteers. Administration of 

the volunteer program at this level of detail is beyond the scope of the CCP 

considering the Refuge volunteer participation is usually for short duration, 

single events. The staff does discuss job responsibilities, provides training, 

and rewards volunteers. 

198 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Input We support the objectives for elimination of nonnative plants and 

cropland to native prairie conversion, but the scientific support is unclear 

for the distribution of varying vegetative structure heights. Response 

Varying vegetative heights are required for the selected indicator species 

to provide habitat for these declining migratory grassland birds. A Habitat 

Based Approach to Management of Tallgrass Prairies at the Tewaukon 

National Wildlife Refuge by Schroeder, R.L. and K.L. Askerooth supports 

this objective (see literature cited and Refuge Tallgrass Prairie Management 

Approach Section). 

Input The Monitoring and Evaluation Section would benefit from the 

inclusion of components that provide for study of human use, recreational 

demands, and other human dimension aspects of the Refuge. Response 

This section will be further defined in a step-down plan. Plans are to 

include monitoring and evaluation of wildlife and human impacts/ 

interactions. 

ND Office of the State Engineer 

Input In the proposed water level management there should be recognition 

of State and local water management interests, laws and needs. Impacts of 

water management changes should be distinctly defined in the CCP. 

Response During yearly planning for water level management, impacts to 

State and local water interests are taken into account as well as laws and 

needs. Water releases are timed to have the least impact to downstream, 

adjacent, and upstream landowners. Staff will continue to work to resolve 

any problems that come up and ensure holding water does not impact 

adjacent landowners. Local water board meetings are attended and 

management plans are yearly sent to ND Office of the State Engineer. 

Detailed water management information will be discussed in the step-down 

Water Management Plan as this information is more detailed than the 

scope of the CCP. 

Input Concerns that the protection of an additional 60,900 acres within the 

District with grassland and wetland easements will have a definite impact 

on local and state water management efforts and should be defined in the 

CCP and Environmental Assessment. Response The CCP describes broad 

habitat protection objectives. At this time, it is impossible to identify where 

easement and fee title acquisition will take place since this effort is driven 

by landowners interest. Each property would have to be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis to determine if possible impacts may occur to water 

management. While a formal process is in place to discuss fee title transactions, 

this is not the case for easements or cooperative agreements. State and local water 

management personnel need to keep the Complex staff informed about 

water management projects that may impact Service interests. Counties 

have maps that show Service tracts which are periodically updated. We 

encourage County Commissioners and Water Management Boards to 

contact us early in their project planning process so we can discuss the 

potential for impacts to Service resources. We also initiate these contacts if we 

become aware of any project discussion that may impact Service interests. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 199 
Delta Waterfowl Foundation 

Input Concerns on inflammatory statements on predator control. Response 

While the wording may be considered inflammatory, it is true. Predator 

control is conducted in the spring because research shows it is effective and 

because waterfowl and other ground nesting birds are being severely 

impacted by furbearers that are hunting for their young. 

Input Waterfowl nesting reference does not give information on the current 

distribution or population status of these predators is not what historically 

existed. Response This information is discussed in the Land Use and 

Wildlife Species Changes Section. We referred readers to this section in 

the Final CCP Waterfowl Nesting Section for additional information. 

Input Waterfowl Nesting Objective is too restrictive (approximately two to 

three weeks) for a management tool that may need to be used under less 

specific terms. For example when this amount of effort is insufficient to 

control a large number of predators prior to the nesting season. Response 

Staff felt that this approximate duration of trapping was sufficient to 

improve nesting success and provide flexibility. The time period could be 

modified if it is found to be insufficient. 

Input Would emphasize that the purpose for the Refuge relates to migratory bird 

production. Response The Refuge was established as “a refuge and 

breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” This includes 

meeting migratory bird production and migration life needs during the 

time they utilize the area. 

ND Chapter of The Wildlife Society 

Input Support for the following items in the Draft CCP: restoration of old 

DNC fields to more diverse native plant communities, water management 

strategy for Refuge impoundments, continued maintenance of recreational 

fishing program on Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake, continued Refuge 

hunting program for white-tailed deer and ring-necked pheasants, maintenance of 

135 acres of cropland for migratory waterfowl and wintering wildlife, 

maintenance of native woodland habitat, and the enhancement of native 

prairie grasslands and other grassland habitats without the introduction of 

tree plantings. 

200 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
North Dakota Game and Fish Department 

Input Fish are not recognized in the Draft Plan, need to be included. Better 

definition of recreational fishing. Response New sections were written to 

address fish populations on the Refuge and District. The Public Use and 

Recreation Fishing, Wildlife Disturbance, and Partners Sections discuss 

the role and importance of Refuge recreational fisheries. 

Input Refuge fisheries are important to the local area due to lack of other 

resources. Allowing fishing until sunset in the winter and boating access 

until after dark in the summer (11 pm) would enhance local fishing 

opportunities. Response The Draft CCP recognizes the importance of 

Refuge recreational fisheries in the local area. Fishing is allowed from onehalf hour before sunset until 10:00 pm, approximately five hours after sunset 

during the winter. The CCP does not address fishing access hours, but this 

period has been posted in public use guides for the past 10 years, and no 

plans are in place to change it. While staff recognizes that having later 

fishing hours in the summer would increase local fishing opportunities and 

may be compatible with Refuge purposes, consideration must be given to 

the ability of staff to manage the recreation. At this time, sufficient staff is 

not available to extend the fishing hours. 

Input Specify boat launching sites in the plan and winter angler access. 

Response Boat ramps were identified on the Refuge maps included in the 

Draft CCP. Winter angling access points are discussed in the Public Use 

and Recreation Fishing and Wildlife Disturbance Sections in the Final CCP. 

Input Stocking of yellow perch particularly during high water levels, would 

also enhance recreational fishing opportunities. Response Yellow perch are 

being stocked in Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake. Most recent releases 

in 1998 included 63,000 perch fry in Lake Tewaukon and 15,000 perch fry in 

Sprague Lake; 1999 included 50,000 perch fry in Lake Tewaukon. Fish will 

be stocked according to Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Assistance Office 

recommendations based on their sampling and management plan. 

Input The structural classification is incomplete on the six prairie focus areas 

(only 60 percent accounted for) and rational and methodology for measuring 

the desired structure is also missing. Has the potential structure of the 

climax communities been identified? Response The Tallgrass Prairie 

Management Approach Section objective in the Final CCP was modified to 

include all structure categories. Rational for the structure is included in 

the text (see reference Schroeder and Askerooth 2000). Methodology for the 

monitoring will be more specific in the step-down plan. A list of climax tallgrass 

communities is listed in the Refuge Grasslands - Native Prairie Section. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 201 
U.S. Forest Service 

Brian Stotts, manager of the Sheyenne National Grasslands U.S. Forest 

Service came in to discuss his questions and concerns on the Draft CCP. 

The following topics were discussed: 

Input Acreage figures for remaining tallgrass prairie are lower than the 

HAPET information used. Response At this time, this is the best Service 

data available for identifying remaining tallgrass prairie. Some professional 

debate may occur about the accuracy of this information. A review of the 

Draft CCP showed that the percentages of remaining tallgrass in some 

sections of the Plan were inaccurate and they were modified to agree 

through out the Final CCP. Remaining tallgrass prairie in North Dakota is 

estimated to be 1 percent in the Final CCP. 

Input More emphasis should be placed on the possible rare plants on the 

District. The Sheyenne National Grasslands has 40 species and there 

should be possibilities of these existing on Service lands. Response The 

Draft CCP recognizes that the Service has an information gap regarding 

the presence of rare plant species on Service lands. The Final CCP identifies 

the need to survey prairie tracts for rare plant species (see second 

objective under ND State Listed Rare and Unique Species Section for 

further information). 

Input Would like to see the Complex work towards replanting of natives, 

especially rare plants so that all the eggs are not in one basket. Use local 

seed sources. Response The Complex CCP describes management 

strategies that will preserve the plant diversity on native prairie sites and 

strategies for converting some grassland tracts to a diverse native floral 

community (See Native Prairie and Planted Cover Sections). Local seed 

sources will be used when available, including those that may be available 

from private landowners. If sites are appropriate and sources are available, 

rare plants could be utilized to enhance plant diversity. 

Input How are the priorities set for land acquisition. Is duck nesting habitat 

more important than orchid habitat when easements are being considered? 

Response The Complex staff has a responsibility to manage the Complex 

for the primary purpose of migratory bird management. However, staff 

also have responsibilities to trust species including endangered species. 

Both waterfowl and orchid values and other values such as tract size and 

location are considered when easement tracts are evaluated. Generally, 

tracts with high evaluation scores contain habitat for both species and are 

not mutually exclusive. 

Input Grassland easements should have more rights for protecting endangered 

species like prairie fringed orchids (mow areas after September 15 - not 

July 15 to preserve seed source) and management of grasslands for 

improving the species diversity. Response Easement documents have been 

standardized for legal reasons. In addition, easements are structured to 

keep grasslands from being converted to farmland and maintain grassland 

cover through the nesting season in a manner that is compatible with cattle 

operations. Management of easement grasslands could also be accomplished 

through agreements with the landowners to protect orchid seed source by 

delayed mowing, grazing, etc. 

Input Why is specific orchid management required in the Forest Service 

Management Plan and not in included in the Draft CCP. Response Currently, 

no orchid populations occur on Service fee title lands. A specific objective 

is listed for orchid habitat protection and enhancement on private lands in 

the CCP. The Final CCP includes a Section 7 Consultation which provides 

additional discussion on orchid habitat protection and management 

opportunities. 

202 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Local Group Input 

The following local groups requested that Refuge staff meet with them 

during the second open input period to answer their questions about the 

CCP and to accept their comments. Below are the comments that the staff 

recorded. 

Three topics of discussion were common to all of the groups and are 

addressed below: 

Point Road Access - Concerns were raised about restricting access to the 

Point Road from October 1 to April 30. Most individuals did not agree that 

this form of public use would significantly disturb the resting waterfowl 

during migrations in the spring and fall. This area is a popular place for 

shore fishing. Suggestions included not setting a specific date but closing 

the road only during deer season and when the road was impassable either 

from snow or during wet spring conditions. Response The strategy in the 

Final CCP has been modified. The Point Road will be closed to all public 

access if it becomes impassable due to snow conditions or on November 1 

to limit winter wildlife disturbance and for ice fishing safety. This will be 

evaluated and monitored for several years to determine the scope and 

degree of wildlife disturbance. The Point Road may then be closed from 

October through April if migratory bird disturbance is determined to be 

significant. 

Tree Removal - During the first comment period, many rumors were going 

around in the local community that the Draft CCP described removing all 

trees. Sentiments of the public include the need to maintain the tree belts 

for wintering deer and pheasants. Also, some mentioned that any tree 

removed should be replaced with a tree elsewhere. Response A lengthy 

discussion on the Tallgrass Prairie Management Approach is in the CCP. 

The CCP does provide for tree removal in specified prairie grassland focus 

areas. These focus areas were selected due to the presence of existing 

native prairie and very few trees. The majority of tree removal will include 

individual trees, mostly Russian Olive. Only one tree belt on the Refuge 

(north Pool 2) may be removed after monitoring and more on-site 

evaluation is done; this constitutes less than 1 percent of the trees on the 

Refuge. Some tree belts on the Gunness WPA and the Gainor WPA are at 

the fringes of the grasslands and at this time, no plans exist to remove 

them. Several tree belts and individual trees exist on the Hartleben WPA. 

Initially, an area of 160 acres or greater will be selected and only trees from 

this area will be removed at this time. The remaining tree belts on the 

Refuge and District would still provide adequate habitat for deer, pheasants, 

great horned owls, red-tailed hawks, and other wildlife. Further tree 

removal on the Hartleben WPA will be considered after monitoring and 

evaluation. The Final CCP does not call for planting any new trees on the 

Complex. 

Pheasant Management - Pheasant hunting and observation are a favorite 

past time for local residents. They enjoy seeing pheasants and hunting 

them. Many questions came up on whether we were trying to totally 

remove pheasants from the Refuge. Response The second objective in the 

Refuge and District Wildlife Nonnative Section applies to nonnative species 

such as the ring-necked pheasant. The objective states that management 

activities conducted specifically for pheasants to the detriment of native 

species will not be done. Management activities that benefit native species 

and also benefit pheasants will be done. Removal of pheasants and 

partridge are not a CCP objective. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 203 
Cogswell Gun Club 

Input Prioritize what species of nonnative plants you intend to control first 

(i.e. spurge, thistle, bluegrass). Response A new section on Nonnative Plant 

Management was developed to provide more information. The control of 

leafy spurge, Canada, musk, and bull thistle will continue to be Complex 

priorities. A combination of biological, mechanical, and chemical control 

methods will continue to be used on these four species. Currently, staff and 

funding are not available to include an integrated management of the other 

nonnative plant species, i.e., Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome. Prescribed 

burning and limited grazing are currently the only tools used on these species 

because they are relatively inexpensive and involve less staff time. 

Input The Refuge and District need to provide fishing and hunting access 

for the public. Response Hunting and fishing access were considered in the 

CCP (see Refuge Public Use Section and District Public Use Section) and 

several objectives were designed to continue and enhance these programs. 

Input The Service needs to take measures to resolve the Canada goose 

damage to farmers crops. Response The Service is working with the North 

Dakota Game and Fish Department, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service, and local landowners to try to 

resolve this issue. An early Canada goose hunt was initiated in 1999 and expanded 

in 2000 to work on decreasing the number of resident Canada geese. 

Input What is the cost of providing for butterfly habitat and is this realistic. 

Response Rare prairie butterflies use primarily native prairie tracts. Managing 

for these species involves managing the plants on these sites. A variety of tools can 

be used to enhance the plant diversity on the sites including haying, burning, 

and nonnative plant control. Haying, by cooperators, and burning are relatively 

inexpensive methods. Nonnative plant control can be more expensive but 

biological control (insects) is most often used on these sensitive sites. The 

presence of butterflies indicates that plant communities are healthy and diverse. 

Grassland management goals are developed to provide habitat for all grassland 

species. Grasslands that support butterflies support a broad diversity of 

migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Lake Region Wildlife Club 

Input No deer hunting on the Refuge (individual comment). Response Deer 

hunting will continue to be utilized as a management tool to manage 

populations to limit habitat damage and ensure the health of the Refuge 

deer population. 

Input Pheasant season open after South Dakota Deer opener so that Refuge deer 

are not run off and shot by SD residents. Response Pheasant season 

opener will continue to be held after the close of the ND deer gun season. 

The size of the Refuge wintering deer population does not indicate that 

Refuge deer are pushed to South Dakota during the pheasant season. 

Red River Area Sportsmen 

Input More emphasis on spring predator trapping on the District. Only 

ranked 12th on the funding projects yet it is cost effective and gets results. 

Minor amount of money when you look at the other more costly projects. 

Response The Tewaukon Complex has many priorities which must be 

balanced with funding and staffing. Spring predator trapping is still a 

priority on the District and was discussed in the District Waterfowl Section. 

In the strategy, it indicates that staff will work with partners to accomplish 

this when funding through the Fish and Wildlife Service is not available. 

Input Provide more opportunities and projects for volunteers especially young 

people. Devote more time and effort to providing projects for volunteers that are 

meaningful and would provide good experiences for the Refuge and volunteers. 

Response The CCP recognizes the importance of volunteers of all ages. The 

Refuge Volunteer Section provides an objective to address these needs for the 

Complex and will be fully implemented as funding and staff become available. The 

Complex staff goal is to provide a quality experience for all volunteers. 

204 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Rutland Sportsmens Club 

Input Close the Point for weather related problems only. Response Weather 

related conditions will be considered when closing the Point Road (see 

above discussion). 

Input Mow roadsides beginning in June, once per month, two swaths wide to 

prevent deer/car accidents. Response The purpose for the Refuge is for 

migratory birds, and these birds utilize the grass habitat along the roadsides so no 

roadside mowing will be done prior to July 15. The Refuge will abide by North 

Dakota roadside regulations and ensure mowing of roadsides by October 1. 

Input Conduct recreational fall trapping on a non-bid system (no charge to 

the trapper). Response Current demand for trapping is not sufficient to 

justify continuing this program. If fur prices increase and along with that 

the demand increases, the program will be reevaluated. 

Input Do not reduce the current farming acreage of 500 acres on the 

Refuge. Response Plans are to continue the current farming program at 

500 acres which includes the cooperator share. 

Input Clarify what you mean by nonnatives (section on Carp). Does it 

include pheasants. Response The Nonnative Section in the Final CCP has 

been modified to clarify the different types of nonnative wildlife. Pheasants, 

which come from China, are a nonnative species but unlike carp do not 

compete directly with native species for resources. No management will be 

done to specifically manage for pheasants if it is to the detriment of native 

species. Pheasants do benefit from other habitat management on the 

Complex done for other species (i.e. predator control). 

Input Have all night fishing. Response See response under Fishing in the 

Scoping Input and Response Section. 

Sargent County Weed Board 

Input Restricting the Point Road access for the public is not popular. 

Response See previous paragraph on the Point Road Access. 

Input Maintain Crop acreage (would reduce weed problem). Response 

Plans are to continue the current farming program at 500 acres which 

includes the cooperator share (135 acres as Refuge share). Farming will 

also be used as a tool in the reestablishment of grassland habitat. See 

Refuge Wildlife Waterfowl Planted Foods and Refuge Habitat 

Management Grasslands Sections. 

Input Weed management is important especially with existing thistle problems. 

Response The staff recognizes the growing problem with Canada thistle 

invasions. A combination of control methods including chemical, mechanical, 

and biological will continue to be used in an integrated approach to the 

problem. We encourage the Board to refer Complex weed complaints to us. 

See Refuge Nonnative Plant Management Section for more information. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 205 
Individual Comments 

Individual comments which were discussed at the open house (on July 28), 

by other individuals or have not previously been discussed follow: 

Input Would this CCP supercede the 1962 Master Plan. Concern that 

Master Plan focused more on waterfowl where other migratory bird species 

should also be considered. Response The CCP will supercede the 1962 

Master Plan and provide direction on Complex management, activities, and 

programs for the next 15 years. The CCP includes a wide variety of goals 

and objectives that cover a wide spectrum of migratory birds, including 

waterfowl, and other wildlife. Several habitat objectives were developed to 

focus more attention on grassland migratory birds. 

Input How will you monitor your indicator migratory bird species when 

other factors come into play on their numbers. Response In this CCP, 

habitat monitoring receives the primary emphasis because migratory birds 

are impacted by a variety of factors on their wintering and nesting grounds 

and all along their migration pathways. Managers will continue to review 

current research and monitor the critical habitat needs of wildlife species. 

Monitoring migratory bird use over a long period of time can still provide 

some general local population trend and habitat use information. Monitoring 

specifics will be addressed in a Monitoring step-down plan. 

Input What is the difference between the two water quality objectives in 

the Refuge Section. Response The first objective deals with managed 

Refuge wetlands and the second objective is specific to wetlands that are 

not managed. 

Input In the Refuge Migratory Bird - Shorebird Section when you refer to 

37 shorebirds and 28 sandpipers; are the sandpipers part of the shorebird 

number? Response Yes, sandpipers are part of the shorebird number. The 

text has been modified to reflect this. 

Input Concern about the management of nonnative species particularly 

the ring-necked pheasant and gray partridge. CCP indicates removal of 

nonnative wildlife. Response Refer back to the Pheasant Management 

discussion in the Local Group Section. 

Input The Point Road should not be closed for a longer period of time. 

Wildlife disturbance on the Point is crap. Response Refer back to the Point 

Road Access discussion in the Local Group Section. 

Input Under the Refuge and District Tallgrass Prairie Management Approach 

Section it stipulates that tracks must be 50 meters from woody vegetation, 

and no woody vegetation taller than 1 meter. Does this mean planted 

shelterbelts at these sites will be killed/removed? What about removal of 

trees in sandy soils which could contribute to wind erosion? Do they have 

to be to get your 160 acres? Some of these areas have trees on or near the 

edge. Could you not move 50 meters away for your study areas? Response 

A lengthy discussion on the Tallgrass Prairie Management Approach is in 

the CCP. Refer back to the Tree Removal discussion in the Local Group 

Section. Great care will be take to remove trees in such a way to minimize 

the soil erosion especially on sandier soils. 

Input In the Refuge Nonnative Wildlife Section, the objective states that 

you will do nothing to help pheasants and partridge that hurts native birds. 

Does this mean removing trees, shelterbelts? Also will you continue millet 

bales? Response Currently, the only tree removal on the Refuge that might 

be done will be in the prairie focus areas as discussed previously. Millet 

bales benefit deer and other birds and will continue to be placed on the 

Refuge winter wildlife food. 

206 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Input In the Wildlife Disturbance Section, the research indicates that the 

least disturbance to waterfowl is from shore fishing and traffic. Providing 

these activities around Lake Tewaukon causes very little disturbance. If 

traffic is so disturbing - why do so many ducks and pheasants nest in road 

ditches - even on the refuge? The Refuge does not mow road ditches for 

hay until after July 15 just to avoid the nests. Response Shore fishing and 

shoreline traffic cause less disturbance than jet skiing and power boating 

but that does not mean that they do not cause disturbance. Birds will be 

disturbed (flush and move) in response to shore fishing and traffic. The 

staff recognizes that shore fishing and wildlife observation are popular 

activities. We must consider this is a Refuge for migratory birds and that 

wildlife comes first. Traffic is allowed around Lake Tewaukon during the 

duck nesting season. While some birds nest in road ditches, the majority of 

the birds are widely disbursed throughout Refuge grasslands. Wildlife 

select nesting areas based on various habitat components. Waiting until 

after July 15 to mow road ditches increases the potential for nests in road 

ditches to hatch successfully. 

Input Use of references from Germany and England are not relevant in 

the Refuge Disturbance Section without more information such as how 

many anglers, did the wildlife have anywhere else to go, how big was the 

area studied, etc. Response These references are examples of wildlife 

disturbance used to base management objectives. Another study, conducted 

in Wisconsin on a refuge, on recreational disturbance (shore anglers) to 

waterfowl was added to the Final CCP. Staff also rely on observations made 

here at the Refuge and from discussion with other staff at other refuges. 

As part of the CCP, a need for more monitoring has been identified on 

wildlife disturbance and Refuge recreational programs. 

Input Strongly oppose the use of herbicides and pesticides. Response The 

Complex uses an integrated management approach to control nonnative 

plant species including biological and mechanical methods in addition to 

herbicides. Due to the aggressive nature of many of these nonnative species, a 

combination of these methods (Integrated Pest Management) is usually the 

most effective. Herbicides used on the Complex must go through a review 

process before they can be used. Only chemicals that are the least toxic to 

wildlife are used. Currently, no pesticides (insecticides) are being used on 

the Complex. See Refuge Nonnative Plant Management Section. 

Input Urge the reintroduction of river otter and other extirpated species. 

Response The CCP calls for the preservation and restoration of endangered, 

threatened, and unique native flora and fauna that occur or have historically 

occurred on the Complex. Each species considered for reintroduction 

would have to be reviewed to assure that the Refuge or WPA has both the 

quantity and the quality of habitat to support that species. River otters 

have been recorded historically in the Red River of the North. Historically, 

the Wild Rice River provided only marginal river otter habitat with its 

intermittent water flows and small size. The Wild Rice River through the 

Refuge does not provide good otter habitat because it is a series of managed 

wetlands with little stream habitat. No river otter habitat occurs on the 

District on Service lands. 

Input Include hiking trails, interpretive trails, expanded visitor center 

hours, and a paved auto tour route. Response Trails and expanded visitor 

center hours were included in the Draft CCP under the Refuge Wildlife 

Observation and Photography and the Interpretation Section. Paving the 

auto tour route was not considered due to the current amount of traffic and 

visitor use and anticipated construction and maintenance costs. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 207 
Input Disappointed in the lack of birding opportunities in spring and 

summer. Would like to see more interpretation on WPAs and other public 

use. Response The Refuge Wildlife Observation and Photography Section 

discusses the opportunities available to the public. An overlook exists on 

the south shore of Lake Tewaukon for viewing waterfowl migrations as 

well as the North Boat Ramp and the East Boat Ramp Areas which are 

open year-round. The Refuge Wildlife Disturbance Section discusses the 

purpose of area closures and a strategy specifies that exemptions for public 

access will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The CCP also has strategies 

to develop an observational platform and hiking trail on the Refuge. An 

interpretive trail is located on the Hartleben WPA near Hankinson. The 

CCP also identifies a need for more interpretation on WPAs. As the demand 

for these activities increases, staff will reevaluate the current opportunities 

with Complex purposes and possibly develop additional opportunities. 

Input Do not agree with the cooperative farming where 500 acres are planted 

for a benefit of only 135 acres. Find other alternatives such as hiring a local 

farmer to plant food plots or hire local sportsmens clubs. Response In the 

Refuge Planted Foods Section the strategy includes the flexibility to hire a 

local farmer to plant 135 acres for wildlife if adequate and consistent funding are 

provided. This approach would eliminate the need to farm the additional 

acres. Current funding is not adequate for this option to be utilized. The 

District has four WPAs that have been adopted by local sportsmens clubs 

which plant and manage food plots. Funding is not adequate at this time to 

hire the clubs to plant food plots. 

Input How come gray partridge are not included in the hunting season 

when pheasant hunting is permitted? Response Staff observations of gray 

partridge show an insufficient number to hunt on the Refuge (low population 

numbers and only occasional sightings). If gray partridge numbers increase 

to a huntable population this opportunity would be reevaluated. 

Input There is no mention of the Refuge using the Americorps Program for 

volunteers. Response Currently, Refuge housing and staff to administer the 

program is limited for volunteers. To provide a quality experience for 

volunteers and the resource, additional staff and funding is needed. The 

variety of sources mentioned in the first volunteer strategy in the Refuge 

Volunteer Program Section would include the Americorps Program. 

Input A single WPA or part of the Refuge should be singled out for high 

intensive management utilizing intensive short-term grazing, controlled 

burns, mowing and haying to reduce the amount of undesirable plant species 

and communities. Response The CCP utilized all of these management tools 

and singled out priority WPAs and Refuge Prairie Focus Areas for a more 

intensive management approach (see Refuge Grassland Management 

Section, District Grassland Management Section and Refuge Nonnative 

Plant Management Section). 

Input Raise more soybeans to keep Canada geese on Refuge and off private 

land. Response Currently, some soybeans are grown in the Refuge crop fields 

as the cooperators share. Geese, however, are flexible feeders and tend to 

distribute themselves on the landscape due to water availability. Growing 

crops on the Refuge is unlikely to lure geese away from private croplands. 

Increasing the amount of Refuge cropland is likely to add more geese to 

the area population and increase crop damage. 

Input Would like the Refuge to be more involved in the flooding issues in 

the Wild Rice River Watershed both in watershed management, water 

quality, and flooding. Response For discussion, see the response to the ND 

Office of the State Engineer in the National, Regional, and State Group 

Input Section. 

208 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Input Continue to reduce carp in the lake and decrease the number of 

bullheads. Response Refuge staff are working to control carp (see previous 

Public Scoping Input and Responses under Fishing for further information). 

Bullhead populations are cyclic, when populations are high they compete 

with game fish for resources. Removing bullheads is costly and inefficient 

considering that populations will decrease naturally. 

Input Clean out trees by boat ramps and dock on east side of Lake Tewaukon 

for better access for shore fishing. Remove some trees on the east boat ramp to 

improve vehicle/boat access to the ramp (corners too tight) and to provide 

for improved shoreline fishing. Response Refuge staff will review and look 

at these areas. Trees in this area provide shade and some wind protection 

for visitors. 

Input Have three to four 50 foot walk-out docks for fishing on the north and 

south sides of Lake Tewaukon. More shore fishing access; level off some of 

the sharp embankments on the north side of Lake Tewaukon. Response In 

order to expand the recreation fishing access in this way would require 

costly sloping of the Lake bank which would require a lower water level in 

Lake Tewaukon to maintain the banks. This in turn would reduce fish 

survivability in the lake. 

Input Maintain alfalfa in fields. Response Alfalfa will be maintained in the 

DNC fields (see Refuge Introduced/Planted Cover Section and the District 

Introduced/Planted Cover Section) and in our crop rotations on the Refuge. 

Input Would like a walk-thru gate for fishing access to Wahl Lake through 

the Boehning WPA in Richland County. Response Complex staff will 

review the site to determine the feasibility of this request. 

Input Would like steps on the north side boat ramps on Lake Tewaukon. 

Response Anglers are able to access the Lake through the north side boat 

ramps which are less steep than this bank. Keeping steps ice and snow free 

during winter conditions would be very difficult. Winter access is likely to 

be better if the staff concentrates on maintaining the boat ramp area. 

Input Concerned about the fishery with current low water levels (during 

construction projects). Response Lake levels were lowered approximately 

one and one-half feet to accommodate the construction of two areas damaged 

during flooding in 1997 and 1998. Water management plans included storing 

water upstream to add to the Lake after construction and prior to freeze up 

to ensure fish survival. A one foot drop occurs naturally during dry summers 

from evaporation and has had no detrimental effect on the fishery. 

Input Would like the Service to purchase land to the south of the Refuge to 

provide for more hunting access. Response The Service is always open to 

opportunities for land purchase, especially adjacent to the Refuge. The 

landowners would have to approach the Service first and the purchase 

would require a County Commissioner recommendation and approval from 

the North Dakota Governor. 

Input Don’t think there should be hunting of pheasants past November. 

Response See the Scoping Input and Responses under the Hunting section. 

Input Too many beaver, they need to be trapped out. Hire someone to trap. 

Response The Refuge currently has a small population of beaver that are 

not a concern. If a problem develops, staff can deal with problem beaver on 

case-by-case basis. 

Input Concerned about loss of fish from the lake both downstream and 

upstream (especially upstream where they cannot fish). Response Lake 

Tewaukon currently has a good fishery. While some fish may migrate 

upstream or downstream, good populations of fish exist especially with 

yearly stocking of the lake. The four large dams on the Refuge limit fish 

movement upstream. 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 209 
Input Would like continued and additional emphasis on environmental 

education. More field trips and after school events. Response The 

objective and strategies listed under the Refuge Environmental Education 

Section provide for additional environmental education activities. Tewaukon 

Complex staff would also like see additional environmental education 

activities. More will be considered as staff and funding become available. 

Input Goose problems need to be solved - include in plan working through 

the system to reduce numbers, pay farmers for losses or other options. 

Response Canada goose problems are occurring nationwide, and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service is working with the North Dakota Game and Fish 

Department, USDA Animal Plant Health and Inspection Services, and local 

landowners to try to resolve this issue. Currently, no program or enough 

funding is available in North Dakota to compensate farmers for crop losses 

caused by Canada geese. The ND Game and Fish Department has established an 

early Canada goose season to control the resident populations of geese. If 

this does not work, other options will need to be explored. 

Input Request a food plot on the Hartleben WPA (20 to 30 accessible acres). 

Response Currently the Hartleben WPA is being intensively managed for 

the existing native tallgrass prairie (of which only 1 percent remains in the 

State) and introduced grasslands are being restored to diverse native 

plantings. A local sportsmens group was contacted and were not interested in 

maintaining a food plot when this WPA was acquired. 

Input Artificially feed deer corn in hard winters. Response The Refuge 

has 135 acres of cropland that is planted to a variety of wildlife foods 

including corn. Additional corn fields are maintained on the adjacent State 

Wildlife Management Area. This has proven to be adequate for the number 

of deer on the Refuge. Even in a record winter (1997) much of the corn that 

was available and useable in these fields was not used up. Staff documented 

deer use in these fields and noted that grain was still left after the hard 

winter. Artificially feeding deer is time consuming, expensive, and would 

not be an efficient means to provide winter food. Concentrating large 

numbers of deer can increase the risk of disease. 

Input Drain all temporary wetlands on private land into one large wetland 

with permanent tree belts around wetlands to protect the cattails from 

filling up with snow. Response Large wetlands do not provide the spring 

invertebrate production found in small temporary and seasonal wetlands 

required by migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. Smaller wetlands are 

vital for spring waterfowl pairing. North Dakota produces over half of all 

ducks in the lower 48 states because of these small wetlands. 

Input Private landowners should be listed as partners. Response The Final 

CCP was modified to include private landowners as partners in the management 

of wildlife. 

210 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 211

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge 

9754 143 1/2 Avenue SE 

Cayuga, ND 58013 

701/724 3598 

r6rw_twk@fws.gov 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

http://www.fws.gov 

http://www.r6.fws.gov/larp 

For Refuge Information 

1 800/344 WILD 

September 2000 

Wild Prairie Lily with Porcupine Grass, Herbert Troester, USFWS