Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 

Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge 

J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge
 

Upper Souris National Wildlife Refuge
 

August 2007 

Prepared by 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge
 

42000 520th Street NW 


Kenmare, ND 58746
 

701/385 4046
 

J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge 

681 Salyer Road 

Upham, ND 58789 

701/768 2548 

Upper Souris National Wildlife Refuge 


17705 212th Avenue NW
 

Berthhold, ND 58718
 

701/468 5467
 

and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
 

Division of Refuge Planning
 

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 


Lakewood, CO 80228 


303/236 4305 


Approved by 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, CO 

J. Mitch King 

Regional Director, Region 6 

 Date 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 

Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge 

J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge 

Upper Souris National Wildlife Refuge 

Submitted by 


Theodore Gutzke 

Project Leader 

Souris River Basin National Wildlife 

 Refuge Complex 

Upham, ND 

Concurred with by 


Rod Krey 

Refuge Supervisor (KS, NE, ND, SD) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 

and 

Richard A. Coleman, PhD 

Assistant Regional Director, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, CO 

 Date Date 

 Date 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents 


Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................................................... ix
 

Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ xi
 

1 	 Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 1 


 Purpose of and Need for Plan...................................................................................................................... 3 


 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System .................................................................. 3 


 Ecosystem Description and Threats .......................................................................................................... 4 


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


 Refuge Contributions to National and Regional Plans............................................................................ 8 


 The Planning Process ................................................................................................................................... 11
 

2 	 The Refuges .................................................................................................................................................. 15


 Purpose........................................................................................................................................................... 18


 Vision and Goals ............................................................................................................................................ 18


 Special Values................................................................................................................................................ 21


 Planning Issues.............................................................................................................................................. 21
 

3 	 Refuge Resources and Descriptions ....................................................................................................... 25


 Physical Attributes....................................................................................................................................... 26


 Biological Attributes .................................................................................................................................... 27


 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 56


 Special Management Areas ......................................................................................................................... 60


 Visitor Services ............................................................................................................................................. 61


 Socioeconomic Environment ....................................................................................................................... 65
 

4 	 Management Direction............................................................................................................................... 69


 Overview ........................................................................................................................................................ 69


 Des Lacs NWR, Management Direction ................................................................................................... 70


 J. Clark Salyer NWR, Management Direction ......................................................................................... 88


 Upper Souris NWR, Management Direction............................................................................................ 111 


 Step-down Management Plans.................................................................................................................... 133 


 Staffing and Funding.................................................................................................................................... 134 


 Partnership Opportunities........................................................................................................................... 137 


 Monitoring and Evaluation.......................................................................................................................... 137 


Glossary............................................................................................................................................................... 139 


Appendix A—Environmental Compliance..................................................................................................... 149 


Appendix B—Key Legislation and Policy ...................................................................................................... 151 


Appendix C—Section 7 Biological Evaluation............................................................................................... 159 


Appendix D—Contributors .............................................................................................................................. 163 


Appendix E—Public Involvement................................................................................................................... 165 


Appendix F—Plants of the Souris River Basin Refuges ............................................................................. 173 


Appendix G—Plant Group Types of Upland Vegetation at the Souris River Basin Refuges ................ 179 


Appendix H—Birds of the Souris River Basin Refuges .............................................................................. 181 


Appendix I—Birds of Conservation Concern at the Souris River Basin Refuges ................................... 187 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vi CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Appendix J—Mammals of the Souris River Basin Refuges ........................................................................ 189 


Appendix K—Reptiles and Amphibians of the Souris River Basin Refuges .............................................. 191 


Appendix L—Fishes of the Souris River Basin Refuges .............................................................................. 193 


Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements.................................................................. 195 


Appendix N—Compatibility Determination, Souris River Basin Flood Control Project....................... 277 


Appendix O—Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Grazing......................................................... 303 


Appendix P—Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Haying.......................................................... 311 


Appendix Q—Compatibility Determination for the Cooperative Farming Program ............................. 319 


Appendix R—Fire Management Program .................................................................................................... 327 


Appendix S—Compatibility Determination for Recreational Hunting..................................................... 331 


Appendix T—Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation, Photography, 

Environmental Education, and Interpretation ..................................................................... 335 


Appendix U—Compatibility Determination for Recreational Fishing ..................................................... 339 


Appendix V—RONS and SAMMS, Des Lacs NWR ..................................................................................... 343 


Appendix W—RONS and SAMMS, J. Clark Salyer NWR ........................................................................... 345 


Appendix X—RONS and SAMMS, Upper Souris NWR............................................................................... 347 


References .......................................................................................................................................................... 351 


Figures 

1 Vicinity map for the Souris River basin refuges, North Dakota .......................................................... 2 


13 Frequency of occurrence of common breeding bird species in major upland habitats at 


14 Distribution of breeding songbird species in relationship to the proportion of woodland 


2 Ecosystem map............................................................................................................................................ 5 


3 Landscape of the Souris River basin in north-central North Dakota.................................................. 7 


4 Physiographic areas of the United States................................................................................................ 9 


5 The planning process................................................................................................................................... 11
 

6 Base map for Des Lacs NWR, North Dakota.......................................................................................... 16
 

7 Base map for J. Clark Salyer NWR, North Dakota ............................................................................... 17
 

8 Base map for Upper Souris NWR, North Dakota .................................................................................. 19
 

9 Contemporary habitat coverage for the Souris River basin refuges, North Dakota ........................ 28
 

10 Habitats at Des Lacs NWR, North Dakota............................................................................................. 29
 

11 Habitats at J. Clark Salyer NWR, North Dakota................................................................................... 30
 

12 Habitats at Upper Souris NWR, North Dakota ..................................................................................... 31
 

Des Lacs NWR, North Dakota, following several dry years (1994) and wet years (2001) .................. 34
 

and grassland within prairie parkland at J. Clark Salyer NWR, North Dakota ................................ 39
 

15 Extent of three wetland types at each of the Souris River basin refuges, North Dakota ...................... 49
 

16 The adaptive management process ......................................................................................................... 137 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents vii 

Tables 

1 Planning process summary for the Souris River basin refuges, North Dakota.................................. 13
 

2 Local and regional population estimates and characteristics for the five-county study area,
 

North Dakota................................................................................................................................................ 65
 

3 Employment for the five-county study area, North Dakota (2000) ...................................................... 67
 

4 Income, unemployment, and poverty estimates for the five-county study area, North Dakota ............. 67


 5 Step-down management plans for Des Lacs NWR, North Dakota ..................................................... 133 


6 Step-down management plans for J. Clark Salyer NWR, North Dakota ........................................... 134 


7 Step-down management plans for Upper Souris NWR, North Dakota.............................................. 134 


8 Current and proposed staff for Des Lacs NWR, North Dakota........................................................... 135 


9 Current and proposed staff for J. Clark Salyer NWR, North Dakota................................................. 136 


10 Current and proposed staff for Upper Souris NWR, North Dakota ................................................... 136
 

 

 

Abbreviations 


Administration Act National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

ATV all-terrain vehicle 

AUM animal unit month 

CCC Civilian Conservation Corps 

CCP comprehensive conservation plan 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CRP conservation resource plan 

CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

DNC dense nesting cover 

EA environmental assessment 

EO executive order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FMP fire management plan 

FONSI finding of no significant impact 

FTE full-time equivalent 

GIS geographic information system 

GPS global positioning system 

GS general schedule (employment) 

HAPET Habitat and Population Evaluation Team 

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

ND North Dakota 

NDGF North Dakota Game and Fish Department 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NOI notice of intent 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NWI National Wetland Inventory 

NWR national wildlife refuge 

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System 

PL public law 

PPJV Prairie Pothole Joint Venture 

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System 

region 6 Mountain-Prairie Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System 

SAMMS Service Asset Maintenance Management System 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

SUP special use permit 

SWG State Wildlife Grant 

Three Affiliated Tribes Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara tribes 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VOR visual obstruction reading 

WG wage grade (employment) 

WMD wetland management district 

WUI wildland–urban interface 

 Definitions of these and other terms are in the glossary, starting on page 139. 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary 


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed 

this comprehensive conservation plan as the 

foundation for management and use of the three 

Souris River basin refuges (Des Lacs, J. Clark 

Salyer, and Upper Souris). The purposes of the plan 

are as follows: 

Q	 Identify the role that the three Souris River 

basin refuges will play in support of the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Q	 Provide guidance for managing refuge programs 

and activities during the next 15 years. 

The comprehensive conservation plan emphasizes 

restoration of ecological processes important in the 

evolution and maintenance of native plant 

communities and wildlife populations in the 

northern Great Plains. The Service will carry out 

the plan with assistance from existing and new 

partner agencies and organizations and the public. 

This summary briefly describes the refuges, 

comprehensive conservation plan, and planning 

process. 

SOURIS RIVER BASIN REFUGES 

The Souris River basin extends from North Dakota 

into the Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan and 

Manitoba. The Souris River is the main watercourse 

in the basin and the Des Lacs River is its primary 

tributary. Until widespread cultivation of prairie 

soils beginning nearly a century ago, the major 

ecological community in the basin was northern 

mixed-grass prairie. 

The Souris River basin is home to three national 

wildlife refuges, known collectively as the “Souris 

River basin refuges”: 

Q	 Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); 

19,500 acres—extends south from the Canada 

border along 28 miles of the Des Lacs River in 

Burke and Ward counties, North Dakota 

Q	 J. Clark Salyer NWR; 58,700 acres—extends 

southeast from the Canada border along 75 miles 

of the east arm of the Souris River in Bottineau 

and McHenry counties, North Dakota 

Q	 Upper Souris NWR; 32,092 acres—extends 

south-southeast along 35 miles of the west arm of 

the Souris River in Renville and Ward counties, 

North Dakota. 

 The Souris River basin refuges provide breeding grounds for migratory birds including Canada goose.

Duane C. Anderson/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

xii CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

As stated in the executive orders establishing these 

refuges in 1935, the purpose of each refuge is for a 

“refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds 

and other wildlife.” 

The Souris River basin refuges are located in a 

critical area of the Central Flyway, providing 

resting and breeding habitat for migrating and 

nesting waterfowl. The J. Clark Salyer NWR, in 

particular, is one of the most important duck 

production areas in the United States. The 

American Bird Conservancy recognizes all three 

refuges as “Globally Important Bird Areas.” In 

addition, J. Clark Salyer NWR is designated as a 

regional shorebird site in the “Western Hemisphere 

Shorebird Reserve Network.” Lake Darling at 

Upper Souris NWR is designated critical habitat 

for the federally threatened piping plover. 

The contemporary landscape of the Souris River 

basin is dominated by annually tilled cropland. Most 

remnants of the basin’s once vast native prairie are 

substantially invaded by introduced grasses and 

native shrubs and trees. Several breeding bird species 

characteristic of northern mixed-grass prairie— 

such as burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, and 

Baird’s sparrow—are now uncommon or absent 

throughout the basin. The Souris River has been 

significantly modified by drainage, channelization, 

and construction of numerous low-head dams, such 

that few natural riverine wetlands remain. 

Within the Souris River basin, the three national 

wildlife refuges provide extensive breeding and 

migration habitat for grassland- and wetlanddependent birds. Representing a comprehensive 

collection of most North Dakota plant communities, 

these refuges include important remnants of the 

Drift Plain prairie, which could be considered an 

endangered resource. The refuges have potential 

for restoration of reasonably intact communities of 

native plants and animals. 

In addition, the Souris River basin refuges provide 

a wide variety of wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities and facilities for visitors including the 

following: 

Q	 hunting of deer and upland birds 

Q	 wildlife observation and photography—auto tour 

routes, hiking trails, observation and photography 

blinds 

Q	 interpretive information—kiosks, panels, and 

headquarters’ exhibits 

Fishing is offered at J. Clark Salyer NWR and at 

Upper Souris NWR. A canoe trail and an outdoor 

classroom can be found at J. Clark Salyer NWR. 

Des Lacs NWR and Upper Souris NWR also offer 

canoeing opportunities. 

COMPREHENSIVE 

CONSERVATION PLAN 

The plan includes detailed objectives and strategies 

to carry out the vision and goals for the Souris 

River basin refuges. 

The below vision describes what the refuges will be 

and what the Service hopes to do, and is based 

primarily on the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System and specific purpose of the refuges. 

Vision 

From Paleo-Indians on the tails of the Ice Age—
 

to the Assiniboine and Chippewa, 


early fur trappers, explorers, and naturalists; 


eminent bison herds and astoundingly 


abundant bird life; fires stretching for miles to 


revitalize treeless prairie; and determined
 

homesteaders and vanquished farms 


of the Dust Bowl era...
 

The Souris River basin figures prominently 


in the cultural and natural history of 


midcontinent North America’s plains and 


prairies. Three national wildlife refuges of the 


Souris River basin—Des Lacs, J. Clark Salyer, 


and Upper Souris—will enhance populations
 

of migratory birds, including waterfowl, and
 

other wildlife native to the landscape by
 

conserving the ecology and natural character 


of the northern plains region. 


The refuges will create a sense of awe and wonder
 

by providing an array of wildlife-dependent 


recreational and educational experiences 


that enhance visitor awareness of the
 

splendid natural and cultural heritage 


of the northern plains. 


Functioning as integral parts of the ecosystems 


and human communities to which they belong, 


the Souris River basin refuges 


will seek collaborative partnerships 


to attain common goals.
 

A diverse and passionate refuge workforce 


will rely on sound science to understand
 

and restore or emulate natural processes 


essential to the integrity and perpetuation 


of major biological communities
 

with which the refuges are entrusted. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary xiii 

Goals 

The following goals will direct work toward 

achieving the vision for the refuges. 

Drift Prairie Goal 

Restore and maintain extensive examples of plant 

communities dominated by native flora characteristic 

of the mid-1800s drift prairie. Create the temporally 

and spatially dynamic habitat conditions that will 

attract most breeding bird species and other 

vertebrate fauna characteristic of that era. 

(Applies to all three Souris River basin refuges.) 

Prairie Slope Goal 

Restore representative examples of prairie slopes 

to preserve some of the most pristine plant 

communities that remain in the Souris River basin 

and promote appreciation and stewardship of 

prairie resources. 

(Applies to all three Souris River basin refuges.) 

Prairie Parkland Goal 

Restore and maintain extensive examples of plant 

communities characteristic of the mid-1800s prairie 

parkland. Create the temporally and spatially 

dynamic habitat conditions that will attract most 

breeding bird species and other vertebrate fauna 

characteristic of that era. 

(Applies only to J. Clark Salyer NWR.) 

Sandhills Goal 

Restore and maintain plant communities characteristic 

of the mid-1800s sandhills within the prairie parkland 

landscape. 

(Applies only to J. Clark Salyer NWR.) 

Old Cropland Goal 

On high-priority old cropland areas, establish nativedominated, perennial herbaceous cover that, with 

modest management, resists invasion by introduced 

cool-season grasses and noxious weeds. This seeded 

cover will help form extensive, contiguous blocks of 

structurally diverse, open grassland for grasslanddependent, breeding bird species. 

(Applies to all three Souris River basin refuges.) 

Coulee Woodland and 

Coulee Woodland Edge Goal 

Acknowledge a nearly irreversible, localized 

establishment of mature, contiguous woodland and 

minimally manage these areas as breeding and 

migration habitat principally for forest-interior, 

migratory bird species such as veery and ovenbird. 

Strive to eliminate remaining, noncontiguous, edgedominated tree and tall shrub cover, particularly 

near high-priority drift prairie and the largest, 

most contiguous grassland tracts. 

(Applies only to Des Lacs NWR and Upper Souris NWR.) 

Riparian Woodland Goal 

Maintain the approximate presettlement extent of 

green ash–American elm riparian woodland within 

the floodplain of the Souris River to benefit a broad 

suite of woodland-associated, breeding bird species. 

(Applies only to J. Clark Salyer NWR and Upper 

Souris NWR.) 

Meadow Goal 

Restore and maintain extensive examples of plant 

communities dominated by native flora characteristic 

of seasonally flooded meadows within the Souris 

River floodplain to attract grassland- and wetlanddependent bird species and other wildlife. 

(Applies to all three Souris River basin refuges.) 

Wetland Goal 

Manage riverine wetlands, including marshes and 

lakes, to sustain the long-term capacity of riverine 

wetlands to support diverse plant and wildlife 

communities. Restore ecological processes that 

sustain long-term productivity of wetlands. 

(Applies to all three Souris River basin refuges.) 

Island Goal 

Manage islands to attract waterfowl and increase 

nest survival, especially during drought years when 

wetland habitat outside of the Souris River basin 

refuges is limited. 

(Applies to all three Souris River basin refuges). 

Cultural Resource Goal 

Discover and protect cultural resources and 

interpret sites when the interpretation does not 

adversely affect habitat management. 

(Applies to all three Souris River basin refuges.) 
 

 

Visitor Service Goal 

Provide wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities 

to a diverse audience 

when the administration 

of these programs does not

adversely affect wildlife 

and habitat management. 

(Applies to all three Souri

River basin refuges.) 

s 

 

 

 

xiv CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Research and Science Goal 

Conduct innovative natural resource management 

using sound science and applied research to 

advance the understanding of natural resource 

function and management within the northern 

Great Plains. 

(Applies to all three Souris River basin refuges.) 

Operations Goal 

Efficiently use funding and staffing for the benefit 

of all natural and cultural resources, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, and present and future 

generations. Effectively manage visitor service 

programs that complement habitat management. 

(Applies to all three Souris River basin refuges.) 

Outcomes of the Plan 

Through this comprehensive conservation plan, the 

Service will prioritize habitats with high probability 

of restoration for management. Refuge staff will 

assign priority order to habitats or habitat types on 

the basis of where funds and resources (1) can be 

best used, (2) are most needed, or (3) are most 

likely to achieve success in meeting stated goals 

and objectives. Other habitats may only be partially 

restored or minimally managed. 

Collaborative research and monitoring will increase, 

and scientific knowledge required to restore upland 

and wetland plant and animal communities will be 

shared (with the public and other resource managers). 

Some visitor services are be expected to decrease as 

more staff and funding shifts to habitat restoration. 

Environmental education will be emphasized, but 

will rely on volunteers and other groups to 

contribute more time. 

PLANNING PROCESS 

Through the environmental analysis process, the 

Service has selected as the preferred alternative 

(final comprehensive conservation plan) for the 

Souris River basin refuges, alternative B from the 

draft comprehensive conservation plan and 

environmental assessment published in February 

2007. 

In 2003, a planning team of refuge and other Service 

staff gathered and began to analyze resource 

information. The planning process included 

designing a vision for the three refuges, along with 

goals to reach the vision. After identifying key 

issues related to achieving the vision, the team 

developed management alternatives. 

The team invited the public to participate in the 

planning process and public scoping. A mailing list 

of about 220 names was created and included private 

citizens; local, regional, and state government 

representatives and legislators; other federal 

agencies; tribal governments, and nonprofit 

organizations. 

Key issues (habitat, wildlife, water quality, public 

outreach, public use, and refuge operations) were 

identified during analysis of concerns raised by 

refuge staffs, along with analysis of public 

comments collected during scoping. These issues 

were addressed throughout the planning process 

and in the final comprehensive conservation plan. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Introduction 


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has 

developed this comprehensive conservation plan 

(CCP) to provide a foundation for the management 

and use of three national wildlife refuges located in 

the Souris River basin in north-central North 

Dakota (figure 1). 

The CCP is intended to be a working guide for 

management programs and actions over the next 15 

years for the following national wildlife refuges 

(known collectively as the “Souris River basin 

refuges”): 

Q Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); 19,500 

acres—extends south from the Canada border 

along 28 miles of the Des Lacs River in Burke and 

Ward counties, North Dakota 

Q J. Clark Salyer NWR; 58,700 acres—extends 

southeast from the Canada border along 75 miles 

of the east arm of the Souris River in Bottineau 

and McHenry counties, North Dakota 

Q Upper Souris NWR; 32,092 acres—extends southsoutheast along 35 miles of the west arm of the 

Souris River in Renville and Ward counties, 

North Dakota 

NOTE: This CCP covers management of three 

national wildlife refuges—Des Lacs, J. Clark 

Salyer, and Upper Souris, which are part of the 

Souris River Basin NWR Complex. This CCP does 

not address the other units of the refuge complex: J. 

Clark Salyer Wetland Management District (WMD) 

and seven, small, national wildlife refuges (Buffalo 

Lake, Cottonwood Lake, Lords Lake, Rabb Lake, 

School Section Lake, Willow Lake, and Wintering 

River). 

The CCP specifies the necessary actions to achieve 

the vision and purposes of the refuges. Wildlife is 

the first priority in refuge management; public use 

(wildlife-dependent recreation) is allowed and 

encouraged, as long as it is compatible with the 

purposes of the refuges. 

The Service developed the CCP in compliance with 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) and Part 602 

(National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the 

“U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions 

described in this CCP also meet the requirements of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA). Compliance with the NEPA is being 

achieved through involvement of the public and 

inclusion of an integrated environmental assessment 

(EA) in the previous draft document (see 

environmental compliance documents in appendix A). 

Habitats at the Souris River basin refuges support the 

gadwall and many other migratory ducks. 

Donna Dewhurst/USFWS 

A planning team of representatives from various 

Service programs, North Dakota Game and Fish 

Department (NDGF), and U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) prepared the CCP. In developing this plan, 

the team used input from local citizens and 

organizations. 

The evaluation of management alternatives for the 

refuges was documented in the “Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environment Assessment— 

Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge, J. Clark Salyer 

National Wildlife Refuge, Upper Souris National 

Wildlife Refuge.” In August 2007, the regional 

director of region 6 of the Service selected 

alternative B as the preferred alternative for the 

CCP for the Souris River basin refuges. 

Implementation of the CCP begins on signature and 

publication of the final CCP. 

The planning process and public involvement are 

further described in “The Planning Process” section 

of this chapter. 
2 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Figure 1. Vicinity map for the Souris River basin refuges, North Dakota.
 
 

 

 3 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The purpose of this CCP is to identify the role that 

the three Souris River basin refuges play in support 

of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (Refuge System) and to provide long-term 

guidance for managing refuge programs and 

activities. The CCP is needed 

Q	 to provide a clear statement of direction for the 

future management of the refuges; 

Q	 to ensure that the Service’s management actions 

are consistent with mandates governing 

management of the Refuge System; 

Q	 to ensure that management of these refuges is 

consistent with federal, state, and county plans; 

Q	 to provide a basis for development of budget 

requests for the refuge’s operation, maintenance, 

and capital improvement needs; 

Q	 to provide neighbors, visitors, and government 

officials with an understanding of the Service’s 

management actions at and around these refuges. 

Sustaining the nation’s natural resources is a task 

that can be accomplished only through the combined 

efforts of governments, businesses, and private 

citizens. 

THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE AND THE REFUGE SYSTEM 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal 

federal agency responsible for fish, wildlife, and 

plant conservation. One of the major programs of 

the Service is the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
 

is working with others to conserve, protect, 


and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats 


 for the continuing benefit of the 


American people. 


About a century ago, America’s fish and wildlife 

resources were declining at an alarming rate. 

Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting and 

angling groups joined together to restore and 

sustain America’s national wildlife heritage. This 

was the genesis of the Service. 

Today, the Service enforces federal wildlife laws, 

manages migratory bird populations, restores 

nationally significant fisheries, conserves and 

Chapter 1—Introduction 

restores vital wildlife habitat, protects and recovers 

endangered species, and helps other governments 

with conservation efforts. In addition, the Service 

administers a federal aid program that distributes 

hundreds of millions of dollars to states for fish and 

wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter 

education, and related programs across America. 

Service Activities in North Dakota 

Service activities in North Dakota contribute to the 

state’s economy, ecosystems, and education programs. 

The following activities were reported in the 2000 

briefing book, “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Presence in North Dakota”: 

Q	 employed 242 people in North Dakota 

Q	 497 volunteers donated more than 17,990 hours to 

help Service projects 

Q	 contributed 13.4 million fingerlings to North 

Dakota waters 

Q	 managed 62 national wildlife refuges 

encompassing 296,000 acres (0.7% of the state) 

Q	 managed 12 wetland management districts 

Q	 managed 254,000 acres of fee, waterfowl 

production areas (0.6% of the state) 

Q	 hosted more than 478,500 annual visitors to 

Service-managed lands in North Dakota 

Q	 provided education programs for more than 17,000 

school children participants 

Q	 provided $2.7 million to NDGF for sport fish 

restoration and $2.1 million for wildlife restoration 

and hunter education 

Q	 helped about 2,500 landowners enhance wildlife 

habitat on 162,000 acres since 1987 

Q	 paid North Dakota counties $427,400 under the 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (funds that are used 

for schools and roads) in 2000 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated 

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

first wildlife refuge for the protection of brown 

pelicans and other native nesting birds. This was the 

first time the federal government set aside land for 

the sake of wildlife. This small but significant 

designation was the beginning of the Refuge 

System. 

One hundred years later, this Refuge System has 

become the largest collection of lands in the world 

specifically managed for wildlife, encompassing more 

than 96 million acres within 545 refuges and more 

than 3,000 small areas for waterfowl breeding and 

nesting. Today, there is at least one refuge in every 

state in the nation including Puerto Rico and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

In 1997, a clear mission was established for the 

Refuge System through the passage of the 

Improvement Act. 

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. 


The Improvement Act further states that each 

refuge shall be managed 

Q	 to fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; 

Q	 to fulfill the individual purpose of each refuge; 

Q	 to consider the needs of fish and wildlife first; 

Q	 to fulfill the requirement of developing a CCP for 

each unit of the Refuge System and fully involve 

the public in the preparation of these plans; 

Q	 to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge System; 

Q	 to recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation 

activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation are legitimate and 

priority public uses; 

Q	 to retain the authority of refuge managers to 

determine compatible public uses. 

In addition to the overall mission for the Refuge 

System, the wildlife and habitat vision for each 

national wildlife refuge stresses the following 

principles: 

Q	 Wildlife comes first. 

Q	 Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital 

concepts in refuge management. 

Q	 Refuges should ensure biological integrity and 

environmental health. 

Q	 Growth of refuges must be strategic. 

Q	 The Refuge System serves as a model for habitat 

management with broad participation from others. 

Following passage of the Improvement Act, the 

Service immediately began efforts to carry out the 

direction of the new legislation, including the 

preparation of CCPs for all refuges. The 

development of these plans is now ongoing 

nationally. Consistent with the Improvement Act, all 

refuge CCPs are being prepared in conjunction with 

public involvement, and each refuge is required to 

complete its own CCP within the 15-year schedule 

(by 2012). 

People and the Refuge System 

The nation’s fish and wildlife heritage contributes to 

the quality of American lives and is an integral part 

of the nation’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places 

have always given people special opportunities to 

have fun, relax, and appreciate the natural world. 

Whether through bird watching, fishing, hunting, 

photography, or other wildlife pursuits, wildlife 

recreation also contributes millions of dollars to local 

economies. In 2002, approximately 35.5 million 

people visited a national wildlife refuge, mostly to 

observe wildlife in their natural habitats. Visitors 

are most often accommodated through nature trails, 

auto tours, interpretive programs, and hunting and 

fishing opportunities. Significant economic benefits 

are being generated to the local communities that 

surround the refuges. Economists have reported 

that national wildlife refuge visitors contribute more 

than $792 million annually to local economies. 

ECOSYSTEM DESCRIPTION 

AND THREATS 

The Souris River basin lies near the junction of two 

ecosystems currently defined by the Service as the 

“Mississippi Headwaters/Tall-grass Prairie” and 

“Main stem Missouri River” ecosystems. However, 

neither ecosystem, as defined and delineated, 

includes or adequately describes the Souris River 

basin area. 

The Souris River basin is 15–80 miles north of a 

continental divide formed by a major moraine, the 

Missouri Coteau. Drainage of the basin is neither 

east-southeast toward the Mississippi River nor 

south toward the Missouri River. Instead, the basin 

drains north into the Assiniboine River–Red River– 

Hudson Bay system. Furthermore, the Souris River 

basin area is mixed-grass prairie, not tall-grass 

prairie. The area is characterized here more 

appropriately as the “Hudson Bay headwaters/ 

mixed-grass prairie ecosystem” (figure 2). 

In the United States, the Hudson Bay headwaters/ 

mixed-grass prairie ecosystem includes northcentral North Dakota north of the Missouri Coteau 

and east to the edge of the Red River Valley. In 

Canada, it includes southern Manitoba and 

southeastern Saskatchewan. The Souris River basin 

lies within a major physiographic subregion known 

as the “Drift Plain,” which generally is characterized 

by flat to gently rolling, moderately deep, loamy 

soils that originated from glacial till. The basin is at 
Chapter 1—Introduction 5 

Figure 2. Ecosystem map. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

the center of North America’s extensive Prairie 

Pothole Region, which annually produces 20–25% of 

the continent’s ducks and geese. 

Until widespread cultivation of prairie soils 

beginning nearly a century ago, the major ecological 

community of the Hudson Bay headwaters/mixedgrass prairie ecosystem was northern mixed-grass 

prairie. Characteristic plants were grasses, 

especially needlegrasses, wheatgrasses, and big 

bluestem. Bur oak and quaking aspen dominated the 

Turtle Mountains, along the present-day Manitoba 

border. Woodland also occurred along much of the 

Souris River; some stunted bur oak and aspen was 

scattered among sandhills of present-day McHenry 

County (includes the southern one-third of J. Clark 

Salyer NWR); patches of trees and shrubs were 

infrequently encountered at Des Lacs NWR; and 

woody vegetation was rare elsewhere. 

The contemporary landscape of the Souris River 

basin is dominated by annually tilled cropland 

(figure 3). Major crops include cereal grains, 

principally wheat, and various oilseeds. Some 

cropland areas classified as “highly erodible” have 

been seeded to perennial, herbaceous cover (“old 

cropland in seeded herbaceous cover” in figure 3) 

under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Hay is 

harvested from seeded upland areas once annually, 

usually in early to midsummer. Native meadows 

along the Souris River also supply annual hay crops. 

In addition, some seasonally flooded wetland basins 

supply hay (typically late summer). There is almost 

no irrigated cropland. Ranching for beef cattle, 

usually cow-calf operations, is common locally 

especially in the hilly, sandy area of McHenry 

County (southeastern part of the basin) and along 

the lower half of the Souris River. 

Population growth is not an important issue in the 

area. Rural towns are small (populations are 

typically less than 1,000) and widely scattered. Most 

people are concentrated in the south-central part of 

the area—in a small city (Minot) and the nearby 

Minot Air Force base, totaling about 40,000 people. 

Major threats to the ecosystem’s natural resources 

mostly are related to agriculture. Before EuroAmerican settlement, the basin was a vast mosaic of 

prairie and broad, shallow wetlands. Most of this 

landscape has been drained and cultivated to 

produce crops. Elevated levels of wind- and 

waterborne sediments enter the Souris and Des 

Lacs rivers via intermittent streams. This 

sedimentation is a major threat to the ecological 

function and biodiversity of riverine wetlands. 

Scientists currently are assessing the magnitude of 

this threat. 

Pesticides are widely used in the area (especially for 

oil seed crops) and, along with heavy metals and 

other contaminants, may enter the rivers. 

Invasion by introduced and woody plant species is a 

major threat to the area. Trees and tall shrubs have 

expanded, fragmenting most remnant prairie that 

provides breeding habitat for grassland birds (most 

of which are exhibiting continental population 

declines). Leafy spurge has garnered most attention 

in the area as a noxious weed species of management 

concern. However, smooth brome (an introduced 

grass) probably is the most significant, long-term 

threat to the floristic diversity of remnant native 

prairies in the area. 

The ecological function and productivity of the 

Souris River is significantly compromised by three 

major dams along its course. Historically, the Souris 

River was a broad, temporally dynamic river, 

heavily braided along much of its course in presentday North Dakota. The meandering main river 

channel often was indistinct, characterized by 

overbank flooding and the development of oxbow 

ponds. Today, the river system is more static than 

dynamic. A major reservoir occurs behind a dam at 

Upper Souris NWR. Water levels of this reservoir 

have been largely regulated for flood control and 

water storage. However, the timing of water 

releases from this and upstream reservoirs does not 

coincide with that of historical spring flood events, 

with negative implications for nesting by migratory 

birds downstream. Much of the midriver section is 

channelized. Natural processes such as streambed 

scouring and silt transport are inhibited. 

NATIONAL AND REGIONAL 

MANDATES 

This section presents highlights of legal mandates, 

Service policy, and existing resource plans that 

directly influenced development of this CCP. 

Refuges are managed to achieve the mission and 

goals of the Refuge System and the designated 

purpose of the refuge unit as described in 

establishing legislation or executive orders, or other 

establishing documents. Key concepts and guidance 

of the Refuge System are provided in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

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

Federal Regulations,” the “U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual” and most recently through the 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

The Improvement Act amends the Administration 

Act by providing a unifying mission for the Refuge 

System, a new process for determining compatible 

public uses at refuges and a requirement that each 

refuge will be managed under a CCP. The 

Improvement Act states that wildlife conservation is 

the priority of Refuge System lands and that the 

Secretary of the Interior will ensure that the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 
Chapter 1—Introduction 7 Figure 3. Landscape of the Souris River basin in north-central North Dakota. (Des Lacs NWR, Upper Souris NWR, and J. Clark Salyer NWR are represented 

 west to east by long, gray polygons.) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

health of refuge lands are maintained. Each refuge 

must be managed to fulfill the Refuge System 

mission and the specific purposes for which it was 

established. The Improvement Act requires the 

Service to monitor the status and trends of fish, 

wildlife, and plants at each refuge. 

The Improvement Act declares that compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses are legitimate 

and appropriate, priority public uses of the Refuge 

System. Six uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation) are to receive special 

consideration, in planning and management, more 

than all other general public uses of the Refuge 

System. 

A detailed list of these and other laws and executive 

orders that may affect the Souris River basin 

refuges’ CCP or the Service’s implementation of the 

CCP is provided in appendix B. 

Service policies providing guidance on planning and 

the day-to-day management of a refuge are 

contained within the “National Wildlife Refuge 

System Manual” and the “U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual.” 

REFUGE CONTRIBUTIONS TO 

NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PLANS 

The Souris River basin refuges contribute to the 

conservation efforts described here. 

Fulfilling the Promise 

A 1999 report, “Fulfilling the Promise, The National 

Wildlife Refuge System” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service [USFWS] 1999), is the culmination of a yearlong process by teams of Service employees to 

evaluate the Refuge System nationwide. This report 

was the focus of the first national Refuge System 

conference in 1998—attended by refuge managers, 

other Service employees, and representatives from 

leading conservation organizations. 

The report contains 42 recommendations packaged 

with three vision statements dealing with wildlife 

and habitat, people, and leadership. This CCP deals 

with all three of these major topics and the planning 

team looked to the recommendations in the 

document for guidance throughout the plan. 

Partners in Flight, Conservation of 

the Land Birds of the United States: 

Northern Mixed-grass Prairie 

The “Partners in Flight” program began in 1990 

with the recognition of declining population levels of 

many migratory bird species. The challenge, 

according to the program, is managing human 

population growth while maintaining functional 

natural ecosystems. To meet this challenge, 

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

activity has resulted in 52 bird conservation plans 

covering the continental United States. 

The primary goal of Partners in Flight is to provide 

for the long-term health of the bird life of this 

continent. The first priority is to prevent the rarest 

species from going extinct. The second priority is to 

prevent uncommon species from descending into 

threatened status. The third priority is to “keep 

common birds common.” 

There are 58 physiographic areas, defined by similar 

physical geographic features, wholly or partially 

contained within the contiguous United States and 

several others wholly or partially in Alaska. The 

Souris River basin refuges lie within the northern 

mixed-grass prairie, which is physiographic area 37 

(figure 4). 

The area includes almost the entire eastern half of 

South Dakota and central North Dakota, from the 

Red River Valley on the east, to the Missouri River 

and Montana border on the south and west. In 

Canada, it includes a small portion of southern 

Manitoba and a swath that crosses Saskatchewan 

and extends into Alberta. The southern edge of this 

physiographic area is the terminus of a glacial 

moraine parallel to the course of the nearby Missouri 

River. To the north, prairie gives way to aspen 

parkland. 

Precipitation declines and evaporation rates 

increase from east to west across the northern 

mixed-grass prairie, resulting in differences in the 

height of dominant grasses. To the east, the mixed 

grass begins as topography rises out of the tall-grass 

prairie of the Red River Valley. Grass height 

gradually decreases toward the western boundary of 

this physiographic area. 

Because of the glacial history of the northern mixedgrass prairie and the relationship between 

precipitation and evapotranspiration, the area is 

dotted with thousands of depressions that range 

from permanently to periodically wet. This area is 

the area known as the Prairie Pothole Region. 

Internally, the various moraines are particularly 

rugged and marked by potholes. 

Priority bird species and habitats of the northern 

mixed-grass prairie include: 

Grassland 

Baird’s sparrow 

greater prairie-chicken 

McCown’s longspur 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1—Introduction 9 

Figure 4. Physiographic areas of the United States. 

Sprague’s pipit 

Le Conte’s sparrow 

Wetland 

yellow rail 

Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow 

marbled godwit 

Riparian Woodland 

Bell’s vireo 

River Sandbars 

piping plover 

waterfowl 

shorebirds 

Several high-priority species of shorebirds breed in 

the northern mixed-grass prairie, and huge numbers 

of more northerly breeding bird species pass 

through during migration. This includes most of the 

global population of very high-priority species such 

as buff-breasted sandpiper and Hudsonian godwit. 

Maintenance of large, unfragmented, grassland 

ecosystems is the conservation objective for areas 

such as the Missouri Coteau where agriculture is not 

dominant. On the drift prairie and other agricultural 

areas, conservation of discrete blocks of grasslandwetland complexes is recommended. 

North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan 

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

(NAWMP) was originally written in 1986. The plan 

envisioned a 15-year effort to achieve landscape 

conditions that could sustain waterfowl populations. 

Specific NAWMP objectives are to increase and 

restore duck populations to the average levels of the 

1970s—62 million breeding ducks and a fall flight of 

100 million birds. 

By 1985, waterfowl populations had plummeted to 

record lows. Habitat that waterfowl depend on was 

disappearing at a rate of 60 acres per hour. 

Recognizing the importance of waterfowl and 

wetlands to North Americans and the need for 

international cooperation to help in the recovery of a 

shared resource, the United States and Canada 

governments developed a strategy to restore 

waterfowl populations through habitat protection, 

restoration, and enhancement. Mexico became a 

signatory to the plan in 1994. 

The plan is innovative because of its international 

scope, plus its implementation at the regional level. 

Its success depends on the strength of partnerships 

called “joint ventures,” involving federal, state, 

provincial, tribal, and local governments; businesses; 

conservation organizations; and individual citizens. 

Joint ventures are regionally based, self-directed 

partnerships that carry out science-based conservation 
 

 

 

10 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

through a wide array of community participation. 

Joint ventures develop implementation plans 

focusing on areas of concern identified in the plan. 

To date, the NAWMP contains 12 habitat joint 

ventures and 2 species joint ventures with a wide 

variety of public and private partners. As of the end 

of 2003, plan partners have invested more than $3.2 

billion to protect, restore, or enhance more than 13.1 

million acres of habitat. The Souris River basin 

refuges lie within the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture 

(PPJV). 

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture 

Implementation Plan 

The Prairie Pothole Region remains the most 

important waterfowl-producing region on the 

continent, generating more than half of North 

America's ducks. Nearly 15% of the continental 

waterfowl population comes from the PPJV region 

(Montana, the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Iowa). As 

many as 10 million ducks and 2 million geese use this 

region during migration or for nesting. The wetlands 

and associated grassland in the PPJV region provide 

breeding habitat to more than 200 species of 

migratory birds. 

The PPJV implementation plan was prepared in 

2005, and outlined a mission, vision, goals, 

objectives, and strategies for joint venture 

activities. Individual state action groups and 

steering committees prepared state action plans that 

“stepped down” joint venture activities to the state 

and local level. 

The goal of the PPJV is to increase waterfowl 

populations through habitat conservation projects 

that improve natural diversity across the prairie 

pothole landscape of the United States. The joint 

venture attempts to carry out landscape-level 

habitat projects so that waterfowl populations 

increase during the wet years and stabilize under 

moderate wetland conditions. Since little can be 

done to stabilize breeding populations across the 

Prairie Pothole Region during extended drought, 

joint venture strategies are designed to carry out 

actions that take advantage of years when 

precipitation is at least normal. 

Wetland Protection Objective 

Protect in perpetuity 1.4 million acres of highpriority wetlands at risk, including 1.2 million acres 

through perpetual easements and 200,000 acres 

through fee-title acquisitions. 

Grassland Protection Objective 

Protect in perpetuity 10.4 million acres of priority 

(over 55 acres in size) native prairie, including 10 

million acres through perpetual easements and 

400,000 acres through fee-title acquisitions. 

Wetland Restoration Objective 

Restore wetlands sufficient to carry an additional 

492,000 total breeding duck pairs over the capacities 

identified in table 1 of the “Prairie Pothole Joint 

Venture 2005 Implementation Plan, Section II— 

Waterfowl Plan.” 

Grassland Restoration Objective 

Restore 393,000 acres of grasslands associated with 

high-density wetland communities. 

Recovery Plans for Federally Listed 

Threatened or Endangered Species 

Where federally listed threatened or endangered 

species occur at the Souris River basin refuges, 

management goals and strategies in their respective 

recovery plans will be followed. The list of 

threatened or endangered species that occur on the 

refuges will change as species are listed or delisted, 

or as listed species are discovered on refuge lands. 

 

 Lake Darling at Upper Souris NWR is within the area 

 designated as critical habitat for the federally listed 

 piping plover. 

 Edward Henry/USFWS 

At the time of plan approval, Upper Souris NWR is 

following the draft recovery plan for piping plovers 

in the northern Great Plains (USFWS 1994). The 

Service conducted a biological evaluation of the 

actions in this CCP per section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act (see appendix C). 

State Comprehensive Conservation 

Wildlife Strategy 

Over the past several decades, documented declines 

of wildlife populations have occurred nationwide. 

Congress created the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) 

program in 2001. This program provides states and 

territories with federal dollars to support 

conservation aimed at preventing wildlife from 

becoming endangered and in need of protection 

under the Endangered Species Act. The SWG 

program represents an ambitious endeavor to take
 

 

Chapter 1—Introduction 11 

an active hand in keeping species from becoming 

threatened or endangered in the future. 

According to the SWG program, each state, 

territory, and the District of Columbia must 

complete a comprehensive wildlife conservation 

strategy (CWCS) by October 1, 2005 to receive 

future funding. 

These strategies will help define an integrated 

approach to the stewardship of all wildlife species, 

with additional emphasis on species of concern and 

habitats at risk. The goal is to shift focus from 

single-species management and highly specialized 

individual efforts to a geographically based, 

landscape-oriented, fish and wildlife conservation 

effort. The Service approves CWCSs and 

administers SWG program funding. 

The State of North Dakota CWCS was reviewed and 

information was used during development of the 

CCP. The goals and objectives of the State of North 

Dakota CWCS are supported by the CCP through 

implementation of habitat goals and objectives. 

THE PLANNING PROCESS 

This CCP for the three Souris River basin refuges is 

intended to comply with the Improvement Act, 

NEPA, and implementing regulations of the acts. 

The Service’s policy establishes requirements and 

guidance for Refuge System planning, including 

CCPs and step-down management plans to ensure 

that planning efforts comply with the Improvement 

Act. The planning policy identifies several steps of 

the CCP and EA process (also see figure 5): 

Q	 Form a planning team and conduct preplanning. 

Q	 Initiate public involvement and scoping. 

Q	 Draft the vision statement and goals. 

Q	 Develop and analyze alternatives, including the 

proposed action. 

Q	 Prepare the draft CCP and EA. 

Q	 Prepare and adopt the final CCP and EA and 

issue a “finding of no significant impact” (FONSI) 

or determine if an environmental impact 

statement is needed. 

Q	 Implement the CCP; monitor and evaluate. 

Q	 Review the CCP every 5 years and revise it every 

15 years. 

 Figure 5. The Planning Process 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

The Service began the preplanning process for the 

refuges in June 2002. A planning team was 

developed shortly after an initial kickoff meeting, 

which included the following team members: 

Q	 Service personnel from the refuges and division of 

refuge planning (region 6, Lakewood, Colorado) 

Q	 Personnel from NDGF 

Q	 Personnel from USGS’s biological resources 

division 

A list of planning team members and other major 

contributors to development of this CCP is in 

appendix D. Several items were addressed during 

preplanning including the development of a mailing 

list, planning schedule, and public involvement plan. 

Internal scoping was conducted by identifying 

refuge qualities and issues over a course of several 

meetings. 

The Service developed four unique management 

alternatives based on the issues, concerns, and 

opportunities expressed during the scoping process. 

The evaluation of the alternatives was documented 

in “Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environment Assessment—Des Lacs National 

Wildlife Refuge, J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife 

Refuge, Upper Souris National Wildlife Refuge,” 

which was published in February 2007. After the 

public comment period for the draft CCP and EA, 

the Service finalized the CCP. 

Coordination with the Public 

Public scoping began January 17, 2003, with 

publication in the Federal Register of the notice of 

intent (NOI) to prepare a CCP and associated 

environmental document for the three refuges. 

A mailing list of more than 220 names was created 

and includes private citizens; local, regional, and 

state government representatives and legislators; 

other federal agencies; and nonprofit organizations 

(see appendix E). 

In March 2003, the Service sent a planning update to 

each individual on the mailing list. Information was 

provided on the history of the Refuge System and 

the CCP process, along with a schedule of and 

invitation to upcoming open houses. Open houses 

were announced in local newspapers, on radio 

stations, and on television stations. Flyers were 

posted at local businesses throughout the region. 

Announcements were made at local organizations 

including, Minot City Council, Bottineau County 

Wildlife Club, and Rotary Club meetings. 

The Service held six open houses March 24–27, 2003. 

At each meeting, the CCP planner or refuge 

personnel gave a presentation on the history of the 

program along with an overview of the CCP and 

NEPA processes. Attendees were encouraged to 

ask questions and offer comments. The Service 

invited attendees to submit additional thoughts or 

questions in writing and gave each a two-page 

comment form to complete. The turnout was mixed, 

from a few attendees to 18 individuals at a singlerefuge meeting. 

In addition to holding scoping meetings, the Service 

sent postage-paid comment forms to everyone on 

the mailing list with an April 30, 2003, response 

deadline. 

The Service sent a second planning update (with 

comment form) to each individual on the mailing list 

in November 2003. This update provided 

information on the ongoing public involvement effort 

and a summary of the public comments received 

during the open houses. 

The Service considered the input gathered from 

open houses, planning updates, and public comments 

during development of this CCP. 

State Coordination 

In July 2002, an invitation letter to participate in the 

CCP process was sent by the Service’s regional 

director (region 6), to the director of the NDGF. 

Local NDGF wildlife managers and refuge staff 

maintain excellent and on-going working relations 

that precede the start of the CCP process. An 

NDGF representative is part of the core CCP 

planning team and has been a participant in each 

workshop. The NDGF’s mission is to “protect, 

conserve, and enhance fish and wildlife populations 

and their habitats for sustained public consumptive 

and nonconsumptive uses.” The NDGF is 

responsible for managing natural resource lands 

owned by the state, in addition to enforcement 

responsibilities for the state’s fish, wildlife, and 

endangered species. The state currently manages 

about 78,000 acres in support of wildlife, recreation, 

and fisheries. 

In November 2002, an invitation letter to participate 

in the CCP process was sent by the regional director 

to the state engineer of the North Dakota State 

Water Commission. A commission representative is 

part of the CCP planning team, but the commission 

was not a participant in the planning workshops. 

The refuge managers initially contacted elected 

officials in January 2003. They were contacted again 

via two planning updates that provided information 

on the CCP process, outlined the public meeting 

schedule, and included a summary of public 

comments received. 

Coordination with other Federal 

Agencies 

In July 2002, an invitation letter to participate in the 

CCP process was sent by the Service’s regional 
director to the colonel of the St. Paul District of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). A 

representative was assigned to the core planning 

team. Input has been provided to the CCP through 

attendance at planning workshops and review of 

planning documents. 

Tribal Coordination 

On July 26, 2002, six Native American tribal 

governments in North Dakota and South Dakota 

(Sisseton–Wahpeton Sioux, Spirit Lake Tribal 

Council, Standing Rock Sioux, Three Affiliated 

Tribes [Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara], Fort Peck 

Tribal Executive Board, and the Turtle Mountain 

Band of Chippewa) were contacted through a letter 

from the Service’s regional director. The letter 

provided information about the upcoming CCP and 

invited recipients to serve on the core planning 

team. Responses were as follows: 

Q	 The Service received a response from the chair of 

the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewas and a 

tribal representative was assigned to the planning 

team. Tribal input has been obtained through 

review of CCP documents. 

Q	 The Service received a response from the Three 

Affiliated Tribes and two tribal representatives 

were assigned to the planning team. A tribal 

representative attended the vision and goals 

workshop. Additional input was obtained through 

review of CCP documents. 

Results of Scoping 

Table 1 shows the planning process activities. The 

Service used comments collected from scoping 

meetings and correspondence to help develop key 

issues. The Service determined alternatives that 

could most appropriately address these issues (as 

documented in the draft CCP and EA). Chapter 2 

provides a summary of these issues and the 

associated resource ramifications. 

“Appendix E, Public Involvement” includes 

comments received during the public review of the 

draft CCP and EA, along with responses by the 

Service. 

Plan Amendment and Revision 

The Service will review this CCP annually to 

determine the need for revision. A revision will 

occur when significant information becomes 

available. 

Detailed step-down management plans (see chapter 4) 

that address the completion of specific strategies 

will support achievement of goals and objectives for 

the Souris River basin refuges. 

Revisions to the CCP and the step-down 

management plans will be subject to public review 

and NEPA compliance. 

At a minimum, the Service will evaluate the CCP 

every 5 years and revise the CCP after 15 years. 

Table 1. Planning process summary for the Souris River basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Date Event 	 Outcome 

Toured refuges. Kickoff meeting (CCP overview; 

June 3–6, 2002 CCP kickoff meeting. establishment of planning team; identified purpose o

refuges, history, and establishing authority; develop

f the 

ed 

planning schedule). 

January 2003 

NOI (to prepare the 

CCP) published in the 

Federal Register. 

Notified the public of the upcoming preparation of the 

CCP. 

January 14–15, 

2003 

Vision and goals 

workshop. 

Conducted internal scoping by developing initial issues 

and qualities lists. Developed a vision statement and 

goals. 

News releases for public 

March 18–20, meetings sent to local Notified public of opportunities for involvement in the 

2003 newspapers, and radio CCP process. 

and television stations. 

March 24, 2003 Public open house in 

Mohall, North Dakota. Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP. 

March 25, 2003 Public open house in 

Bowbells, North Dakota. Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP. 

Public open houses in 

March 26, 2003 Bottineau and Kenmare, Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP. 

North Dakota. 

Chapter 1—Introduction 13 
Table 1. Planning process summary for the Souris River basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Date Event Outcome 

March 27, 2003 

Public open houses in 

Towner and Minot, North 

Dakota. 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP. 

March 2003 

Site visit to refuges by 

USGS–Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center. 

Toured refuges. Met with refuge staff. Collected data for 

an assessment of wetland conditions at the refuges. 

April 2003 

Site visit to refuges by 

Fort Collins Science 

Center (policy analysis 

science assistance branch). 

USGS researchers met with refuge staff to understand 

refuge needs, visitation, and management issues to design 

a public use survey. 

August 2003– 

August 2004 

Survey distributed to 

refuge visitors. 

Conducted research to assess (1) visitor experience, 

perceptions, and preferences, and (2) visitor spending in 

relation to recreation. 

September 2–4, 

2003 

Wetlands biological 

workshop; field 

assessment. 

Planning team toured refuges with representatives from 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center and discussed 

wetland conditions. 

December 2003 Assessment of wetland 

conditions complete. 

Report issued by USGS–Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center: A Biological Assessment of Wetland 

Conditions on the Souris River National Wildlife Refuges. 

January 25–26, 

2005 Alternatives workshop. Developed a range of alternatives for the refuges. 

March 15–16, 

2005 

Environmental 

consequences workshop 

and identification of the 

proposed action. 

Reviewed the anticipated environmental consequences. 

Identified alternative B as the proposed action. 

May 26, 2005 Objectives workshop. 

Reviewed the proposed objectives, strategies, and 

rationale for implementation of the proposed action 

(i.e., draft CCP). 

June 2006 Internal review of the 

draft CCP and EA. Received comments on the draft CCP and EA. 

February 2– 

March 19, 2007 

Release of the draft CCP 

and EA for public review. Received comments on the revised draft CCP and EA. 

March 6, 2007 Public open house in 

Minot, ND. 

Increased public understanding of the draft CCP and EA. 

Received public comments about the draft CCP and EA. 

August 2007 CCP approval. Selection of the preferred alternative (“B”) for the final 

CCP. 

14 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Chapter 2—The Planning Process 1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 The Refuges 


The three Souris River basin refuges were 

established by executive order in 1935. 

USFWS USFWS USFWS 

The Des Lacs Migratory Waterfowl Refuge (later 

renamed “Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge”) was 

established by Executive Order (EO) 7154-A (figure 6). 

By virtue of and pursuant to the authority 

vested in me as President of the United 

States, and in order to further the purposes 

of Migratory Bird Conservation Act (45 Stat. 

1222), it is ordered that the followingdescribed lands, acquired or to be acquired 

by the United States, in Burke and Ward 

Counties, North Dakota, consisting of 24,100 

acres, more or less, be, and they are hereby, 

reserved and set apart for the use of the 

Department of Agriculture, subject to valid 

existing rights, as a refuge and breeding 

ground for migratory birds and other 

wildlife: Provided, that any private lands 

within the areas described shall become a 

part of the refuge hereby established upon the 

acquisition of title or lease thereto by the 

United States: (legal description of land)... 

This refuge shall be known as the Des Lacs 

Migratory Waterfowl Refuge. 

—Franklin D. Roosevelt, August 22, 1935 

The Lower Souris Migratory Waterfowl Refuge 

(later renamed “J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife 

Refuge”) was established by EO 7170 (figure 7). 

By virtue of and pursuant to the authority 

vested in me as President of the United 

States, and in order to further the purposes 

of Migratory Bird Conservation Act (45 Stat. 

1222), it is ordered that the followingdescribed lands, acquired or to be acquired 

by the United States, in Bottineau and 

McHenry Counties, North Dakota, consisting 

of 40,000 acres, more or less, be, and they are 

hereby, reserved and set apart for the use of 

the Department of Agriculture, subject to 

valid existing rights, as a refuge and 

breeding ground for migratory birds and 

other wildlife: Provided, that any private 

lands within the areas described shall 

become a part of the refuge hereby 

established upon the acquisition of title or 

lease thereto by the United States: (legal 

description of land)... This refuge shall be 

known as the Lower Souris Migratory 

Waterfowl Refuge. 

—Franklin D. Roosevelt, September 4, 1935 
16 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Figure 6. Base map for Des Lacs NWR, North Dakota.
 
Chapter 2—The Refuges 17 

 Figure 7. Base map for J. Clark Salyer NWR, North Dakota. 

 

 

 

 

 

18 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

The Upper Souris Migratory Waterfowl Refuge 


(later renamed “Upper Souris National Wildlife 


Refuge”) was established by EO 7161 (figure 8). 

By virtue of and pursuant to the authority 

vested in me as President of the United 

States, and in order to further the purposes 

of Migratory Bird Conservation Act (45 Stat. 

1222), it is ordered that the followingdescribed lands, acquired or to be acquired 

by the United States, in Renville and Ward 

Counties, North Dakota, consisting of 40,000 

acres, more or less, be, and they are hereby, 

reserved and set apart for the use of the 

Department of Agriculture, subject to valid 

existing rights, as a refuge and breeding 

ground for migratory birds and other 

wildlife: Provided, that any private lands 

within the areas described shall become a 

part of the refuge hereby established upon the 

acquisition of title or lease thereto by the 

United States: (legal description of land)... 

This refuge shall be known as the Upper 

Souris Migratory Waterfowl Refuge. 

—Franklin D. Roosevelt, August 27, 1935 

PURPOSE 

Refuge System lands have been acquired under a 

variety of legislative acts and administrative 

orders. The transfer and acquisition authorities 

used to obtain the lands usually have one or more 

purposes for which land can be transferred or 

acquired. Over time, an individual refuge may 

contain lands that have been acquired under a 

variety of transfer and acquisition authorities with 

different purposes. 

As stated in the executive orders, the purpose of all 

three Souris River basin refuges is for a “refuge 

and breeding ground for migratory birds and other 

wildlife.” 

 The hooded merganser is a common migratory bird that 

 nests at the Souris River basin refuges.

 Tim McCabe/USFWS 

VISION AND GOALS 

The vision describes what the refuges will be, or 

what the Service hopes to do, and is based 

primarily on the Refuge System mission and 

specific purpose of each refuge. 

The vision is a future-oriented statement designed 

to be achieved through refuge management by the 

end of the 15-year CCP planning horizon. 

Vision 

From Paleo-Indians on the tails of the Ice Age— 


to the Assiniboine and Chippewa, 


early fur trappers, explorers, and naturalists; 


eminent bison herds and astoundingly 


abundant bird life; fires stretching for miles to 


revitalize treeless prairie; and determined
 

homesteaders and vanquished farms 


of the Dust Bowl era...
 

The Souris River basin figures prominently 


in the cultural and natural history of
 

midcontinent North America’s plains and 


prairies. Three national wildlife refuges of the 


Souris River basin—Des Lacs, J. Clark Salyer, 


and Upper Souris—will enhance populations
 

of migratory birds, including waterfowl, and
 

other wildlife native to the landscape by
 

conserving the ecology and natural character 


of the northern plains region. 


The refuges will create a sense of awe and wonder
 

by providing an array of wildlife-dependent 


recreational and educational experiences 


that enhance visitor awareness of the 


splendid natural and cultural heritage 


of the northern plains. 


Functioning as integral parts of the ecosystems 


and human communities to which they belong, 


the Souris River basin refuges 


will seek collaborative partnerships 


to attain common goals.
 

A diverse and passionate refuge workforce 


will rely on sound science to understand
 

and restore or emulate natural processes 


essential to the integrity and perpetuation 


of major biological communities 


with which the refuges are entrusted. 

Chapter 2—The Refuges 19 

Figure 8. Base map for Upper Souris NWR, North Dakota. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

The Service developed a set of goals for the refuges 

based on the Improvement Act and information 

developed during project planning. The goals direct 

work toward achieving the vision and purpose of 

the refuges, and outline approaches for managing 

resources. Some goals apply to all three refuges, 

while other goals apply to only one or two of the 

three refuges based on occurrence of habitat types. 

Descriptions of maor habitat types are in chapter 3, 

“Refuge Resources and Descriptions.” 

Drift Prairie Goal 

Restore and maintain extensive examples of plant 

communities dominated by native flora characteristic 

of the mid-1800s drift prairie. Create the 

temporally and spatially dynamic habitat conditions 

that will attract most breeding bird species and 

other vertebrate fauna characteristic of that era. 

(Applies to all three Souris River basin refuges.) 

Prairie Slope Goal 

Restore representative examples of prairie slopes to 

preserve some of the most pristine plant communities 

that remain in the Souris River basin and promote 

appreciation and stewardship of prairie resources. 

(Applies to all three Souris River basin refuges.) 

Prairie Parkland Goal 

Restore and maintain extensive examples of plant 

communities characteristic of the mid-1800s prairie 

parkland. Create the temporally and spatially 

dynamic habitat conditions that will attract most 

breeding bird species and other vertebrate fauna 

characteristic of that era. 

(Applies only to J. Clark Salyer NWR.) 

Sandhills Goal 

Restore and maintain plant communities 

characteristic of the mid-1800s sandhills within the 

prairie parkland landscape. 

(Applies only to J. Clark Salyer NWR.) 

Old Cropland Goal 

On high-priority old cropland areas, establish nativedominated, perennial herbaceous cover that, with 

modest management, resists invasion by introduced 

cool-season grasses and noxious weeds. This seeded 

cover will help form extensive, contiguous blocks of 

structurally diverse, open grassland for grasslanddependent, breeding bird species. 

(Applies to all three Souris River basin refuges.) 

Coulee Woodland and Coulee 

Woodland Edge Goal 

Acknowledge a nearly irreversible, localized 

establishment of mature, contiguous woodland and 

minimally manage these areas as breeding and 

migration habitat principally for forest-interior, 

migratory bird species such as veery and ovenbird. 

Strive to eliminate remaining, noncontiguous, edgedominated tree and tall shrub cover, particularly 

near high-priority drift prairie and the largest, 

most contiguous grassland tracts. 

(Applies only to Des Lacs NWR and Upper Souris NWR.) 

Riparian Woodland Goal 

Maintain the approximate presettlement extent of 

green ash–American elm riparian woodland within 

the floodplain of the Souris River to benefit a broad 

suite of woodland-associated, breeding bird species. 

(Applies only to J. Clark Salyer NWR and Upper 

Souris NWR.) 

Meadow Goal 

Restore and maintain extensive examples of plant 

communities dominated by native flora characteristic 

of seasonally flooded meadows within the Souris 

River floodplain to attract grassland- and wetlanddependent bird species and other wildlife. 

(Applies to all three Souris River basin refuges.) 

Wetland Goal 

Manage riverine wetlands, including marshes and 

lakes, to sustain the long-term capacity of riverine 

wetlands to support diverse plant and wildlife 

communities. Restore ecological processes that 

sustain long-term productivity of wetlands. 

(Applies to all three Souris River basin refuges.) 

Island Goal 

Manage islands to attract waterfowl and increase 

nest survival, especially during drought years when 

wetland habitat outside of the Souris River basin 

refuges is limited. 

(Applies to all three Souris River basin refuges). 

Cultural Resource Goal 

Discover and protect cultural resources and 

interpret sites when the interpretation does not 

adversely affect habitat management. 

(Applies to all three Souris River basin refuges.) 

Visitor Service Goal 

Provide wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities 

to a diverse audience when the administration of 

these programs does not adversely affect wildlife 

and habitat management. 

(Applies to all three Souris River basin refuges.) 

Research and Science Goal 

Conduct innovative natural resource management 

using sound science and applied research to 

advance the understanding of natural resource 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stiff sunflower. 

Gary Eslinger/USFWS 

21 

function and management within the northern 

Great Plains. 

(Applies to all three Souris River basin refuges.) 

Operations Goal 

Efficiently use funding and staffing for the benefit 

of all natural and cultural resources, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, and present and future 

generations. Effectively manage visitor service 

programs that complement habitat management. 

(Applies to all three Souris River basin refuges.) 

SPECIAL VALUES 

During the vision and goals workshop, the planning 

team identified the outstanding qualities of the 

refuges. Qualities are the characteristics and 

features that make the areas special and worthy of 

refuge status. 

The Souris River basin refuges 

Q	 preserve a large component of the natural 

environment totaling 110,220 acres; 

Q	 provide breeding habitat for five bird species 

that are endemic to the northern mixed-grass 

prairie region (an endemic species is one with a 

distribution that is limited to a specific, relatively 

small, geographic area); 

Q	 represent a comprehensive collection of most 

North Dakota plant communities; 

Q	 have some of the only remaining representative 

tracts of native prairie on the Drift Plain, a 

declining and threatened type of prairie habitat; 

Q	 are associated with rivers and serve as sediment 

traps for the Hudson Bay drainage; 

Q	 are a critical area of the Central Flyway and 

provide resting and breeding habitat for 

migratory birds; 

Q	 are in an area that has been a gathering spot for 

people and wildlife through time; 

Q	 occur in an area with a rich history of 

paleohistory, early exploration, and settlement; 

Q	 were originally developed in part by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps (CCC); 

Q	 have potential for a broad range of partnerships 

that are integral to every aspect of refuge 

management (hunting, fishing, research, and 

education). 

PLANNING ISSUES 

Several key issues were identified following the 

analysis of comments collected from refuge staffs 

and the public, and a review of the requirements of 

Chapter 2—The Refuges 

the Improvement Act and the NEPA. Substantive 

comments (those that could be addressed within the 

authority and management capabilities of the 

Service) were considered during formulation of the 

alternatives for future management. These key 

issues are summarized below. 

Habitat and Wildlife Management 

Complex ecological processes and disturbance 

regimes are fundamental to the evolution and 

maintenance of prairie and wetland habitat in the 

northern Great Plains. These dynamic phenomena 

have been drastically impaired, however, since 

Euro-American settlement of the region a century 

ago. Processes such as fire, grazing, and drought 

shaped plant communities of the region. When 

these important processes change (for example, 

decrease in the frequency of fire), native plant 

communities and wildlife populations are negatively 

affected. 

Refuge management decisions are often based on 

economic and political factors rather than on 

ecological principles or biological needs of wildlife 

species and their habitats entrusted to the Service’s 

care. Biology should guide management decisions 

for the Refuge System. Too often, however, 

biological needs of wildlife and their habitats 

receive less consideration than socioeconomic and 

political factors in the decision-making process. 

Some refuge habitats are so badly degraded that 

they may no longer have potential to be restored. 

Beyond some biological threshold, many plant 

communities or habitats are unlikely to be restored 

regardless of effort expended. Invasive species— 

namely woody plants, introduced cool-season 

grasses (for example, smooth brome and Kentucky 

bluegrass), and noxious weeds (for example, leafy 

spurge and Canada thistle)—compromise the 

integrity of refuge habitats and devalue the areas 

for wildlife. Programs to control these plants divert 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

important resources from other habitat 

management initiatives. 

Prescribed fire, haying, and grazing can be 

controversial management tools, especially when 

goals and objectives that direct their use are 

unclear or poorly understood by the public. The 

public often is either strongly supportive or 

adamantly opposed to use of these tools. Use of fire 

and grazing can be controversial simply because 

their use in other regions is highly controversial 

(for example, grazing is extremely controversial in 

arid western states). 

Personnel of the three refuges suggest that (1) goals 

and objectives should emphasize management of 

plant communities as habitat for wildlife, and 

(2) research and monitoring should be used to 

predict wildlife response to management. Most 

factors that influence the dynamics of wildlife 

populations, especially those of migratory birds, may 

not be directly influenced at the individual refuge 

level; but can be influenced indirectly through 

appropriate or inappropriate management of habitat. 

Direct control of mammalian and avian nest 

predators (mainly predators of waterfowl nests) is 

controversial with the public and within the 

scientific community. Some groups and individuals 

question the ethics of killing one group of species to 

benefit another group, especially to increase 

recreational hunting. Predator control is known to 

increase the survival of duck nests in northern 

prairies, but its indirect effects on other grassland 

bird and nontarget mammal species are poorly 

understood. 

Current and future effects of emerging wildlife 

diseases, especially West Nile virus, avian 

influenza, and chronic wasting disease are 

unknown. Efficacy of methods to contain and 

control avian botulism remains a concern. Real and 

perceived threats of wildlife to human transmission 

of some diseases are a concern with the public. 

Water Quality and Management 

Wetland management practices, especially lowering 

water levels (“drawdowns”), can be controversial 

with the public. The role of drawdowns in maintaining 

long-term marsh productivity is poorly understood 

by the public. Refuge visitors see a dry wetland and 

conclude that this condition is not beneficial to 

wildlife. Refuges can do a better job of educating 

the public on the need and benefits of manipulating 

water levels. 

Sustained long-term productivity of riverine marshes 

in the Souris River basin is likely compromised by 

physical modifications of the Souris River (for 

example, dams, channelization, and sedimentation) 

and by political constraints associated with 

management of the river (for example, flood control 

and altered hydroperiod). 

Sedimentation and nonpoint source pollution affect 

water quality and long-term management potential 

of refuge wetlands. The public is interested in 

having a high-quality water source within the 

Souris River basin. Refuge staff is also concerned 

that highly variable water supplies (timing and 

duration of river flows), coupled with increased 

sediment loads associated with flooding and 

wetland drainage within the Souris River basin, 

may hinder wetland management and restoration. 

Public Outreach and Partnerships 

Opportunities are often missed for the public to 

learn about refuges and their management. 

Communication could be enhanced regarding topics 

such as public use opportunities, habitat management, 

water management, and the economic benefits of 

the refuges. 

Partnerships with local schools, universities, special 

interest groups, and state and local governments 

should be strengthened to further education, 

especially experiential learning. 

Opportunities for outreach and partnerships are 

constrained by declining rural populations, 

especially by outmigration of people to urban 

centers outside North Dakota. In addition, few 

nongovernmental organizations exist in North 

Dakota that have an interest in wildlife and habitat. 

 Environmental education at Des Lacs NWR. 

USFWS 

Visitor Service Programs 

Today’s increasingly mobile society is demanding 

greater use of refuges for uses such as hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, and environmental 

education. Increased levels of these uses may exceed 

the capacity at which services can be provided, 

unless refuge staff and budgets also increase.
 

 

 

23 

However, increased visitor service can elevate the 

profile and awareness of refuge-related issues and 

activities. Some requested activities are not allowed 

because they are incompatible with the purpose of 

the refuges (for example, all-terrain vehicle [ATV] 

and snowmobile use). At Upper Souris NWR, 

facilities may be inadequate to accommodate all 

who wish to participate in refuge activities. 

Refuges are probably underused for nonconsumptive 

recreation such as wildlife observation and 

Chapter 2—The Refuges 

photography. These opportunities may increase as 

refuge habitat and wildlife management are enhanced. 

Refuge Operations 

The refuges are currently understaffed and poorly 

funded relative to the scope and responsibility of 

management. Service personnel at national wildlife 

refuges in North Dakota manage more land with 

fewer people than other refuges in the Refuge 

System. 

3 Refuge Resources and Descriptions 


Native prairie clover and coneflowers. 

USFWS Gary Eslinger/

The three refuges lie within the Souris River basin, 

which extends from north-central North Dakota to 

southeastern Saskatchewan and southwestern 

Manitoba. 

The J. Clark Salyer NWR is the largest of the 

three refuges, at 58,700 acres. Upper Souris NWR 

covers 32,092 acres and Des Lacs NWR covers 

19,500 acres. The Souris River basin is in the 

eastern, mesic (moist) subregion of the northern 

mixed-grass prairie, principally within the 

Agropyron-Andropogon-Stipa (needlegrassbluestem-wheatgrass) vegetation association 

(Kuchler 1964, Coupland 1992, Bragg 1995). 

However, the contemporary landscape is 

dominated by annually tilled cropland (see figure 3 

in chapter 1). 

In the late 1880s and early 1890s, Government 

Land Office officials surveyed the basin’s vast 

prairie to guide forthcoming settlement by EuroAmerican homesteaders. The surveyors may have 

unknowingly encountered one of North America’s 

most botanically diverse native grasslands, 

encompassing more than 750 plant species. 

Although characterized by cool-season, mid-height 

grasses, the prairie was mixed grass, because it also 

included widespread tall-grass and short-grass 

prairie elements. These mainly were big bluestem 

communities on low, moist sites and blue grama– 

threadleaf sedge communities on higher, relatively 

dry sites such as sandy or elevated ridges and 

southwest-facing slopes. 

Like other northern mixed-grass prairie, the 

prairie in the Souris River basin evolved with 

interacting grazing and fire disturbances (Higgins 

1986), as well as marked climatic variability (Bragg 

1995). Through the mid-1800s, the Souris River 

basin was a significant, year-round range for bison 

(Hanson 1984) and experienced roughly a 5-year 

fire return interval characteristic of the region 

(Bragg 1995). These major, frequent disturbances 

ended by the early 1900s. Bison had been extirpated, 

and Euro-American homesteaders who settled in 

the basin suppressed fires (Grant and Murphy 

2005). Before settlement, trees mainly had been 

restricted to green ash–American elm woodland 

along the Souris River and on some steep north 

slopes of adjoining major coulees (ravines). Bur oak 
26 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

and quaking aspen brush had occurred on steep, 

fire-protected scarps in the sandhills of present-day 

J. Clark Salyer NWR. However, without frequent 

fire and grazing disturbances, tree and shrub cover 

significantly increased throughout much of the area 

(Grant and Murphy 2005). 

The Souris and Des Lacs rivers are perennial, 

exhibiting many old oxbows, meander scars, and 

channel relicts. Prior to settlement, numerous 

riverine and palustrine (nonflowing, such as ponds 

and marshes) wetlands were maintained by 

periodic overbank flooding. With settlement of the 

region, the Souris and Des Lacs rivers were 

significantly modified (1) by drainage and 

channelization, and (2) by construction of many 

low-head dams along the river to regulate flooding 

and restore wetlands or augment wetland 

management on the three refuges. Because of these 

changes, few natural riverine wetlands remain on 

the Souris River basin refuges. 

Environments and natural resources of the Souris 

River basin refuges are described in the following 

sections: 

Q physical attributes 

Q biological attributes 

Q cultural resources 

Q special management areas 

Q visitor services 

Q socioeconomic environment 

PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES 

This section describes the climate, physiography, 

geology, soils, and water resources of the Souris 

River basin refuges. 

Climate 

Area climate is semi-arid to subhumid continental, 

with average monthly temperatures ranging from 

5°F in January to 68°F in July (USFWS, 

unpublished). There are significant daily and 

annual temperature fluctuations and precipitation 

is erratic. Average annual precipitation (1898–2002) 

is 16–17 inches, most falling as rain during April– 

September. 

The National Climate Data Center has entered into 

a long-term agreement with the Service to install 

and operate one of the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s U.S. Climate 

Reference Network meteorological stations at the 

Des Lacs NWR. The station will provide data on 

long-term climate change in the northern Great 

Plains, as one of a series of meteorological stations. 

The station will be located at the northwest end of 

the refuge, 2.2 miles south of Canada and will 

operate by 2006. 

Physiography, Geology, and Soils 

The physiography (mainly soils and topography) of 

each refuge was uniquely shaped by ice flow 

associated with the Wisconsin lobe of the Laurentide 

Ice Sheet during the end of the Pleistocene Epoch 

(Bluemle 1991). 

The Des Lacs River and upstream portion of the 

Souris River (encompassing Des Lacs NWR and 

Upper Souris NWR) were formed by catastrophic 

meltwater release from two large glacial lakes 

about 10,000 years ago. River channels at Des Lacs 

NWR and Upper Souris NWR were spillways from 

these glacial lakes and thus the refuges (especially 

Des Lacs NWR) are characterized by steep, highrelief valleys roughly 0.7 mile wide and 165 feet 

deep (Lord and Kehew 1990). Soils at Des Lacs 

NWR and Upper Souris NWR are mostly well 

drained, level to steep loams formed in glacial till. 

The Souris Lake Plain characterizes the downstream 

portion of the Souris River drainage (east of Minot, 

North Dakota, including J. Clark Salyer NWR), and 

is the remnant of Glacial Lake Souris (Lord and 

Kehew 1990). The contemporary Souris Lake Plain 

is a flat, deltaic outwash plain, bordered to the 

south and east by sandhills formed from wind and 

wave action of historic Glacial Lake Souris. Soils 

are mostly well drained, level to hilly sandy loams. 

Water Resources 

All three refuges are within the Souris River basin, 

an area encompassing about 24,600 square miles, of 

which 5,500 square miles are in the United States 

(adapted from Laubhan et al. 2003). The United 

States portion of the basin is located within the 

“Central Lowland Province” and is bounded by the 

Souris River (east) and the Missouri Coteau (south 

and west). 

The Souris River, the main watercourse in the 

basin, originates near Weyburn in southeastern 

Saskatchewan and enters the United States in the 

northwest corner of Renville County, North Dakota. 

It flows southeast to Velva, North Dakota, then 

turns north and enters Manitoba northeast of 

Westhope in Bottineau County, North Dakota. The 

river, which is perennial, discharges into the 

Assiniboine River, which discharges into the Red 

River at Winnipeg. The Des Lacs River, a 

perennial stream that originates in southeastern 

Saskatchewan about 2 miles north of the 

international boundary, is the primary tributary of 

the Souris River. 

Prior to settlement, the Souris River valley 

supported numerous riverine and palustrine 

wetlands. The Souris River in many areas was 
 

 

 

 

 

 

broad and deep with a gentle current, according to 

a review by Laubhan et al. (2003). The riverine 

system apparently was very dynamic, 

characterized as sinuous and prone to overbank 

flooding, a view supported by current aerial photos 

and satellite imagery that reveal numerous relict 

meander scars, oxbows, and abandoned channels 

within the valley. 

27 

Ducks settle in a wetland at Upper Souris NWR. 

WS FSU/sliee LrlaDa 

With settlement by Euro-Americans, the Souris 

and Des Lacs rivers were significantly modified by 

drainage and channelization; this was most evident 

at J. Clark Salyer NWR, where major stretches of 

the river were dredged and channelized to promote 

cultivation. River flows were unregulated until the 

1930s, when numerous low-head dams were 

constructed to regulate flooding or to increase 

wetland management capability at the three refuges. 

BIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES 

This section describes the environment, vegetation, 

and characteristic wildlife of the following 

contemporary habitats of the Souris River basin 

refuges: 

Q drift prairie 

Q prairie slope 

Q prairie parkland 

Q sandhills 

Q old cropland 

Q coulee woodland and coulee woodland edge 

Q riparian woodland 

Q meadow 

Q wetland 

Q islands 

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Descriptions 

Acreages of these habitats at the refuges are 

displayed in figure 9, and their general spatial 

distributions are shown on habitat maps for Des 

Lacs NWR (figure 10), J. Clark Salyer NWR 

(figure 11), and Upper Souris NWR (figure 12). 

Detailed information about biological resources of 

the Souris River basin refuges are found in several 

appendixes: 

Q plants (appendix F) 

Q plant group types (appendix G) 

Q birds (appendix H) 

Q birds of conservation concern (appendix I) 

Q mammals (appendix J) 

Q reptiles and amphibians (appendix K) 

Q fishes (appendix L) 

Drift Prairie 

The upland habitat type most commonly shared by 

the Souris River basin refuges is drift prairie, 

collectively comprising about 12% of these refuges 

(figure 9). Due to its level, relatively rich loams, 

drift prairie has been destroyed through 

conversion to agriculture more than other northern 

prairie types, and remnant tracts appear to be 

particularly vulnerable to invasion by smooth 

brome and Kentucky bluegrass (Murphy and Grant 

2005). As such, drift prairie could be considered an 

endangered resource. 

Physical Environment 

Drift prairie is defined as native (“unbroken”) sod 

in relatively deep (5- to 6-inch surface, 10- to 12­

inch subsurface), level to gently rolling (<5% slope), 

loam soils typical of the extensive Drift Plain 

physiographic region (Bluemle 1991). 

There are roughly 3,300–9,500 acres of drift prairie 

per refuge (figure 9). Drift prairie on Des Lacs 

NWR and on J. Clark Salyer NWR consist of 15- to 

20-mile long, 0.2- to 1.2-mile wide tracts along the 

east and west sides of impoundments of the Des 

Lacs or Souris rivers (figures 10 and 11). Compared 

to these extensive, relatively flat tracts, drift prairie 

at Upper Souris NWR typically occurs in isolated, 

gradually sloping patches, interspersed with 

extensive prairie slope and coulee woodland 

habitat. Drift prairie tracts on all three refuges are 

(1) bordered by cropland (dryland farming for small 

grains and oil seeds); (2) annually grazed, privately 

owned drift prairie (40–640 acres); and (3) former 

cropland seeded to varied mixtures of native and 

introduced grasses and forbs, both on and off the 

refuges. 
28 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Figure 9. Contemporary habitat coverage for the Souris River basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Descriptions 29 

Figure 10. Habitats at Des Lacs NWR, North Dakota.
 
30 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

 Figure 11. Habitats at J. Clark Salyer NWR, North Dakota. 

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Descriptions 31 

 Figure 12. Habitats at Upper Souris NWR, North Dakota. 

32 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Drift prairie tracts at Des Lacs NWR and J. Clark 

Salyer NWR have similar management histories 

(Murphy and Grant 2005): 

Q	 From refuge establishment in the mid-1930s 

through the late 1960s, drift prairie at both 

refuges typically was grazed season-long by 

cattle at light- to moderate-stocking rates of 0.3– 

0.7 animal unit months (AUMs) per acre. 

However, at Des Lacs NWR, years of grazing 

often alternated with years of rest. During the 

early 1970s to early 1990s, drift prairie at both 

refuges was rested with increasing frequency to 

emphasize dense, undisturbed nesting cover for 

prairie ducks. About one-third of the prairie at 

Des Lacs NWR was grazed at moderate stocking 

rates under rotation prescriptions during an 

average of two May–September seasons. At J. 

Clark Salyer NWR, grazing was limited to few 

drift prairie tracts. 

Q	 Tracts totaling roughly two-thirds of the drift 

prairie at each refuge were prescribe burned 

(spring or late summer), usually just once, during 

this 20-year period. Only since the early 1990s has 

prescribed fire been used widely and frequently, 

especially at Des Lacs NWR, where nearly all 

drift prairie management units have received 

multiple (two to four) burn treatments. 

USFWS 

The management history of drift prairie at Upper 

Souris NWR is vaguely similar to that at Des Lacs 

NWR and J. Clark Salyer NWR through the 1960s, 

but not afterward, as follows: 

Q	 Drift prairie at Upper Souris NWR was idle 

from the late 1930s through the mid-1940s, and 

then grazed heavily through the mid-1950s. 

Light, season-long grazing and rest prevailed 

through the early 1970s. This was followed by 

rest-rotation grazing, then twice-over rotation 

grazing (late spring and fall grazing periods) 

through the mid-1980s. Since then, a once-over 

grazing treatment with moderate stocking rates 

and grazing periods has been applied annually to 

each upland management unit. 

Q	 Almost no prescribed burning has occurred on 

drift prairie at Upper Souris NWR. Since the 

mid-1990s, an average of only about 800 acres of 

upland habitats of all types has been burned 

annually. 

Characteristic Vegetation 

Parallels in management of the drift prairie at Des 

Lacs NWR and J. Clark Salyer NWR through the 

early 1990s are reflected by strikingly similar 

patterns in composition of the contemporary 

vegetation (Murphy and Grant 2005): 

Q	 The drift prairie flora at both refuges is badly 

degraded by introduced plant species, especially 

the widespread invasion by smooth brome and 

Kentucky bluegrass, although this varies among 

management units. Vegetation dominated by 

introduced species occurs frequently (average 

frequency of occurrence is >60%), while intact 

assemblages of native vegetation occur 

infrequently (3–6%). 

Q Smooth brome-dominated types occur almost 

twice as frequently as Kentucky bluegrassdominated types (at Des Lacs NWR, 40% versus 

22%; at J. Clark Salyer NWR, 32% versus 18%). 

Vegetation dominated by introduced, weedy forb 

species occurs less frequently (2% at Des Lacs 

NWR; 12% at J. Clark Salyer NWR). Such 

vegetation includes leafy spurge (about 80% of 

weedy forb types), sweetclover (10%), and 

Canada thistle (10%). 

Q	 Vegetation dominated by low shrubs, principally 

western snowberry, occurs fairly frequently 

(22% at Des Lacs NWR; 17% at J. Clark Salyer 

NWR), probably greater than it did under a 

natural, historical disturbance regime; for 

example, an estimated 5% low shrub cover 

occurred on pristine mixed-grass prairie in 

northwestern and north-central North Dakota 

(U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1975). 

Snowberry probably was more prevalent on the 

refuge drift prairie 20–30 years ago (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service [USFWS], unpublished 

refuge narrative reports), but has been largely 

replaced by smooth brome. The relatively cool, 

moist sites typically occupied by snowberry 

appear most vulnerable to smooth brome invasion 

(Romo et al. 1990). 

Q	 Smooth brome poses a particularly serious 

management problem on the drift prairie. 

Because it seems more difficult to control than 

other introduced cool-season grasses (Murphy 

and Grant 2005), smooth brome more 

significantly alters the quality and structure of a 

prairie (Blankespoor 1987), and can alter the soil 

environment to further its own invasion (Jordan 

et al., unpublished). 

The plant community of Upper Souris NWR’s drift 

prairie is also badly invaded by introduced plant 
 33 

species and low shrub cover. Intact native, 

herbaceous vegetation occurs as infrequently as on 

the drift prairie at the other two refuges. However, 

differences in makeup of plant species that are 

invading the drift prairie at Upper Souris NWR 

predictably reflect the refuge’s longer grazing 

history and relative lack of fire, as follows: 

Q Intact assemblages of native herbaceous 

vegetation compose <5% of the prairie, similar to 

the other two refuges. 

Q Kentucky bluegrass-dominated types occur 

much more frequently (42% frequency) than 

smooth brome-dominated types (13%), versus 

greater frequency of brome than bluegrass types 

at the other two refuges. 

Q Low shrub-dominated types are more prevalent 

(27% frequency) than on drift prairie at Des Lacs 

NWR and J. Clark Salyer NWR. 

Q Vegetation dominated by introduced, weedy forb 

species occurs infrequently (<1%) on drift prairie 

at Upper Souris NWR. Leafy spurge accounts 

for 90% of this cover. 

Characteristic Wildlife 

The degraded condition of the drift prairie 

vegetation has important implications for 

grassland-dependent bird species. Populations of 

grassland birds are experiencing the most rapid 

declines of any group of bird species in North 

America (Peterjohn and Sauer 1999). Refuges in 

the northern Great Plains potentially serve an 

important role in maintaining representative, 

grassland bird communities. However, the 

diversity of grassland-breeding birds is 

significantly diminished on refuge drift prairie 

(Murphy and Sondreal 2003; Grant et al. 2006). 

Species characteristic of the contemporary drift 

prairie are Savannah sparrow, clay-colored 

sparrow, and bobolink; less common are sharptailed grouse, grasshopper sparrow, and (in 

relatively wet years) Le Conte’s sparrow (figure 13). 

Most bird species characteristic of northern mixedgrass prairie are uncommon or absent, for example, 

marbled godwit, horned lark, western meadowlark, 

Sprague’s pipit, chestnut-collared longspur, and 

Baird’s sparrow (Stewart 1975). The latter three 

species, which are endemic to the northern Great 

Plains, were considered the most common breeding 

birds across the North Dakota–Canada border of 

the Souris River basin in the 1870s (Coues 1878). 

Burrowing owl and ferruginous hawk also were 

characteristic of this northern mixed-grass prairie, 

but have not been recorded as breeding at the 

refuges for decades. 

The communities of grassland bird species that are 

uncommon to absent on the refuges’ drift prairie 

require shorter, sparser, more herbaceous prairie 

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Descriptions 

vegetation than that available. In particular, Sprague’s 

pipit is associated with native bunchgrasses and 

avoids broad-leaved, introduced grasses such as 

smooth brome (Wilson and Belcher 1989, Madden 

et al. 2000, Nenneman 2003, Grant et al. 2004a). 

Losses of plant and bird species diversity are not 

the only consequences when introduced plants 

invade northern prairie. Nutrient pools, energy 

flows, soil invertebrate and mycorrhizal 

relationships, and the water cycle also can be 

altered significantly (Bragg and Steuter 1995, 

Christian and Wilson 1999, Seastedt 1995, Wilson 

2002). Regardless of vegetation conditions, some 

species such as northern harrier may avoid narrow 

tracts of drift prairie bordered by cropland simply 

because they need broader grassland tracts 

(Johnson and Igl 2001). For example, territories of 

the harrier may cover 250–500 acres (Bildstein and 

Gollop 1988). 

mixed-grass prairie known as the “Missouri Coteau,” 

habitat and species diversity of grassland birds has 

been largely restored by applying multiple prescribed 

burns (Madden et al. 1999). A recent study of 

relationships between bird species abundances and 

fire history at Des Lacs NWR suggests, however, 

that habitat and birds may not respond similarly to 

reintroduction of fire to drift prairie (Ludwick and 

Murphy 2006). The three endemic, historically 

common, songbird species (Baird’s sparrow, chestnutcollared longspur, and Sprague’s pipit) continue to 

be rare or absent on drift prairie at Des Lacs NWR 

regardless of fire history. Abundances of common 

bird species appear uninfluenced by fire, perhaps 

 The Savannah sparrow is a common nesting species at 

 the refuges. 

Dave Menke/USFWS 

In an adjacent, rolling to hilly region of northern 
34 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Figure 13. Frequency of occurrence of common breeding bird species in major upland habitats at Des Lacs 

NWR, North Dakota, following several dry years (1994; yellow bars) and wet years (2001; blue bars). 

Species include: American goldfinch (AMGO), bobolink (BOBO), brown-headed cowbird (BHCO), cedar waxwing (CEDW), claycolored sparrow (CCSP), common yellowthroat (COYE), eastern kingbird (EAKI), grasshopper sparrow (GRSP), gray catbird 

(GRCA), house wren (HOWR), least flycatcher (LEFL), Le Conte’s sparrow (LCSP), mourning dove (MODO), red-eyed vireo (REVI), 

Savannah sparrow (SAVS), sedge wren (SEWR), song sparrow (SOSP), spotted towhee (SPTO), vesper sparrow (VESP), willow 

flycatcher (WIFL), and yellow warbler (YEWA). Modified from Murphy and Sondreal (2003). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Descriptions 35 

because smooth brome is so pervasive and has a 

pronounced influence on habitat structure for at 

least several bird species. Greater treatment 

frequency and integration of alternate tools, chiefly 

livestock grazing, could possibly improve the 

structure to attract a broader mix of grassland 

songbirds, including endemic species. 

Still, the quality of grassland habitat for grassland 

birds is not necessarily reflected simply by bird 

abundance. Often there are tradeoffs to consider 

when reintroducing major habitat disturbances 

such as fire and grazing; short-term losses should 

be weighed against net gains over longer periods. 

For example, management treatments might 

influence the survival of grassland bird nests, 

directly through livestock trampling, or indirectly 

via increased predation or brood parasitism rates, 

when nest site vegetation is modified by fire or 

grazing. These potential management influences 

have been assessed recently on drift prairie on the 

refuges. The density of songbird nests declines 

during the first growing season following a 

prescribed fire. However, no strong relationship 

was detected between the survival of nests of three 

grassland songbird species and the time since the 

last fire (1, 2, 3, or >4 years) at J. Clark Salyer 

NWR, except that parasitism of nests by brownheaded cowbirds was greater during the first 

growing season following a fire for Savannah 

sparrows and may have decreased nest survival 

(Grant et al., in review). The probability of Savannah 

sparrow nests surviving at Des Lacs NWR declined 

when cattle were present at moderate stocking 

densities, but no such relationship was evident for 

clay-colored sparrow nests in the same 

management units (Kerns 2005). Cattle trampling 

accounted for only 1% and 3% of all nest failures for 

the two species, respectively. 

The quality of drift prairie as habitat for grassland 

birds also may be influenced by occurrences of 

trees and tall shrubs. Historically, the drift prairie 

landscape of the Souris River basin was open and 

treeless, but trees appeared and increased across 

much of the area during the 1900s (Grant and 

Murphy 2005). Trees and tall shrubs effectively 

fragment this landscape, rendering it unsuitable for 

most grassland-bird species (Grant et al. 2004a). 

There are almost no trees or tall shrubs on the 

contemporary drift prairie at J. Clark Salyer 

NWR. Most drift prairie at Des Lacs NWR and 

Upper Souris NWR has either (1) widely scattered, 

stunted trees or tall shrubs, or (2) borders of 

natural woodland or planted tree and shrub 

shelterbelts. Some drift prairie tracts in the 

northern half of Des Lacs NWR also have one or 

more groves of quaking aspen and, therefore, are 

more aptly classified as aspen parkland habitat. 

Much of the tall, woody cover at Des Lacs NWR 

currently is being reduced by prescribed fire. An 

analysis of recent data from the refuge suggests 

that the survival of clay-colored sparrow nests 

declines with increasing amounts of surrounding 

tree and tall shrub cover, but survival of Savannah 

sparrow nests appears unaffected (Murphy et al., 

unpublished [b]). Tall woody cover on the drift 

prairie at Upper Souris NWR—where prescribed 

fire has not been applied frequently or extensively 

and trees and tall shrubs are much more 

widespread—is likely to reduce the occurrence and 

productivity of at least some grassland songbird 

species. 

Many duck species use drift prairie at the refuges 

as nesting cover. For example, blue-winged teal, 

gadwall, mallard, northern shoveler, and northern 

pintail nests composed 95% (in decreasing order) of 

duck nests discovered at J. Clark Salyer NWR 

during 1998–2003. Nesting density and nest success 

varies among years and among the refuges. Ducks 

nest at greater densities on the drift prairie at J. 

Clark Salyer NWR than on drift prairie at the other 

refuges. Regardless, the density and fate of duck 

nests in northern prairie may be affected by 

grassland management practices such as 

prescribed fire and grazing (for example, Kruse 

and Bowen 1996). On drift prairie at J. Clark Salyer 

NWR during 1998–2003, duck nest densities were 

reduced during the first growing season following a 

fire, but recovered 2–3 years postfire. Nest 

survival for mallard and gadwall was greater during 

the first post-fire growing season than in subsequent 

years, but was unaffected by fire for other duck 

species regardless of how recently fire had 

occurred (Grant et al., in review). The density and 

survival of nests of prairie ducks are believed to be 

greatest on rested grasslands (Naugle et al. 2000). 

Beginning in 1970, rest (nondisturbance: no grazing, 

haying, or fire) was emphasized as a management 

approach to increase densities of duck nests in 

uplands at the Souris River basin refuges. In the 

short term (2–20 years), greater vertical structure 

may be maintained in northern grasslands that are 

rested. The structure of such idle vegetation is 

believed to be more important than plant species 

composition when the management goal is 

waterfowl production (Schranck 1972, Naugle et al. 

2000). However, management that emphasizes rest 

has long-term implications for prairie duck nesting 

habitat that often are overlooked in short-term 

management studies, because continuous idling 

without periodic defoliation disturbance fails to 

promote long-term grassland health (Naugle et al. 

2000). With extended rest, introduced grasses, 

especially smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass, 

may more rapidly displace native vegetation 

(Murphy and Grant 2005). Of particular concern is 

replacement of western snowberry communities 

(see previous) by smooth brome, which is less 

attractive to ducks, short-eared owls, northern 

harrier, and grassland songbirds. Monotypic stands 
 

of smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass are less 

attractive to upland-nesting ducks than other types 

of grass-forb cover (Kemner and Higgins 1993, 

Nenneman 2003a). Duck nest survival, although 

highly variable among years, can decrease for 

grasslands idled >5 years (Miller 1971). 

Conspicuously absent from the refuges’ drift prairie 

is the Richardson’s ground squirrel, which typically 

occupies open, heavily grazed grasslands. 

Historically, its colonies extended across the northern 

Great Plains north and east of the Missouri River 

(Jones et al. 1983). Burrows created by 

Richardson’s ground squirrel continue to be key 

nest site habitat for burrowing owls in most of 

North Dakota, a state where the owl’s breeding 

population is declining (Murphy et al. 2001). The 

ground squirrel occurs on some annually grazed, 

privately owned drift prairie tracts adjacent to the 

refuges and could colonize the refuge drift prairie 

where the height of vegetation was reduced by 

burning and frequent grazing. 

Other vertebrate fauna characteristic 

of the contemporary refuge drift 

prairie include chorus frog,
 

plains garter snake, masked

shrew, meadow vole, 


thirteen-lined
 

ground squirrel, 


deer mouse, and 


meadow jumping 


mouse (Eddingsaas et al. 


2007; Kadrmas, unpublished). 


Coyote, white-tailed jackrabbit,


and northern pocket gopher are
 

less common. 


 


Prairie Slope 

Prairie slope occurs at Des Lacs NWR, at Upper 

Souris NWR, and minimally at J. Clark Salyer 

NWR. Prairie slope, especially the southwestfacing slopes, supports some of the most pristine 

native flora in the Souris River basin and is thus a 

highly valued resource. 

Physical Environment 

Prairie slope is defined as native sod hillside that 

covers at least a 25-foot elevation gain and 

generally is characterized by a 25–60% slope. Such 

slopes typify the transition from the level Drift 

Plain down to the valley floor at Des Lacs NWR 

and at Upper Souris NWR. At J. Clark Salyer NWR, 

prairie slope is poorly developed, and the transition 

from drift prairie to valley floor instead is 

represented by very short hillsides. 

Prairie slope accounts for 22% of the total area of 

Des Lacs NWR (figure 9). Slopes on the southern 

half of the refuge cover a 100- to 170-foot rise; 

slopes on the northern half are shorter, covering 

36 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

only a 50- to 70-foot rise from the valley floor to the 

Drift Plain. Soils on the refuge’s slopes are thin 

(“A” horizon, 1–4 inches deep), well-drained loams 

formed in glacial till. For at least 60 years, prairie 

slope at Des Lacs NWR had been managed mainly 

by rest—there had been occasional light grazing by 

cattle and perhaps a single prescribed fire, a history 

identical to that of the adjoining, level drift prairie 

(Murphy and Grant 2005). 

At Upper Souris NWR, prairie slope is the most 

widespread upland habitat, comprising 35% of the 

refuge (figure 9). Physical characteristics of prairie 

slope at the refuge are roughly similar to those of 

this habitat at Des Lacs NWR, except that slopes 

are more gradual at Upper Souris NWR. Since the 

mid-1900s, prairie slope at Upper Souris NWR 

generally has been managed along with adjoining 

drift prairie by light grazing interspersed with long 

periods of rest and little or no fire. 

Characteristic Vegetation 

Slope aspect (the direction toward which it is 

oriented) can have significant implications for plant 

species composition. At Des Lacs NWR, it is 

important to distinguish between southwest-facing 

prairie slope and northwest- to southeast-facing 

prairie slope (aspect, 180–270° versus 280–170°). 

Southwest-facing prairie slope at the refuge 

supports some of the most pristine native flora in 

the Souris River basin and thus is a highly valued 

resource. The steep southwest aspect fosters a hot, 

arid, sunlight-rich environment for plant growth. 

This favors many xerophytic (dry-site loving), 

native plant species, but is hostile to most 

introduced plant species such as smooth brome. 

Competition is fierce among individual plants for 

crucial resources in the thin soils, especially for 

moisture. Compared to the refuges’ drift prairie, 

litter apparently accumulates slowly on southwestfacing prairie slope, and the native-dominated plant 

community may remain relatively stable over 

decades with little management intervention. 

Native, warm-season grasses are far better 

Thirteen-lined 

ground squirrel. 

© Cindie Brunner 

Steep, southwest slopes characterize the east sides of 

valleys at Des Lacs NWR and Upper Souris NWR. 

S WUSFp/pacy WhiSt
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Descriptions 37 

represented among the flora of southwest-facing 

prairie slopes at Des Lacs NWR than they are in 

northwest- to southeast-facing slopes and drift 

prairie. This provides a broader overall plant 

phenology and thus more effective competition 

against introduced cool-season grasses. 

More intact assemblages of native plant species, 

especially grasses, sedges, and forbs, characterize 

prairie slope at Des Lacs NWR. For example, an 

average of about two-thirds of the southwestfacing prairie slope is noninvaded, native 

herbaceous vegetation, compared to only 6% on the 

adjoining drift prairie (Murphy et al., unpublished [b]). 

Dominant grasses and sedges of southwest-facing 

slopes in the refuge include the following species 

(from upper to lower slopes): 

blue grama 

threadleaf sedge 

plains muhly 

needle and thread 

prairie sandreed 

prairie Junegrass 

native bluegrasses (two species) 

green needlegrass 

native wheatgrasses (several species) 

sideoats grama 

little bluestem 

porcupine grass 

Kentucky bluegrass 

big bluestem 

smooth brome 

Tall shrubs and trees occur infrequently on 

southwest-facing slopes; these mostly are 

chokecherry, Saskatoon serviceberry, and stunted 

green ash trees. 

Northwest- to southeast-facing slopes at Des Lacs 

NWR are relatively cooler, darker, and moister 

than southwest-facing slopes. These areas tend to 

be more successfully invaded by introduced plants 

(for example, smooth brome) and native woody 

plant species (Murphy et al., unpublished [b]). 

Much of this slope is woodland edge habitat, 

distributed mainly along the west side of the river 

valley (described and discussed in more detail under 

 “Coulee Woodland and Coulee Woodland Edge”). 

Prairie slope at Upper Souris NWR is less pristine 

that at Des Lacs NWR. This is probably due in part 

to subtle contrasts in their general management 

history, but also to differences in the steepness of 

slopes at the two refuges. Frequent light grazing 

by cattle, interspersed with long periods of rest 

and little fire, tend to further the spread of 

introduced cool-season grasses (especially 

Kentucky bluegrass), plus hasten invasion by low 

shrubs, tall shrubs, and trees. The average 

frequency of vegetation dominated by Kentucky 

bluegrass and woody plants is 32% and 28% 

respectively, versus about 20% for each plant 

group type at Des Lacs NWR. 

Regardless, native herbaceous vegetation is more 

intact on prairie slope than on adjoining drift 

prairie at Upper Souris NWR (13–15% pristine 

native vegetation on prairie slopes versus <5% on 

drift prairie). 

In contrast with Des Lacs NWR, plant species 

composition on southwest-facing slopes at Upper 

Souris NWR appears to be quite similar to that on 

the refuge’s northwest- to southeast-facing slopes. 

This may be partly because Kentucky bluegrass is 

a significant invader of upland native prairie at 

Upper Souris NWR regardless of aspect. For 

example, plant communities characterized solely by 

native herbaceous vegetation make up 15% and 

13% respectively, of southwest-facing and 

northwest- to southeast-facing slopes; vegetation 

dominated by Kentucky bluegrass makes up 33% 

and 31%. During sampling of prairie slope 

vegetation, scattered patches of tall woody 

vegetation (such as chokecherry, Saskatoon 

serviceberry, northern hawthorn, and green ash 

saplings and trees) generally were avoided, such 

that woody cover probably is much more prevalent 

on northwest- to southeast-facing slopes at Upper 

Souris NWR than conveyed here. 

Characteristic Wildlife 

Several more songbird species are commonly found 

on prairie slope than are found on drift prairie 

(figure 13), although the overall density of 

songbirds probably is less on prairie slope. At Des 

Lacs NWR, southwest-facing prairie slope is the 

most important habitat for vesper sparrow and 

grasshopper sparrow. Upper slopes are about the 

only place on the refuge where the endemic 

Sprague’s pipit currently occurs, albeit uncommonly. 

Most common bird species on southwest-facing 

prairie slope (such as vesper sparrow and song 

sparrow) are associated with the sparse, widely 

scattered, tall woody vegetation. 

No corresponding data are summarized for the 

breeding bird community of prairie slope at Upper 

Souris NWR, but the general makeup of the bird 

community probably is similar to that on prairie 

slope at Des Lacs NWR. There likely is potential 

for a significant amount of breeding habitat for 

Sprague’s pipit if upper prairie slopes are restored 

at Upper Souris NWR. 

Prairie Parkland 

Prairie parkland occurs only at J. Clark Salyer 

NWR, occupying about 16% of the refuge (figure 9). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Physical Environment 

Prairie parkland is an island of mixed-grass prairie 

and woodland habitat occurring within the Souris 

Lake Plain physiographic subregion (Bottineau, 

McHenry, and Pierce counties). The Souris Lake 

Plain is a flat, deltaic outwash plain, bordered to 

the south and east by sandhills formed from wind 

and wave action of historic Glacial Lake Souris 

(Bluemle 1991). Soils are mostly sand, gravel, and 

clay; water drainage is good in sandy soils but poor 

near the Souris River. The water table is close to 

the surface in sandy soils, especially during years 

of above average precipitation. 

Lands in and adjacent to J. Clark Salyer NWR 

constitute one of the largest, contiguous patches of 

northern mixed-grass prairie remaining in North 

America (about 1 million acres). The refuge is 

bordered to the south mainly by native rangeland. 

Some cropland (dryland farming for small grains), 

hay land (seeded alfalfa and native meadows), and 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands 

seeded to grasses and forbs border the refuge to 

the west and east. 

Characteristic Vegetation 

Aspen-oak woodland accounts for 38% of the 

contemporary prairie parkland. Low shrubs and 

tall shrubs collectively account for about 10% 

cover, with the remainder (52%) occurring as 

grasses, upland sedges, and forbs. About 15% of 

these grass-forb communities are in pristine 

condition; 28% are partially degraded (where 

native plants occur codominant with introduced 

plants), and 33% are badly degraded by invasive 

plants, being dominated by introduced species of 

grasses and forbs. Kentucky bluegrass is the 

dominant invasive plant, accounting for about 28% 

of the grass-forb cover. Other, introduced plant 

species include smooth brome (3% cover), leafy 

spurge (<2% cover), yellow sweetclover (<1% 

cover), and crested wheatgrass (<1% cover). 

Native prairie is a mix of warm- and cool-season 

grasses and forbs. Dominant cool-season grasses 

include prairie Junegrass, western wheatgrass, 

porcupine grass, green needlegrass, and various 

species of upland sedges. Warm-season grasses 

include sand bluestem, little bluestem, blue grama, 

prairie sandreed, and sand dropseed. Grasslands 

are interspersed with low (<3 feet) shrub 

dominated by western snowberry and 

meadowsweet, plus tall (>3 feet) shrub dominated 

by chokecherry and willow. Quaking aspen and bur 

oak are the dominant tree species in woodland. 

Woodland understory shrubs include western 

snowberry, chokecherry, Saskatoon serviceberry, 

and redosier dogwood. Ground cover is dominated 

by poison ivy, wild sarsaparilla, false Solomon’s 

seal, and various species of grasses and sedges. 

Expansion of aspen-oak woodland into native 

prairie remains the most serious threat to the 

prairie parkland. Prior to settlement, the extent of 

this woodland was limited, occurring as stunted 

groves of quaking aspen and bur oak along fireprotected scarps of sandhills or near wetland 

margins. The extent of aspen-oak woodland has 

doubled since 1938 and now account for almost 40% 

of the prairie parkland landscape (Grant and 

Murphy 2005). Aspen-oak woodland initially 

increased due to fire suppression, extirpation of 

bison and elk, and annual cattle grazing at low to 

moderate stocking rates (reviewed in Grant and 

Murphy 2005). Long-term rest (that is, limited 

grazing and burning) is implicated in more recent 

expansion of this woodland. 

 © Cindie Brunner 

Kentucky bluegrass is the most widespread 

introduced grass in the prairie parkland, occurring 

codominant with native grasses and forbs. 

Kentucky bluegrass increases under prolonged rest 

or with grazing in northern prairie, but generally 

decreases with fire (reviewed in Murphy and Grant 

2005). From 1890 to 1960, the prairie parkland was 

annually grazed, season-long, at light to moderate 

stocking rates (0.3–0.7 AUM/acre). Beginning in 

1970, the extent, frequency, and intensity of 

grazing were reduced to emphasize nesting cover 

for waterfowl and sharp-tailed grouse. Since 1890, 

natural fires were suppressed; cultivation and road 

building helped limit the spread of fires. Prescribed 

fire was used opportunistically from 1960 until 1990, 

with one or two burns applied on a few prairie 

parkland, management units. Since 1992, prescribed 

fire has been used with greater frequency; one to 

four burns have been applied to control woody 

vegetation and Kentucky bluegrass at each of 

several units ranging from 300 to 1,200 acres. 

Leafy spurge, an introduced forb, is an aggressive 

invader of prairie on sandy soils and poses a 

significant long-term threat to prairie parkland. 

Leafy spurge spreads into prairie parkland mainly 

from sandhills, where it is a more serious problem. 

Biological control with flea beetles (Apthona spp.) 

has not been effective on sandy soils characteristic 

of the prairie parkland. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Descriptions 39 

Characteristic Wildlife 

Changes in vegetation of the prairie parkland since 

the 1870s have implications for the diversity and 

abundance of breeding birds, especially grasslanddependent species. These species were historically 

the most important bird guild in the region (Coues 

1878). Grassland species characteristic of the 

contemporary prairie parkland include sharp-tailed 

grouse, vesper sparrow, clay-colored sparrow, 

Sprague’s pipit, upland sandpiper, and grasshopper 

sparrow (Grant et al. 2004a, in press). Less common 

are blue-winged teal, mallard, northern pintail, 

horned lark, eastern kingbird, common nighthawk, 

and (in wet years) bobolink. Several species 

characteristic of the region are rare or absent, for 

example, Savannah sparrow, chestnut-collared 

longspur, western meadowlark, and Baird’s sparrow. 

Invasion of prairie by aspen woodland profoundly 

changes the breeding bird community of the prairie 

parkland. As woodland expands, edge and 

woodland bird species displace grassland birds 

(figure 14). 

Q	 Occurrence decreases markedly for 11 of 15 

grassland bird species (including three species 

endemic to the northern Great Plains—Baird’s 

sparrow, chestnut-collared longspur, and 

Sprague’s pipit) as percent woodland, tall shrub, or 

brush cover increases (Grant et al. 2004a). 

Effects are intensified as the height of woody 

plants increases from low shrubs to tall shrubs to 

trees. Prairie parkland becomes largely 

unsuitable for nine grassland bird species as 

woodland cover exceeds 25%. 

Q	 Except for clay-colored sparrow, vesper sparrow, 

Sprague’s pipit, and upland sandpiper, few 

grassland bird species nest in prairie parkland 

(Grant et al. 2006). Contrary to expectations, 

nest predation and brood parasitism rates are 

lower near woodland edges than for nests placed 

far from woodland, at least for clay-colored and 

vesper sparrows (Grant et al. 2006). 

Q	 Sharp-tailed grouse also use prairie parkland 

habitat for nesting and brood rearing and for 

winter food and cover. However, when woodland 

cover increases above a certain threshold, grouse 

will abandon lek sites (spring dancing grounds) 

where males gather to display to and breed with 

females (Berger and Baydack 1992, Hanowski et 

al. 2000). At least 10–12 historical leks have been 

I---------Hairy woodpecker----------I 

I-------Black-and-white warbler------I 

I-------------------Veery-----------------------I 

I----------------Ovenbird---------------------------I

 I--------------Red-eyed vireo----------------I
 

I-------------Grey catbird--------------I

 I----Eastern kingbird----I
 

I---------Vesper sparrow---------I 

I-----------Clay-colored sparrow--------------------I 

 I-------------Sprague's pipit-------------------I

 I----------U pland sandpiper----------I

 I----------Grasshopper sparrow------I 

I----------Bobolink------------------I 

I--Chestnut-collared longspur--I

 I------Baird's sparrow-----I 

I--Savannah sparrow--I 

Figure 14. Distribution of breeding songbird species in relationship to the proportion of woodland (in green) 

and grassland (in yellow) within prairie parkland at J. Clark Salyer NWR, North Dakota. (Large, aspen–oak 

woodland patches are represented at the far left and large, treeless grasslands are represented at the far right.) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

abandoned at J. Clark Salyer NWR since 1950 

because of woodland expansion (Grant and 

Hammond, unpublished). 

Q Several grassland bird species (for example, 

chestnut-collared longspur, horned lark, and 

Sprague’s pipit) are particularly sensitive to the 

quality of remaining prairie. Their occurrence 

declines when nonnative plants, especially 

smooth brome, replace native grasses and forbs 

(Wilson and Belcher 1989, Madden et al. 2000, 

Grant et al. 2004a). 

At least 50 breeding bird species are associated 

with aspen-oak woodland at J. Clark Salyer NWR 

(Grant and Berkey 1999). Large woodland patches 

support more diverse bird communities than smaller 

or more isolated woodlands, especially areasensitive, forest-interior species. Large contiguous 

patches of aspen woodland account for a significant 

portion of the contemporary prairie parkland 

landscape; restoration of these heavily invaded 

sites (former grasslands) is no longer feasible. 

Woodland contributes to local avian diversity and 

may provide habitat for forest species that have 

shown regional or continental population declines 

such as red-eyed vireo, rose-breasted grosbeak, 

veery, and ovenbird. Large (40- to 500-acre) 

woodlands provide suitable habitat for areasensitive woodland bird species, while also meeting 

the requirements of habitat generalists such as 

brown thrasher, catbird, yellow warbler, and 

American goldfinch. The converse is not true; small 

woodland patches do not support the high number 

or diversity of bird species that large woodland 

patches do. Of the more than 50 bird species 

recorded in aspen-oak woodland, none appears 

restricted to small patches and most use the edges 

of larger woodland patches. These findings suggest 

that small woodland patches may be removed (for 

example, for grassland restoration) without 

adversely affecting overall use of woodland by 

forest birds. Meanwhile, removal of the small 

patches significantly improves availability of 

habitat for several species of grassland songbirds 

(Grant and Berkey 1999). 

The species makeup of mammal communities also 

changes with the transition from open grassland to 

the grassland-woodland edge to woodland interior 

habitats. The meadow vole, thirteen-lined ground 

squirrel, plains pocket mouse, short-tailed shrew, 

western jumping mouse, masked shrew, arctic 

shrew, and pygmy shrew prefer open prairie 

habitat, while the deer mouse, red-backed vole, fox 

squirrel, snowshoe hare, red squirrel, and raccoon 

prefer woodland and woodland edge habitat 

(Kadrmas 2005). The relative abundance of small 

mammal species can fluctuate significantly from 

year to year, even from month to month (for 

example, increased juvenile dispersal during late 

summer), or following a disturbance such as fire. 

 White-tailed deer. 

WS Gary Eslinger/USF

Large mammals such as moose, white-tailed deer, 

coyote, and red fox are more flexible in their 

selection of habitats and can range widely, rarely 

restricted to a certain habitat type. Other 

important vertebrates include chorus frog, wood 

frog, and plains garter snake. 

Sandhills 

The sandhills cover about 5% of J. Clark Salyer NWR 

(figure 9). 

Physical Environment 

The sandhills occur within flat sandy plains 

occupied by more extensive prairie parkland. 

Embedded in this plain are a series of northeast- to 

southwest-oriented sand ridges with relief of 50–80 

feet. These ridges were formed from wind and 

waves acting on sediments deposited on the floor of 

Glacial Lake Souris (Bluemle 1991). Soils are 

mostly sand and gravel. Management history and 

surrounding land use are similar to descriptions for 

the prairie parkland. 

Characteristic Vegetation 

The sandhills’ prairies are a mix of warm- and coolseason grasses and forbs. Dominant cool-season 

plants include prairie Junegrass, green 

needlegrass, and various species of upland sedges. 

Warm-season grasses include sand bluestem, little 

bluestem, blue grama, prairie sandreed, and sand 

dropseed. Grasslands are interspersed with low (<3 

feet) shrub dominated by western snowberry and 

Woods’ rose, and tall (>3 feet) shrub dominated by 

chokecherry, hawthorn, and Saskatoon serviceberry. 

North and east aspects of sand ridges are often 

dominated by bur oak. Aspen woodland has 

invaded the transition from oak to prairie at the toe 

of these slopes and occurs as stunted or widely 

scattered woodland patches. Woodland and tall 

shrub cover is extensive in some areas. 

The contemporary composition of the sandhills is 

woodland (20% cover), tall shrub (12% cover), and 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

41 

low shrub (8% cover), with the remainder occurring 

as grasses and forbs. The extent of aspen woodland 

has increased since refuge establishment and is 

now twice that of bur oak woodland (13% versus 

7%). Some of the best representative examples of 

northern mixed-grass prairie are found growing on 

sandy soils and harsh sandhill aspects. About 35% 

of the grass-forb cover is in pristine condition 

(having no introduced species and relatively little 

native, woody vegetation). However, about 20% of 

the grass-forb cover has been replaced by invasive, 

introduced plants, primarily leafy spurge and to a 

lesser extent, Kentucky bluegrass. Only 5% of the 

grass-forb vegetation is partially degraded by 

invasive plants. This suggests that once invasion 

has occurred, especially by leafy spurge, native 

grasses and forbs are quickly and completely 

displaced. 

Less than 1% of the sandhills are nonvegetated. 

Early descriptions and aerial photographs from 

1938 suggest that sand blowouts were more 

common than today. Heavy disturbance by grazing 

and wallowing bison, and later by cattle, likely 

maintained many of these blowouts, especially on 

south- and west-facing aspects. 

The sandhills at J. Clark Salyer NWR in fall. 

USFWS / Gary Eslinger

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Descriptions 

As in the prairie parkland, encroachment by trees 

and tall shrubs poses a serious threat to the 

sandhills. Changes in the extent of aspen-oak 

woodland and rationale for these changes are 

similar to descriptions for the prairie parkland. 

Leafy spurge is the most serious long-term threat 

to the integrity of the sandhills. Leafy spurge 

currently dominates 17% of the nonwoodland 

cover. Biological control using flea beetles 

(Apthona spp.) has yet to be effective on sandy 

soils characteristic of the sandhills. Furthermore, 

vehicle access to the sandhills is limited, rendering 

efforts to control leafy spurge using chemicals 

unrealistic. Soil disturbance by cattle and fire can 

hasten the expansion of leafy spurge, potentially 

limiting the use of these tools to control expansions 

of woody vegetation and Kentucky bluegrass. 

Characteristic Wildlife 

The contemporary bird community of the sandhills 

includes grassland species that tolerate trees and 

tall shrubs. Important species include clay-colored 

sparrow, vesper sparrow, and Sprague’s pipit. 

Conversely, other grassland bird species such as 

upland sandpiper and grasshopper sparrow are 

intolerant of tall, woody vegetation and thus avoid 

much sandhill habitat on the refuge (Grant and 

Berkey 1999). 

Woodland edge and shrub land species include 

black-billed magpie, black-billed cuckoo, brown 

thrasher, and lark sparrow. Black-and-white 

warbler and orange-crowned warbler have an 

affinity for bur oak and are commonly found in 

closed-canopy stands on the northeast aspect of sand 

ridges (Grant and Berkey 1999). Resident forest 

species (such as hairy woodpecker and blackcapped chickadee) and Neotropical migrant forest 

species (such as red-eyed vireo, rose-breasted 

grosbeak, veery, and ovenbird) use larger 

woodland patches. 

Important small and mid-sized mammals of the 

sandhills include masked shrew, pygmy shrew, redbacked vole, meadow vole, deer mouse, Franklin’s 

ground squirrel, thirteen-lined ground squirrel, 

northern pocket gopher, porcupine, and North 

American badger (Kadrmas 2005). 

Old Cropland 

Old cropland occurs at all three Souris River basin 

refuges, roughly covering 10%, 13%, and 5% 

respectively of Des Lacs NWR, J. Clark Salyer 

NWR, and Upper Souris NWR. 

Physical Environment and Characteristic 

Vegetation 

Old cropland includes areas cultivated before 

refuge establishment, usually on the Drift Plain, 

into which perennial grasses and forbs have been 

seeded to provide relatively tall, dense cover 

mainly for nesting by mallards and other ducks. 

The general term “seeded herbaceous cover” 

includes old cropland areas into which dense 

nesting cover or native grass mixtures were known 

to have been seeded at least once during the past 

25 years. 

Old cropland also includes previously cultivated 

tracts allowed to revert to herbaceous cover (“goback” prairie). These reverted areas of old cropland 

are particularly extensive at J. Clark Salyer NWR. 

However, distinguishing go-back prairie from 

badly degraded drift prairie can be difficult based on 

plant species composition. Signs of soil surface 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

42 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

disturbance or other physical evidence of tillage 

often are subtle. Definitive inventories generally 

have not been completed. 

Typically, introduced species of grasses and forbs 

are used to reseed old cropland—intermediate 

wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass, and alfalfa or 

sweetclover or both (Duebbert et al. 1981, Higgins 

and Barker 1982). This seed mixture commonly is 

referred to as “dense nesting cover” (DNC). DNC 

is relatively inexpensive to establish, but has a 

limited lifespan—providing cover attractive to 

nesting ducks for perhaps only 6–8 years after 

seeding (Higgins and Barker 1982). Stand 

structure and vigor often can be rejuvenated and 

the life of the stand extended several years through 

periodic hay harvest, prescribed burning, or 

grazing. Regardless, stands of DNC respond less 

favorably to management treatment about 12–15 

years after establishment. Typically, these areas 

are then cultivated and farmed for 2–3 years, then 

reseeded. For this reason, stands of introduced 

cover are considered semipermanent (Higgins and 

Barker 1982). 

Nearly all old cropland at Des Lacs NWR is under 

the typical DNC rotation of seeding–managing– 

farming–seeding. Roughly one-half of old cropland 

identified on the Drift Plain at J. Clark Salyer 

NWR has been seeded during the past 25 years 

into DNC, or (more recently) native grasses, or 

both. Most old cropland at Upper Souris NWR was 

seeded into DNC 15–25 years ago. During the same 

time, other old cropland on the refuge was seeded 

into native grasses. Regardless of whether native 

grasses were “interseeded” or seeded into 

cultivated seedbeds, old cropland at Upper Souris 

NWR now is covered by invasive, introduced 

grasses and native grass species are no longer 

evident. 

Stands of native grasses are expensive to establish 

in old cropland, mainly due to seed costs, but they 

have the advantage of being permanent if 

successfully established. In the early 1980s, native 

grasses were seeded into some old cropland areas 

at Upper Souris NWR, and were “interseeded” 

into several DNC areas at the refuge. Regardless 

of seeding history, native grass species are no 

longer evident on these areas. In recent years at 

J. Clark Salyer NWR, warm- and cool-season 

native grasses sometimes have been seeded into old 

cropland instead of introduced plant species 

typically used in DNC. 

On the Souris River basin refuges, seeded 

herbaceous cover, whether composed of DNC or 

native species, tends to be rapidly degraded by 

undesirable, introduced plant species (especially 

smooth brome, quackgrass, Canada thistle, and 

leafy spurge). Smooth brome, in particular, 

becomes pervasive and significantly compromises 

stand structure. Management treatments that 

discourage undesirable, introduced cool-season 

plants (such as smooth brome) also tend to 

discourage the desirable, seeded, introduced coolseason grasses due to closely overlapping 

phenology. Application of herbicides to control 

noxious weeds (for example, leafy spurge and 

Canada thistle) can significantly reduce cover of 

alfalfa and sweetclover. Seeded stands dominated 

by warm-season grasses, typically big bluestem, 

switchgrass, and Indiangrass, may provide 

considerably broader latitude for control of 

undesirable cool-season plants. For example, 

prescribed fire ineffectively controls smooth brome 

in cool-season-dominated grasslands when few 

(<20% cover) warm-season plants are available to 

compete (Willson and Stubbendieck 2000). When 

warm-season plants are more common; however, 

smooth brome can be reduced by late spring 

burning when brome is most actively growing. 

Characteristic Wildlife 

Cover provided by plants seeded in old cropland 

generally is taller and denser than that on native sod 

at the Souris River basin refuges. However, this 

cover may not necessarily provide more secure 

nest site habitat for prairie ducks. At Des Lacs 

NWR during 2001–2003, the average annual success 

of duck nests discovered in DNC was similar to 

that in drift prairie (annual range 12–20% versus 12– 

34% [Mayfield estimate; Johnson 1979]). 

Survival of nests in DNC at Des Lacs NWR was 

within an estimated 15–20% considered necessary 

to maintain stable duck populations in the region 

(Cowardin et al. 1985). The variety of duck species 

that nest in DNC was less than in drift prairie, 

however; an average of five and seven species were 

represented annually in the two habitats at Des 

Lacs NWR. Mallard nests composed most nests 

found in the seeded cover (annual average 60%) 

and other species were uncommon (<15% each). 

During the same years, nests of three species were 

common in drift prairie: mallard, gadwall, and bluewinged teal (35%, 23%, and 20% respectively of all 

nests discovered). 

Savannah sparrow, clay-colored sparrow, and 

bobolink are abundant breeding birds in DNC and 

probably in all seeded herbaceous cover in old 

cropland at the refuges, similar to characteristic 

breeding birds of the contemporary drift prairie 

(Murphy and Sondreal 2003; Grant et al., in review). 

DNC at the refuges also is important breeding 

habitat for sedge wren, Le Conte’s sparrow, and 

Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow; the relatively rank, 

dense cover apparently imitates the native wet 

meadow vegetation that attracts these species 

(Murphy and Sondreal 2003). DNC and other 

seeded herbaceous cover at the refuges may be a 

preferred nesting site and foraging habitat of the 

short-eared owl and northern harrier; their main 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Descriptions 43 

prey, the meadow vole, appears to be common to 

abundant in this habitat most years. 

Herbaceous cover seeded in old cropland can 

increase grassland habitat diversity at the refuges 

by providing a unique tall-grass prairie component. 

This may be increasingly important as vegetation 

height and density are reduced on much of the drift 

prairie. This reduction occurs through more frequent 

and intensive management treatments to 

effectively restore that prairie and address needs of 

a broader suite of grassland birds. Establishment of 

stands of native warm-season plants in old cropland 

should provide more flexibility for managing 

invasive plant species, better complement the 

Refuge System’s goals for biological diversity and 

ecological integrity, and reduce erosion potential 

and sources of introduced plant species invasion 

(for example, by sweetclover) into native sod. 

Coulee Woodland and 

Coulee Woodland Edge 

Coulee woodland and coulee woodland edge occurs 

only at Des Lacs NWR and Upper Souris NWR 

(about 9% and 6% respectively; figure 9). 

Physical Environment and Characteristic 

Vegetation 

Coulee woodland and coulee woodland edge 

includes partially to mostly wooded drainages of 

intermittent stream tributaries. It also includes 

any partially to mostly wooded, east- to northfacing, native sod hillside of the river valleys. In 

coulee woodland, the uppermost vegetation strata 

is dominated (>50% canopy cover) by trees, 

primarily green ash. Woodland edge is coulee that 

is sparsely wooded with trees, mostly green ash (5–

50% canopy cover, usually <20%), plus associated 

chokecherry and other tall shrub. Coulee woodland 

and coulee woodland edge are characteristic of the 

west sides of steep-walled valleys, especially the 

southern half of Des Lacs NWR and most of Upper 

 Souris NWR. Slopes at these 

 sites at Des Lacs NWR 

 typically are 25–60% and are 

 less steep at Upper Souris 

 NWR. 

 Coulee woodland at Des Lacs 

 NWR occurs as a narrow 

 (<300 feet wide), relatively 

 linear habitat, typically 

 with about 250–350 trees 

 per acre and 55–60% 

 canopy cover (from 1995 

 random plot data in 

 Nenneman et al. 2003). 

 Stands are generally are 65–80 

 years old. Green ash is the 

 overwhelmingly dominant overstory 

tree (Nenneman and Murphy, unpublished). 

Historically, American elm codominated this 

woodland in the Souris River basin (Grant and 

Murphy 2005). However, elm occurred on only 56% 

of coulee woodland plots sampled at Des Lacs 

NWR in 1995, and these trees were dead and 

dying, apparently from Dutch elm disease. Ten 

years later, no viable mature elm remains and 

almost no young elm is found in the understory. 

With the change to dominance by a single-tree 

species, structure of coulee woodland will be 

further simplified and value of the habitat for some 

species of woodland-breeding birds may be altered. 

Other coulee woodland trees include boxelder and 

quaking aspen (28% and 3% frequency, 

respectively). No bur oak occurs at Des Lacs NWR 

even though it is common about 25 miles downstream 

near the confluence with the Souris River. Bur oak 

occurs infrequently at nearby Upper Souris NWR. 

Principle understory shrubs in Des Lacs NWR 

woodland include chokecherry, Saskatoon 

serviceberry, and green ash saplings (>75% 

frequency each; Nenneman and Murphy, 

unpublished). Shrub density typically is 600–1,000 

stems per acre. Frequency of occurrence for the 

introduced tall shrub, common buckthorn, was 25% 

in 1995 (Nenneman and Murphy, unpublished) and 

appears to have increased markedly (Robert Murphy, 

wildlife biologist, Des Lacs NWR, personal 

observation). Left unchecked, this aggressive, 

weedy shrub may pose a serious threat to the 

native plant diversity and wildlife habitat value of 

coulee woodland, just as it has degraded native 

woodland, pasture, fens (alkaline bogs), and prairie 

in many Midwestern states (Grace et al. 2001). 

Ground cover averages 90% in coulee woodland at 

Des Lacs NWR and is dominated by native 

woodland sedges, Kentucky bluegrass, smooth 

brome, wild sarsaparilla, and western snowberry 

(Nenneman and Murphy, unpublished). Leafy 

spurge rarely occurs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© Cind ie Brunner 

 

Coulee woodlands, dominated by green ash, are 

conspicuous along most drainages and east- to northfacing slopes at Des Lacs NWR and Upper Souris NWR. 

Dan Severson/USFWS 
 

Woodland edge at Des Lacs NWR is not just the 

broken-canopy transition between woodland and 

open prairie. More often, it is interspersed in 

broad, grassy slopes of moderate to steep grade. 

Vegetation is scattered patches of tall shrub and 

young or stunted trees that emanate from subtly 

low, relatively moist areas and shallow drainages. 

This woody cover can sometimes spread into 

adjoining drift prairie. Tree canopy typically covers 

only 8–15% of such woodland edge areas (Murphy 

et al., unpublished [b]). Typical tree and shrub 

densities are 40–70 stems per acre and 1,100–2,000 

stems per acre, respectively. Green ash trees and 

snags (dead, tall woody stems) usually occur (69% 

frequency for each). 

Shrubs common in woodland edge at Des Lacs NWR 

include green ash saplings, chokecherry, Saskatoon 

serviceberry, and round-leaved hawthorn (25–56% 

frequency). Each of four species of introduced tall 

shrub—common buckthorn, Tartarian honeysuckle, 

Russian olive, and caragana—occur infrequently 

(4–8% frequency). Woodland edge vegetation is 

otherwise badly degraded; invasive grasses, mainly 

smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass (30% 

frequency) and low shrubs (27% frequency), 

account for most cover. Leafy spurge occurs more 

than twice as commonly in woodland edge (10% 

frequency) than in other habitats. Intact 

assemblages of native vegetation rarely occur (3%). 

Equivalent descriptive data for coulee woodland 

habitat at Upper Souris NWR have been collected 

recently but are not summarized. Distribution (site 

type), species composition, and structure of coulee 

woodland on the refuge appear generally similar to 

the respective attributes of coulee woodland at Des 

Lacs NWR. Coulee woodland edge is similarly 

pervasive on northwest- to southeast-facing slopes 

at Upper Souris NWR but also remains unquantified 

except for the herbaceous and low-shrub stratum. 

In this layer, vegetation dominated by native low 

shrub, especially western snowberry, is prevalent 

(30% frequency), just as at Des Lacs NWR. Unlike 

at Des Lacs NWR, however, this layer is otherwise 

composed chiefly of native-dominated and Kentucky 

bluegrass-dominated vegetation (24% and 31% 

respectively at Upper Souris NWR), rather than 

smooth brome-dominated vegetation (12%). 

Characteristic Wildlife 

The breeding bird community of coulee woodland 

at Des Lacs NWR is characterized by least 

flycatcher, house wren, and yellow warbler, which 

are abundant (figure 13). Red-eyed vireo, spotted 

towhee, and clay-colored sparrow are common. 

Two forest-interior species, veery and ovenbird, 

are found in the most mature stands. Cooper’s hawks 

are common, with a nest area occurring about every 

mile along the southern half of the refuge 

(Nenneman et al. 2002). Long-eared owls are 

unusually abundant some years (Murphy et al. 2004). 

Nesting densities of long-eared owls in woodlands at the 

refuges are the highest recorded in the Great Plains. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

44 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

 Robert Murphy/USFWS 

Northern goshawk and pine grosbeak are among 

migrant bird species that often overwinter in 

coulee woodland (Des Lacs NWR Christmas bird 

count, 1939–2004 data). 

Characteristic small mammals of coulee woodland 

at Des Lacs NWR are deer mouse and red-backed 

vole (Eddingsaas et al. 2007). Eastern cottontail 

and moose are uncommon and local in distribution, 

while the white-tailed deer is common and 

widespread. 

Because of its structural diversity, it is unsurprising 

that woodland edge provides habitat for more 

breeding bird species than other habitats at Des 

Lacs NWR (figure 13). Woodland edge is the most 

important habitat at Des Lacs NWR for willow 

flycatcher, song sparrow, and brown-headed 

cowbird; the cowbird occurs more than twice as 

frequently here than in any other habitat (Murphy 

and Sondreal 2003). Besides brown-headed cowbird, 

however, the only other grassland bird species 

common in this habitat is clay-colored sparrow. 

Almost no woodland cover existed at present-day 

Des Lacs NWR in the 1800s, but woodland had 

developed by the time the refuge was established 

(Grant and Murphy 2005). The area covered by 

woodland increased significantly through the late 

1960s but appears to have nearly reached its 

potential extent. 

Today, most areas covered by coulee woodland at 

Des Lacs NWR may be overwhelmingly difficult to 

restore back to prairie. However, these areas 

probably could continue to provide modest habitat 

for forest-interior bird species without hindering 

widespread improvement in grassland bird habitat 

elsewhere at the refuge (Grant and Berkey 1999). 

In contrast, coulee woodland edge is a widespread 

habitat type at the refuge that, in the absence of fire, 

will continue to fragment drift prairie and some 

prairie slope. None of the breeding bird species 

that are common in this edge habitat is of 

management concern, whereas 11 grassland bird 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Descriptions 45 

species that occur or used to occur at Des Lacs 

NWR are species of concern. 

Conversion of woodland edge habitat to open 

prairie at Des Lacs NWR could be done through 

repeated prescribed fire. This conversion would 

negligibly influence continental population trends 

of woodland bird species, while helping reverse 

population declines of grassland bird species 

(Murphy and Sondreal 2003). Reduction of 

woodland edge may also help reduce cowbird 

parasitism rates among grassland bird nests. 

The breeding bird community of coulee woodland 

at Upper Souris NWR likely is similar to that in 

the same habitat type at Des Lacs NWR. However, 

the bird community at Upper Souris NWR could be 

more diverse because some of its coulee woodlands 

at the refuge are broader, which may provide 

habitat for additional forest-interior species (for 

example, great crested flycatcher). Data on 

abundance of breeding birds and of other 

vertebrate species specific to coulee woodland and 

to coulee woodland edge at the refuge are available 

but not summarized. Unlike Des Lacs NWR, coulee 

woodland was evident in the 1800s along the river 

valley of present-day Upper Souris NWR, although 

its extent has increased markedly since (Grant and 

Murphy 2005). 

Riparian Woodland 

Riparian woodland occurs only at J. Clark Salyer 

NWR and at Upper Souris NWR (5% and 2% of 

refuge area, respectively; figure 9). 

Physical Environment 

Riparian woodland occurs within about 0.5 mile of 

the Souris River and is most extensive on the 

southern one-fourth of J. Clark Salyer NWR and 

the upper one-third of Upper Souris NWR. 

Woodlands extend downstream from Upper Souris 

NWR and terminate 1 mile west of Willow Creek 

at J. Clark Salyer NWR. These woodlands are 

associated with the meandering river, its numerous 

oxbows, and abandoned channels. 

At least 1,000 acres of riparian woodland at Upper 

Souris NWR were permanently lost in the late 1930s 

when water was impounded behind Lake Darling 

dam. Riparian woodland is periodically inundated 

by overbank flooding of the Souris River. Soils are 

alluvial, mainly silty clay loams that are poorly 

drained. 

The Souris River is bordered by a mix of meadows and green ash woodland on the northern part of Upper Souris NWR 

and southern part of J. Clark Salyer NWR. 

Gary Eslinger/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristic Vegetation 

Riparian woodland has not been extensively 

inventoried at J. Clark Salyer NWR; quantitative 

and qualitative data are derived from less than 10 

survey plots variously located in the riparian zone 

(Nenneman et al., unpublished). Extensive 

inventories have been recently completed at Upper 

Souris NWR but the data have not been 

summarized. 

Green ash is the dominant tree species of riparian 

woodland. American elm was once codominant with 

green ash, but Dutch elm disease has all but 

eliminated elm from riparian woodland. Furthermore, 

recent flooding (1997–2001) significantly reduced 

the density of large elm snags. Bur oak, boxelder, 

eastern cottonwood, and balsam poplar also occur. 

Understory shrubs include redosier dogwood, 

chokecherry, and various willow species. Ground 

cover comprises various forb, grass, and sedge 

species. Woodland cover is mostly continuous, with 

the forest canopy broken only by the meandering 

river channel and its numerous oxbows. 

An extended hydroperiod associated with 

construction and operation of numerous dams along 

the Souris River has likely contributed to observed 

changes in extent and composition of wet meadow 

and riparian vegetation at the refuges. Green ash 

and American elm mortality occurred north of 

Lake Darling when the maximum operating 

elevation of the lake was raised 1 foot to 1,597.0 

feet above mean sea level. Loss of these species is 

linked to increases in depth and duration of surface 

flooding (Fredrickson 1979, Fredrickson and 

Batema 1992). 

Colonies of black-crowned night-herons (above) and 

great blue herons are found in riparian woodland. 

46 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Gary Kramer/USFWS 

Characteristic Wildlife 

Breeding birds have not been inventoried in riparian 

woodland at J. Clark Salyer NWR. Inventories 

have been recently completed at Upper Souris NWR, 

but the data have not been summarized. Based on 

qualitative observations and data from related 

systems, riparian woodland is important for forestinterior migratory birds such as northern 

waterthrush, ovenbird, veery, red-eyed vireo, and 

American redstart (Rumble et al. 1998, Grant and 

Berkey 1999, Murphy and Sondreal 2003). 

Other characteristic vertebrates include red squirrel, 

red-backed vole, masked shrew, raccoon, moose, 

wood frog, chorus frog, and leopard frog. 

Meadow 

Meadow is a transitional habitat on the Souris 

River basin refuges, where it supports some waterloving plants and is sometimes temporarily flooded. 

In addition, meadow supports vegetation 

characteristic of relatively moist areas of uplands. 

Meadow on the refuges generally is not classified as 

wetland in broad inventories based on remote 

imagery (for example, Habitat and Population 

Evaluation Team [HAPET]; Cowardin et al. 1979); 

this may partly be an artifact of the particular 

imagery used and its interpretation. 

Meadow occurs at all three refuges but is uncommon 

at Des Lacs NWR (<1% of area versus 9% of 

J. Clark Salyer NWR and 6% of Upper Souris NWR; 

figure 9). 

Physical Environment 

The Souris River is “under-fit” relative to the size 

of the river valley (1–2 miles wide at J. Clark 

Salyer NWR). The river is sinuous and 

meandering, with numerous oxbows and 

abandoned channels. Prior to settlement, the 

Souris River valley supported numerous riverine 

and palustrine marshes maintained by periodic 

overbank flooding of the river. Extensive meadows 

that occurred on the northern one-half of J. Clark 

Salyer NWR and much of Upper Souris NWR have 

been lost—initially during the early 1900s due to 

extensive drainage and channelization, and later 

during the 1930s as water was impounded in 

several large reservoirs following refuge 

establishment. 

Contemporary meadows at J. Clark Salyer NWR 

and Upper Souris NWR occur along both banks of 

the river within a seasonally inundated zone that 

includes riparian woodland habitat. This zone is 

bounded by prairie parkland at J. Clark Salyer NWR 

and by drift prairie and prairie slope at Upper 

Souris NWR. Soils are alluvial, silty clay loams that 

are poorly drained. Meadows extend south and 

west of J. Clark Salyer NWR in McHenry County 

and are especially extensive around Towner, North 

Dakota. Meadows in private ownership are used for 

winter livestock forage (hay land) and are bordered 

mainly by native rangeland. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meadow is limited in area at Des Lacs NWR, 

occurring in small (<40-acre), isolated, often long, 

narrow patches. Meadow occurs at the mouths of 

major coulees or on the periphery of riverine 

wetland units along the southern one-third of the 

refuge. Meadow is uncommon on the refuge 

because of the valley’s relatively narrow, steep 

profile. 

Characteristic Vegetation 

A variety of native sedges, rushes, and grasses 

dominate meadow sites including the following 

principal species: slim sedge, wooly sedge, and 

fescue sedge, prairie cordgrass, northern 

reedgrass, Baltic rush, common spikerush, and fowl 

bluegrass. 

Oxbows, meander scars, and old channels support 

wetland plants tolerant of deeper water such as 

cattail, three-square bulrush, giant bur-reed, 

slough sedge, and American mannagrass. 

Low shrubs include western 

snowberry, meadowsweet, 

and Woods’ rose. Tall shrubs 

include several willow species 

and aspen. Near the river 

channel, meadow includes 

edges of riparian woodland 

where dominant species are 

green ash, American elm, 

bur oak, boxelder, and 

balsam poplar. 

Willow shrub land and aspen 

woodland have expanded 

significantly since 1900 and 

now occupy 15–20% of the 

mead

© Cindie Brunner 

ow zone (Grant and Murphy 2005). The 

herbaceous component of the contemporary 

meadow vegetation is composed of pristine native 

assemblages (37%), partially degraded native 

assemblages where native plants occur codominant 

with introduced plants (10%), and assemblages that 

are severely degraded (mostly by quackgrass [18% 

of all cover], reed canarygrass [8% cover], 

Kentucky bluegrass [7% cover], Canada thistle 

[<4% cover], or leafy spurge [<1% cover]). 

Expansion of tall shrubs and trees is the most 

significant threat to meadows. The open, herbaceous 

character of meadows was historically maintained 

by fire, periodic spring flooding, and year-round 

grazing by bison and elk (Hanson 1984). During the 

15-year interim between the extirpation of bison 

and beginning of settlement (about 1875–1890), 

early ranchers used meadows for open range and as 

hay land for winter livestock forage. Beginning in 

1890, Euro-American settlers suppressed natural 

fires, and extensive cultivation and road building 

limited the spread of fires once started. On poorly 

drained soils, willow and aspen can quickly invade 

sedges and grasses in the absence of fire or grazing 

(Ewing 1924, Buell and Buell 1959, Coupland 1961). 

Since 1900, the hydroperiod and hydrograph of the 

Souris River have been altered, first by drainage 

and channelization, and later by construction of dams 

along the entire river. Changes in the peak and 

duration of spring river flows have likely affected 

historical soil moisture levels in meadows, which 

could have affected establishment and expansion of 

tall shrubs and trees (Laubhan et al. 2003). 

Beginning in the 1880s, annual clipping (haying) 

largely replaced fire and grazing as the principal 

defoliation disturbance. Recurrent clipping of 

woody sprouts appears effective in limiting the 

expansion of willow and aspen into meadows. 

Rapid invasion of meadow by trees and shrubs 

during the 1960s and 1970s appears to correspond 

with several years of high to extreme flooding 

(1956, 1960, 1969, and 1974–76), as the Souris River 

overflowed its banks and inundated adjacent 

meadows. Access to meadows was limited for 

several consecutive years, allowing woody plants to 

expand beyond control through use of conventional 

haying equipment. (Grant and Murphy 2005.) 

Characteristic Wildlife 

Use of meadows by breeding songbirds, waterfowl, 

or other waterbirds has not been systematically 

assessed. Qualitative observations suggest that 

meadows are important to upland nesting ducks 

(mallard, blue-winged teal, gadwall, and northern

Common yellowthroat is a common nesting species in 

meadows and riverine marshes.

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Descriptions 47 

 Dave Menke/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shoveler), shorebirds (willet and Wilson’s 

phalarope), and grassland songbirds (bobolink, 

Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow, Le Conte’s sparrow, 

Savannah sparrow, and sedge wren), especially 

during dry years. Use shifts to wetland-associated 

bird species during years when meadows are 

flooded during much of the summer (for example, 

sandhill crane, sora rail, yellow rail, Wilson’s snipe, 

marsh wren, red-winged blackbird, and redhead). 

Based on data collected for birds breeding in drift 

prairie and prairie parkland, the occurrence of 

important open-meadow bird species, such as 

Savannah sparrow, Le Conte’s sparrow, bobolink, 

and sedge wren will decline as trees and shrubs 

expand (Grant et al. 2004a). Conversely, extensive 

stands of willow and aspen are used by yellow 

warbler, common yellowthroat, alder flycatcher, 

willow flycatcher, clay-colored sparrow, and gray 

catbird. 

Other characteristic vertebrates include beaver, 

muskrat, red-backed vole, meadow vole, deer 

mouse, masked shrew, raccoon, moose, wood frog, 

chorus frog, leopard frog, and tiger salamander. 

Wetland 

Few natural riverine wetlands remain at the Souris 

River basin refuges. This section focuses on the 

contemporary riverine lakes and marshes, which 

account for 35–40% of collective habitat acres of the 

refuges (figure 9). 

International Agreements 

All of the Souris River basin refuges have certain 

physical and legal constraints affecting their water 

management capabilities. All three refuges hold 

state-based water rights, administered by the state 

of North Dakota. 

Des Lacs NWR holds a declaration of filing dated 

September 1, 1934. The water rights filed with the 

North Dakota State Engineer on August 25, 1937 

claimed a total of 65,000 acre-feet. The primary 

water management constraints on Des Lacs are 

physical: the low gradient of the Des Lacs River 

and the small size and inconsistent elevations of the 

water control structures limits water management 

capability. Currently, senior water right holders do 

not directly affect Des Lacs NWR. 

The 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty Act governs the 

apportionment of waters between the United States 

and Canada. This act generally specifies that Canada 

is entitled to 50% of the water originating in the 

Canadian portion of a river basin, and that the 

United States is entitled to 50% of the natural flow 

that would have occurred at the border. The Souris 

River is unique in that it arises in Saskatchewan 

and North Dakota (Long Creek), flows through 

Saskatchewan, enters North Dakota, and then 

flows north into Manitoba. In 1959, an interim 

operating agreement was adopted by the respective 

countries giving Saskatchewan the right to store 

and use 50% of the flows originating in Canada, and 

apportioning the remainder to North Dakota. In 

addition, North Dakota had to supply a minimum of 

20 cubic feet per second (cfs) to Manitoba from 

June 1 through October 31, unless certain drought 

conditions existed. The International Souris River 

Board of Control oversaw the apportionment. 

Lake Darling, a major reservoir of the Souris River, 

is at Upper Souris NWR. 

48 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

 USFWS 

The governments of the United States and Canada 

entered into the “Agreement between the 

Government of Canada and the Government of the 

United States of America for Water Supply and 

Flood Control in the Souris River Basin” (referred 

to as the “International Agreement”) on October 26, 

1989 (the complete agreement is in appendix M). To 

offset evaporation from two large reservoirs 

constructed in Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan’s 

apportionment would now be 60% of the natural 

flow, depending on the elevation of Lake Darling 

on October 1 of a given year. This language was 

modified in 2001. The current language gives the 

United States 50% of the first 40,500 acre-feet 

(50,000 cubic decameters) that occurs prior to May 1, 

and then there is a 50:50 or a 60:40 split between 

the countries depending on the elevation of Lake 

Darling on June 1 of each year. 

The operation of the Lake Darling Dam is under 

the control of the Service for runoff events with 

less than a 10-year exceedance probability. For 

flood events with greater than a 10-year 

exceedance probability, the USACE assumes 

operational responsibility for Lake Darling. The 

Service operates the dam at the direction of the 

USACE. Saskatchewan Watershed Authority 

operates the dams in Canada and coordinates dam 

operation with the Service, the USACE, and the 

North Dakota State Water Commission. 

In addition to the flood control project, there are 

senior water right holders in North Dakota, and an
 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Descriptions 49 

agreement with the Eaton Irrigation Project for 

water supply. Management at Upper Souris NWR 

must accommodate senior water right holders and 

the Eaton Irrigation District. These operations are 

coordinated with the North Dakota State Water 

Commission. The Service and the Eaton Irrigation 

District have applied for prescriptive water rights 

through a state process; none of these water right 

applications has been finalized. The disposition of 

the water right claims has the potential to impact 

water management on the Des Lacs NWR and 

Upper Souris NWR. 

The water resources division of region 6 of the 

Service helps fund gauging stations on the Souris 

River that are used in determining apportionment, 

meeting water quality mandates set by the 

International Agreement, and helping in water 

management. In addition, Service employees of the 

water resources division have a role on the 

International Souris River Board and participate in 

subcommittees of the board. The water resources 

division is also working with the North Dakota 

State Water Commission on the processing of the 

prescriptive water right applications. Changes in 

refuge operations that might have water right 

implications or be affected by the International 

Agreement are coordinated through refuge staff 

consultation with the division of water resources. 

Physical Environment 

Almost all wetlands occur as riverine lake and 

marsh units that are impounded behind low-head 

dams and, thus, have potential for water level 

management. The degree to which these can be 

successfully managed differs markedly among and 

within refuges. 

Natural wetlands not impounded by dikes and 

dams occur within other habitat types (for 

example, drift prairie, parkland, and meadows), 

especially at J. Clark Salyer NWR. These natural 

wetlands are generally managed in concert with 

the surrounding upland matrix in which they occur. 

Constructed ponds such as dugouts (cattle water 

sources) and wetlands created by damming 

intermittent streams compose a small component 

(<200 collective acres) of the Souris River basin 

refuges (figure 15). 

Much of this section is adapted from a recent 

biological assessment of the Souris River basin 

refuges by Laubhan et al. (2003). The Souris River 

basin encompasses about 24,600 square miles, of 

which 5,500 square miles are in the United States. 

The Souris River is perennial and originates in 

Saskatchewan. The river flows south to Velva, 

North Dakota, and then turns north, entering 

Figure 15. Extent of three wetland types at each of the Souris River basin refuges, North Dakota. 

0.0 

5000.0 

10000.0 

15000.0 

20000.0 

25000.0 

30000.0 

Des Lacs NWR Upper Souris 

NWR 

J. Clark Salyer 

NWR 

Acres

Open lake impoundments within the 

riverine system 

Riverine marsh impoundments, 

river channels, and oxbow ponds 

Prairie ponds and other wetlands 

imbedded within uplands 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

southern Manitoba northeast of Westhope, North 

Dakota. The Des Lacs River is a major tributary, 

entering the Souris River northwest and west of 

Minot. Des Lacs NWR and Upper Souris NWR are 

contained within steep, high-relief (0.7 mile wide 

and 165 feet deep), river valleys (Lord and Kehew 

1990), with numerous intermittent drainages 

extending several miles from the respective rivers. 

The downstream portion of the Souris River 

drainage, including J. Clark Salyer NWR, lies 

within the Souris Lake Plain physiographic 

subregion, a flat, deltaic outwash plain, bordered to 

the south and east by a series of sandhills. The 

Souris River is “under-fit” relative to the width of 

the valley floor, which exhibits many old oxbows, 

meander scars, and channel relicts. 

Prior to settlement, the Souris River valley contained 

numerous riverine and palustrine marshes, 

maintained by periodic overbank flooding of the 

Souris River. With Euro-American settlement of 

the region, drainage significantly modified the 

Souris and Des Lacs rivers. This was most evident 

at J. Clark Salyer NWR, where stretches of the 

river were dredged and channelized to promote 

cultivation. River flows were unregulated until the 

1930s. At this time, numerous low-head dams were 

constructed along the river to regulate flooding and 

carry out wetland management to benefit 

waterfowl at the three refuges. Because of these 

changes, few natural riverine wetlands remain at 

the Souris River basin refuges (excepting meadows 

on the southern one-half of J. Clark Salyer NWR). 

Wetlands of Des Lacs NWR 

Des Lacs NWR extends from the Canada border to 

8 miles south of Kenmare, North Dakota. The 

refuge includes 5,695 acres of open water and 350 

acres of emergent marsh along a 28-mile reach of 

the Des Lacs River (figure 15). The river’s name 

was derived from the French, “Riviere des Lacs,” 

literally, a “river of lakes.” The floodplain of the 

present-day refuge historically included a series of 

three large basins that functioned at times like 

dynamic prairie lakes. At other times, it functioned 

like a broad, slow-moving river, overflowing into 

adjoining and downstream marshes and meadows. 

Dikes were constructed in the 1930s to create eight 

impoundments. Maximum water depths in 

impoundments range from 5 to 12 feet; maximum 

storage capacity of all impoundments is 53,879 

acre-feet. Each dike is equipped with water control 

structures to permit water level manipulations. 

However, control is limited for several reasons, as 

follows: 

Q	 The source of water is unregulated runoff from 

the surrounding watershed (350 square miles of 

which only 43% contributes runoff to the river). 

Water enters different refuge impoundments via 

five primary coulees on the west side of the 

refuge valley. Most runoff occurs during March 

and April, but severe summer thunderstorms 

also can contribute large volumes of water to 

refuge impoundments. 

Q	 Although the timing and amount of runoff 

received are not controlled, the construction of 

railroads on both sides of the floodplain has 

altered surface inputs to the impoundments. 

Historically, surface water transported by 

coulees to the river was unobstructed and 

entered the floodplain at various sites and 

velocities. In contrast, water from coulees 

obstructed by the railroad grade must now pass 

through ditches and culverts, which function to 

stabilize the location and restrict the velocity of 

water entering impoundments. 

Q	 Dikes were constructed perpendicular to the 

floodplain; thus, upstream impoundments can 

only be dewatered by transferring water 

through downstream impoundments. This 

challenge has been alleviated to some extent by 

constructing bypass channels around some 

impoundments (for example, impoundments 6 

and 7). Finally, water movement is restricted by 

an area of higher elevation (1,777.6 feet above 

mean sea level) in the middle impoundment 

(impoundment 4, also known as Middle Des Lacs 

Lake) that creates a hump or “hinge-point” in 

the system. Surface water inputs from coulees 

north of this hump flow north, whereas surface 

inputs from coulees south of the hump flow 

south. Consequently, drainage of northern 

impoundments 1, 2, and 3 is difficult. Changing 

the elevation of the dikes is not possible due to 

potential damage to the railroad grade. 

Therefore, refuge personnel have attempted to 

achieve more control by constructing a new 

structure that prevents water in impoundment 4 

from flowing north. 

The local water board has proposed altering flood 

control protocols to evacuate water from the Des 

Lacs River to the Souris River in spring. Although 

this may improve the ability of refuge staff to 

achieve water levels more desirable for plant 

production, it may imply that an additional purpose 

of the refuge is flood protection. 

Wetlands of J. Clark Salyer NWR 

J. Clark Salyer NWR extends from Canada south 

for about 50 miles along the Souris River in 

Bottineau and McHenry counties, North Dakota. 

The refuge includes 23,525 acres of impounded 

riverine marshes and 2,474 acres of river, oxbows, 

and prairie marshes (figure 15). The watershed 

contributing to the refuge covers about 16,000 

square miles, of which only 40% contributes runoff 

to the river. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

During the early 1900s, attempts to farm and 

harvest hay from the area that is now the refuge 

were difficult due to frequent flooding. Therefore, 

previous landowners dredged channels to improve 

drainage. Following purchase by the Refuge 

System in 1935, the Service completed additional 

earthwork. This included construction of levees 

across the Souris River floodplain to retain water 

in five major impoundments, mainly to increase 

waterfowl production. 

During the 1950s, and again in 1991–92, the heights 

of original levees were increased up to 2 feet to 

improve wetland management and as a mitigation 

measure for the Souris River Flood Control 

Project. Each dike was equipped with control 

structures to enable management of water levels. 

The addition of heated radial gates (around 1990) 

has provided more flexibility in discharging water 

from impoundments during winter. Flows exceeding 

3,000–3,500 cubic feet per second are discharged 

over spillways constructed as part of the levee 

design. Maximum water depths in pools vary, but 

range from 4–6 feet. 

Dam 1 at J. Clark Salyer NWR. 

ary Eslinger/USFWS 

This major structure controls water distribution in 

riverine marshes at J. Clark Salyer NWR. 

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Descriptions 51 

USFWS 	

G

The types of prior land modifications at J. Clark 

Salyer are similar to those already mentioned for 

Des Lacs NWR and Upper Souris NWR. In 

general, the construction of levees to impound and 

manage water has converted a dynamic lotic 

(flowing) system to a less dynamic lentic 

(nonflowing) system. The ability to manage this 

altered system is constrained by the existing 

physical infrastructure. During periods of high 

river flows, the river often transports a large 

volume of water. These flows must pass through 

refuge impoundments, but the channel capacity 

often is not sufficient to transport the water 

quickly or efficiently. Thus, marsh habitat within 

impoundments often becomes flooded for extended 

periods. Although this occurred naturally, 

upstream disturbances and increased runoff from 

wetland drainage have significantly altered the 

time and duration of these flows. 

Another potential long-term change occurring in 

marshes at the refuge is increased deposition of 

sediment. Although the river potentially can 

transport large sediment loads into the marshes, 

drainage of numerous wetlands in surrounding 

agricultural land may elevate sediment loads (for 

example, Brander drain, Boundary Creek drain, 

Oak Creek drain, and White Spur–Stone Creek 

drain). A determination of sediment accretion rates 

is currently being made, but results are not 

available for inclusion in this CCP. Based on 

qualitative sampling in 2003–2004 and on data 

collected for Sand Lake NWR, South Dakota 

(Gleason et al. 2003), it seems likely that 

accumulated sediments have significantly degraded 

the long-term productivity of refuge marshes and 

may continue to do so. 

Wetlands of Upper Souris NWR 

Upper Souris NWR follows a 35-mile reach of the 

Souris River in Renville and Ward counties, North 

Dakota. Wetland habitats total about 12,175 acres 

(figure 15), including the following: 

Q	 9,575-acre reservoir, Lake Darling 

Q	 58 acres of river 

Q	 2,127 acres of riverine marshes with riparian 

woodlands 

Q	 472 acres of dugouts, ponds, oxbows, and prairie 

marshes 

The watershed for Lake Darling is 9,450 square 

miles, of which only 35% contributes runoff to the 

lake. The primary management objective for Lake 

Darling is to provide water, particularly during 

drier years, to marshes at J. Clark Salyer NWR 

located 237 river miles downstream. However, the 

reservoir also provides the water supply for 

downstream marshes at Upper Souris NWR. In 

addition, the reservoir provides 100-year flood 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

protection for Minot, North Dakota (population 

33,000). The compatibility determination for the 

Souris River Basin Flood Control Project 

(appendix N) guides the operation and maintenance 

of refuge lands and structures for flood control 

purposes. 

In addition to Lake Darling, there have been 

numerous smaller impoundments created both 

above and below the reservoir by constructing 

earthen dikes equipped with water control structures. 

Some of these impoundments (pools A, B, C, 87A, 

96A, and 96B) are located adjacent to the Souris 

River and pump stations are used to supply water. 

The Souris River runs through the remaining 

impoundments (pools 41, 87, and 96). Water 

management capability varies among 

impoundments. Pools A, B, C, 87A, 87B, 96A, and 

96B are isolated from the river and can be 

effectively managed. Many pools require that instream pools be lowered before they can be 

drained. 

Pool C at Upper Souris NWR. 

Sanford Rostad/USFWS 

52 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Lake Darling is part of the Souris River Flood 

Control Project, which includes three dams in 

Saskatchewan. Collectively, these structures 

provide 100-year flood protection for Minot, North 

Dakota. An international agreement and an 

agreement with USACE stipulates that the 

Service will control discharges from Lake Darling 

dam unless the magnitude of the flood exceeds a 

10-year event. In addition, drawdowns of Lake 

Darling are mandatory, to prepare for floods up to 

a 100-year event. 

The construction of Lake Darling Dam and other 

dams on the river have resulted in numerous 

effects on natural resources, both positive and 

negative. Compared to pre-dam conditions, flows in 

the river have been greatly altered. Peak flows 

have been lowered, whereas the duration of low 

and moderate flows has increased. Flow releases to 

benefit different natural resource components often 

conflict, particularly during periods of extreme or 

extended drought and flood, as follows: 

Q	 Although the international agreement states 

that flood control dams are to be operated in a 

manner that mimics natural conditions to the 

extent possible, the timing of flow releases from 

upstream dams in Saskatchewan is often later 

than historical river flows. 

Q	 Management of Lake Darling is further 

constrained by an agreement to supply irrigation 

water (10,000 acre-feet) to the Eaton Irrigation 

District, and by minimum flow requirements at 

the international boundary near Westhope, 

North Dakota. 

Q	 Additionally, the capacity of the channel and 

structures in Minot to readily pass high flows 

complicates releases of water from Lake Darling. 

Subsequently, the water level in Lake Darling 

can fluctuate above desired levels. 

Siltation rates probably vary among refuge wetlands. 

All drainages except the 12-mile-long Mackabee 

Coulee are short (<2 miles long). Much incoming 

silt carried by the Souris River appears to be 

trapped in pool 41 above Lake Darling. Lake 

Darling appears to receive some siltation from 

erosion of high banks surrounding the reservoir 

that occurs from wave action when the lake is high. 

The Wetland Cycle 

There have been no formal surveys of marsh 

vegetation at the Souris River basin refuges since 

the 1940s and 1950s, except for a recent study of 

sago pondweed at Des Lacs NWR (Euliss et al. 2003). 

The impact of altered river flows has influenced 

sediment distribution, water quality, and plant 

community dynamics. The purpose of levee 

construction at all three refuges was to restore and 

enhance previously degraded wetlands. At the time 

of refuge establishment in the 1930s, lack of water 

was considered the primary limiting factor (Henry 

1939, Steenis 1939). This is not surprising given 

this was the Dust Bowl era and human 

developments and agriculture had disrupted 

floodplain functions. 

Installation of water control structures indicate 

that the need for water removal was necessary, but 

engineers of the original structures may not have 

considered the need for complete dewatering of 

refuge impoundments. Although successful in 

providing resources for wildlife, the construction of 

in-stream obstructions in the floodplains of both 

rivers, coupled with human disruptions to the 

floodplain, started to change fundamental wetland 

processes. The frequency and magnitude of different 

flow events changed (for example, minimum flows 

increased and peak flows decreased) and the 

channels of both rivers started to become laterally 

stabilized and entrenched. As a result, the frequency, 

duration, and extent of flooding were altered and 

likely became less dynamic. For example, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Descriptions 53 

compared to historical conditions, the areas 

impounded by levees obviously were designed to 

flood with greater frequency and for longer 

durations. In addition, changes in runoff and flow 

impacted sediment transport and deposition. In 

combination, these two factors are important in the 

creation and loss of riverine wetlands. 

The levees constructed at each refuge created new, 

permanent areas of high- and low-flow velocities. 

This often has numerous impacts that affect longterm productivity of riverine systems. For 

example, the rate and number of new wetlands that 

are formed is reduced because scouring and 

deposition occurs repeatedly in the same areas. The 

creation of new wetlands is important because 

initially they tend to support annual plants and 

invertebrates capable of rapid colonization. Thus, 

they are important in providing wetland diversity 

needed for survival of many wetland-dependent 

species such as amphibians, reptiles, and birds. In 

addition, the location of sediment accumulation 

tends to become more stationary. As sediment 

depth increases, numerous factors critical to proper 

wetland function often are impacted, including soil 

properties, nutrient cycling, invertebrate egg 

banks, seed banks, and plant community 

composition. Eventually, wetlands that are 

sediment traps tend to become dominated by a 

reduced diversity of plants and invertebrates capable 

of tolerating a rather constant set of abiotic 

conditions. 

Data collected at J. Clark Salyer NWR between 

1940 and 1960 suggest that many of the above 

changes started to create new management 

challenges as the drought ended and a wet period 

began. In a report covering the period 1946–56, it is 

stated, “annual floods prevented the attainment of 

complete plant succession from marsh to dry-land 

species which had been desired at higher elevations” 

(Hammond, no date). This report further states 

that areas (primarily sloughs and oxbows) at 

elevations below 1,415 (elevation datum not 

provided) were never exposed during this period 

and that most had “silted in greatly” during the 

years of high water levels. 

In 1951, a refuge report on marsh and waterfowl 

management at Lower Souris NWR (later renamed 

J. Clark Salyer NWR) states that “sediment 

accumulation in open water bay sloughs, channels, 

borrow pits, and all open water areas not covered 

by sod, or exposed to periodic drying or wave 

action, had developed a deep muck bottom” 

(Hammond [no date]). This report also mentions 

that periodic drawdowns were being conducted, 

but implies that success was dependent on time and 

magnitude of river flows. Other conditions that had 

developed by this time included concern regarding 

the extensive expansion of cattail, river bulrush, 

and common reed (USFWS 1962), as well as 

relationships between algal blooms, pondweed 

production, and botulism (Hammond 1961, 1962). 

Similar records were not located for Des Lacs 

NWR and Upper Souris NWR. However, many of 

the same challenges likely occurred at all three 

refuges, because a river flows through 

impoundments at each refuge and individual 

impoundments cannot be independently flooded or 

dewatered. 

Since the 1950s, there have been numerous, 

additional disturbances within the Souris River 

basin that have further altered the dynamic flow 

regimes once characteristic of the Souris and Des 

Lacs rivers. This includes additional dams and an 

international agreement that regulates river flows 

and water quality, along with continued human 

development. An example of an altered flow regime 

is where the average annual runoff at Sherwood, 

North Dakota, was 73,170 acre-feet between 1929 

and 1968, but increased to more than 208,000 acrefeet (184%) between 1969 and 1975 (Ulrich and 

Pfeifer 1976). Although such increases are due in 

part to precipitation cycles, another cause has been 

major land use changes in the watershed (Ulrich and 

Pfeifer 1976). For example, wetland drainage and 

conversion of grasslands to cultivated cropland has 

likely increased runoff contributed by watersheds. 

Given the history of changes and current conditions 

within the Souris River and Des Lacs River 

watersheds, one of the challenges that must be 

addressed if management goals are to sustain longterm productivity is the ability to manage water to 

promote natural marsh cycles. Short- and long-term 

hydrologic conditions affect many abiotic factors. 

Water fluxes affect nutrient cycling by determining 

the type and quantity of nutrients that enter and 

exit wetlands and influencing decomposition rates 

(Livingston and Loucks 1979). Hydroperiod affects 

water quality and soil conditions (Mitsch and 

Gosselink 2000). These abiotic conditions in turn 

influence biotic components including the 

composition, distribution, and productivity of 

wetland vegetation (van der Valk and Welling 

1988, Squires and van der Valk 1992) and 

invertebrate community composition and structure 

(Kadlec 1982). Ultimately, vertebrate use of 

wetlands is directly and indirectly affected by 

hydrology (Weller and Spatcher 1965, Weller and 

Fredrickson 1974, Laubhan and Roelle 2001). 

Currently, refuges have difficulty removing water 

from impoundments and drying soils sufficiently to 

(1) promote establishment of annual vegetation, or 

(2) control the encroachment rate of perennial 

vegetation such as cattail and bulrush. Therefore, 

vegetation tends to cycle rapidly between open 

water and dense stands of perennial emergents. 

The root of this problem may be the inability to 

reliably dewater impoundments during the 

growing season because of the following: 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Q	 The volume of water entering the refuge is 

frequently outside the control of the refuges. 

Q	 Water entering the refuge cannot be diverted 

from marshes because the river flows through 

each impoundment. 

Q	 Management actions such as drawdown of one 

impoundment constrain management options at 

other impoundments. 

Q	 The gradient of the river channel—through the 

refuge and over 30 miles into Canada—averages 

less than 1 foot per mile, which greatly reduces 

flow velocities. 

Q	 The difference in the sill elevation at the 357 

structure and the downstream carp barrier 

results in pool elevations higher than complete 

drawdown levels. 

Q	 Flooding in Canada can result from flows of as 

little as 200 cfs, making it impossible to move 

water in a timely manner after prolonged runoff 

or summer rain events. 

All three refuges have attempted to dewater 

impoundments and, when accomplished, the seed 

bank responds in large portions of many 

impoundments. This suggests that the seed bank is 

still viable. However, the ability to reliably conduct 

complete drawdowns at the correct time is limited. 

Consequently, maximum productivity potential of 

impoundments is often not attained. Upper Souris 

NWR appears to have the greatest capability to 

control water during the growing season, but only 

in a few impoundments (collectively <2,000 wetland 

acres). In contrast, J. Clark Salyer NWR and Des 

Lacs NWR often attempt to dewater select 

impoundments, but success is hindered by the 

inability to move flows through impoundments 

without unintended flooding of marsh substrates. 

The importance of dewatering and drying soils 

described above is based on an important paper 

describing a model of wetland plant succession that 

was developed by van der Valk (1981). According 

to this model, wetland plants can be divided into 

groups based on life span (annual, perennial with 

limited life, or perennial with unlimited life), 

propagule longevity (short or long), and 

requirements for propagule establishment 

(drawdown, surface water). Annual plants generally 

have long-lived propagules that are contained in 

the seed bank and, following a drawdown, 

production of seeds can be large. However, if the 

wetland remains saturated or flooded for more 

than a year, the abundance of annuals typically 

decreases because they are incapable of germinating 

in water. In contrast, perennial vegetation tends to 

increase because these species can propagate by 

rhizomes as well as seeds, and can tolerate deeper 

water. Through time, particularly under stable 

water regimes, perennial plants capable of 

reproducing by rootstocks (such as cattail and 

bulrush) will begin to dominate the wetland plant 

community. In many cases (such as the Souris 

River basin refuges), dense, monotypic stands of 

robust vegetation develop throughout the basin 

and a decline in productivity eventually occurs. 

In northern temperate wetlands, the feeding and 

house-building activities of herbivores such as 

muskrats and beaver are extremely important at 

this stage in the cycle. These activities, in conjunction 

with water level fluctuations, function to create 

openings in the marsh and facilitate the production 

of annuals when the next drawdown occurs. At the 

Souris River basin refuges, however, the inability 

to conduct complete drawdowns appears to create 

conditions that either facilitate the creation of large 

open water bodies or cause rapid recolonization of 

perennial vegetation. Thus, marshes often do not 

exhibit the critical dry portion of the marsh cycle 

that facilitates oxidation of soil and stimulates 

annuals to germinate. 

Characteristic Wildlife 

The importance of the Souris River basin refuges 

for waterbirds has been widely recognized since 

acquisition of the areas. For example, following 

impoundment development in the 1930s, the 

waterfowl response at J. Clark Salyer NWR was 

tremendous. During the first 3 years of 

management, nests of 22 species were documented 

for the first time at the refuge. By 1939, 112 nesting 

species had been documented (Henry 1939). 

Currently, the refuges provide food and breeding 

habitat for thousands of migrating and nesting 

waterfowl. J. Clark Salyer NWR, in particular, has 

developed into one of the most important duck 

production areas in the United States. The refuge 

also provides habitat for numerous other bird 

species including shorebirds, grebes (five species), 

and wading birds. Based on the most recent bird 

list available, the refuge has documented 160 

nesting species. 

The American Bird Conservancy recognizes all 

three refuges as “Globally Important Bird Areas.” 

In addition, J. Clark Salyer NWR has been 

designated as a regional shorebird site in the 

“Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve 

Network.” Lake Darling is designated critical 

habitat for the federally threatened piping plover. 

The Souris River basin refuges support high 

densities of dabbling and diving duck species, 

especially during years with favorable wetland 

conditions. J. Clark Salyer NWR and the upper end 

of Lake Darling at Upper Souris NWR are 

especially important as a molting refuge for dabbling 

ducks. The Souris River basin is within the core 

breeding range of most dabbling duck and several 

diving duck species, including mallard, northern 

pintail, gadwall, American wigeon, green-winged 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Descriptions 55 

teal, blue-winged teal, northern shoveler, redhead, 

canvasback, lesser scaup, and ruddy duck. 

The Souris River basin provides significant breeding 

and migration habitat for more than 200 other bird 

species. Important wetland species that breed in 

the area include Franklin’s gull, yellow rail, piping 

plover, Wilson’s phalarope, marbled godwit, 

American avocet, American bittern, and five species 

of grebes. Wetlands in the region also provide 

important migration habitat for the following: 

Q waterfowl such as tundra swan and snow goose 

Q waterbirds including sandhill crane 

Q shorebirds such as Hudsonian godwit, American 

golden-plover, white-rumped sandpiper, and 

buff-breasted sandpiper 

Other important vertebrates 

include muskrat, mink, 

painted turtle, 

snapping turtle, 

chorus frog, 

and tiger 

salamander. 

In addition, Lake 

Darling at Upper 

Souris NWR supports a 

fishery that includes 

northern pike, walleye, yellow 

perch, and smallmouth bass. Smaller fishes such as 

brook stickleback and fathead minnow are widely 

distributed and provide forage for grebes and other 

waterbirds. 

Yellow perch. 

Bob Hines/USFWS 

Northern pike. 

Bob Hines/USFWS 

Islands 

All three Souris River basin refuges have islands. 

Physical Environment 

Construction of artificial islands is a management 

technique used in the Prairie Pothole Region to 

overcome the loss of upland nesting habitat. 

Eight 0.5-acre islands were created in the early 

1990s at Des Lacs NWR (four in each of 115-acre 

impoundment 6 and 400-acre impoundment 7 

[lower Des Lacs Lake]). The latter were 

improperly designed and became mostly to 

completely submerged during reflooding of the pool 

in the mid-1990s. 

At J. Clark Salyer NWR, more than 50 nesting 

islands, ranging in size from 0.6 to 3.0 acres, were 

constructed in the 1930s, 1950s, and 1970s. Islands 

were constructed in four large (4,000- to 5,000-acre) 

impoundments (pools 320, 326, 332, and 341) and in 

Additionally, a 7-acre natural island (Ding Island) 

is located in pool 320. All islands were constructed 

using a dragline or bulldozer or both to borrow fill 

adjacent to the site. Many islands were rehabilitated 

in the 1990s and were riprapped with fieldstone to 

reduce erosion. 

At Upper Souris NWR, 28 islands have been 

constructed. Islands average about 0.6 acre each 

and are found in six impoundments (41, C, 87A, 

87B, 96, and 96B). The two largest islands (2 acres 

each) are located in pools C and 96. 

Characteristic Vegetation 

The makeup and density of plant cover vary 

significantly among islands. The average cover on 

islands at J. Clark Salyer NWR follows: 

Q 18% low shrubs (western snowberry and Woods’ 

rose) 

Q 38% introduced grasses (mainly smooth brome 

and Kentucky bluegrass) 

Q 23% tall, weedy forbs (stinging nettle, mustard, 

Canada thistle, and absinth wormwood) 

Q 9% leafy spurge 

Q the remainder is bare ground, rock, or emergent 

vegetation such as common reed and cattail 

Low shrubs attractive to ducks as nest sites have 

been hand-planted and may need to be periodically 

replanted because of flooding or due to clipping by 

meadow voles during winter. Planted stands of DNC 

(wheatgrasses, alfalfa, and sweetclover) are shortlived (7–10 years), and often invaded by smooth 

brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and weedy forbs. Over 

time, grazing by Canada geese can shift island 

cover from grasses to weedy forbs. 

The makeup and density of plant cover on islands 

at Des Lacs NWR and Upper Souris NWR are 

roughly similar and as variable. 

This aerial view of unit 6 at Des Lacs NWR (upper 

third of photograph) shows several islands constructed 

to provide secure nesting sites for ducks and other 

waterbirds. 

USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wildlife Use of Islands 

Waterfowl use of nesting islands at J. Clark Salyer 

NWR has been intensively studied (Hammond and 

Mann 1956, Duebbert 1966, Aufforth et al. 1990, 

Willms and Crawford 1989). However, most of 

these studies were conducted over 2 years on a 

subset of islands. In 1992–94, a more comprehensive 

study was conducted on 30 nesting islands located 

in impoundments 320, 326, and 332 and under 

variable water levels (Grant and Shaffer, 

unpublished). Gadwall was the most common 

nesting duck, accounting for 50–60% of nests. 

Gadwall, mallard, and blue-winged teal accounted 

for 90% of all waterfowl nests in this and previous 

island studies at J. Clark Salyer NWR. Less 

common were Canada goose, northern pintail, 

northern shoveler, lesser scaup, American wigeon, 

redhead, canvasback, and ruddy duck. Doublecrested cormorant, American avocet, and ringbilled gull nest on islands occasionally. 

Lesser scaup. 

56 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Dave Menke/USFWS 

Nests on islands at Des Lacs NWR are mostly of 

mallard, gadwall, and Canada goose. Canada geese 

have been observed nesting on islands at Upper 

Souris NWR. 

Nest densities are higher on islands that have 

(1) predators controlled; (2) a large, surrounding, 

open-water barrier; and (3) extensive cover of low 

shrubs or leafy spurge (Grant and Shaffer, 

unpublished). Nest survival can be greater than 

75% (apparent survival), especially following 

winter drawdowns in conjunction with predator 

removal. Deep water and an extensive 

nonvegetated barrier around an island discourage 

mammalian predators from reaching islands. Mink 

are a significant predator of island-nesting ducks 

and can seriously impact nest and hen survival 

(Grant and Shaffer, unpublished). Once nesting 

begins, mink are especially difficult to remove by 

trapping. Striped skunk, raccoon, and red fox also 

cause nest losses but are more readily controlled. 

Gulls occasionally prey on eggs and ducklings. 

Islands are expensive to build ($30,000 per acre) 

and maintain. Long-term maintenance costs were 

not factored into original construction; island repairs 

and rehabilitation have significantly inflated the 

cost-to-benefit ratio of island construction. Many 

islands that were built at J. Clark Salyer NWR in 

the 1930s during impoundment construction are 

rarely used by nesting waterfowl because they fail to 

deter predators that come from the mainland. These 

islands are perennially surrounded by dense stands 

of emergent vegetation, occur in shallow water, or 

are too close to the mainland. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The Service is responsible for managing 

archaeological and historical sites found on refuge 

lands. 

Prehistoric Background 

Because of the limited nature of the archaeological 

work that has been conducted to date, much of the 

understanding of the area’s prehistory is drawn by 

inference from surrounding areas. This document 

gives details of the various cultural traditions and 

complexes that are present or potentially present 

within the Souris River basin, particularly that 

portion of the Souris River valley in North Dakota 

upstream of the city of Minot. 

Artifactual evidence exists for the presence of 

prehistoric peoples in and near the Souris River 

valley in North Dakota from Paleo-Indian times 

(9500–5500 BC) to early historic times. The PaleoIndian tradition is characterized by a variety of 

hunting and gathering adaptive strategies, each 

with a strong focus on big game. Due to the limited 

amount of archaeological excavations in this area 

however, evidence for the presence of particular 

cultural complexes and traditions comes primarily 

from a small number of surface-collected diagnostic 

artifacts. 

Ethnographic (descriptive of cultures) accounts 

indicate that the Assiniboine, Sioux, Mandan, 

Hidatsa, Plains Ojibwa, and Atsina peoples all 

made use of the Souris River region of North 

Dakota for hunting or trade route purposes. 

Although the area has a rich cultural heritage, few 

sites have been formally identified. 

The Souris River basin refuges are within a 

relatively unresearched archeological area in 

northwestern North Dakota. The closest site to be 

excavated is about 40 miles west of the northern 

boundary of Des Lacs NWR at Long Creek near 

Estevan, Saskatchewan, in Canada. Excavation at 

Long Creek was sponsored by the Saskatchewan 

Museum of Natural History in 1957 and was 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remains of a prehistoric campground in the Souris 

River basin.

57 

 Rhoda Lewis/USFWS 

reported in 1960 (Wettlaufer and Mayer-Oakes 

1960). The Long Creek site revealed occupation by 

as many as nine separate cultures dating back to 

3043 BC ±125 years. Because of the near proximity 

of the Long Creek site and the then 

interconnecting of the Souris and Des Lacs rivers 

and the Long Creek flowage, it is reasonably safe 

to assume that at one time or another all of the nine 

cultures were present in the Des Lacs River valley. 

Historical records indicate that the last inhabitants 

of the Des Lacs River valley, before EuroAmerican settlement, were the southern 

Assiniboine tribes, who now reside in Canada. 

Many known sites exist at the Des Lacs NWR 

where Native Americans occupied the area either 

in permanent or transient camps and more may be 

present but undiscovered. Sites commonly contain 

tipi rings and one site contains several turtle 

effigies with what are apparently rock-lined fire 

pits in the center. During drought years when 

water levels in the Upper Des Lacs Lake recede, 

large quantities of bison bones are visible on the 

beaches and shoreline adjacent to one site. 

Early Exploration 

Among the earliest accounts located for the Souris 

River region is an article that recounts a journey 

by Alexander Henry in the summer (June 14– 

August 9) of 1806 (Billeck 1990). Gough (1988) bases 

the article on a transcription of Henry’s 1,642-page 

journal. The general route traveled was from the 

confluence of the Assiniboine and Souris rivers to 

near the confluence of the Knife and Missouri 

rivers. On the outbound portion of the trip, Henry 

headed southeast and crossed the Souris River 

valley to near present-day Minot, North Dakota. 

On the return portion of the trip, the Souris River 

was crossed near present-day Verendrye and again 

at Willow Creek. 

Billeck (1990) indicated that at least part of the 

Souris River area was a buffer zone, which is a 

contested area between Native American tribes. In 

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Descriptions 

this case, the buffer zone separated the Assiniboine 

and Sioux. Buffer zones are characterized as 

supporting higher game populations because the 

area was not settled and was exploited only by 

hunting parties at high risk (Hickerson 1965). Henry’s 

journal frequently mentions the abundance of 

game. For example, on August 1, 1806, Henry 

describes “thousands of buffalo [American bison]” 

while overlooking the Souris River valley from the 

Missouri Coteau. On August 3, 1806, Henry crossed 

the Souris near Verendrye and reported the river 

was “well stocked with red deer, moose, deer, 

antelope [pronghorn], and buffalo.” 

The first accounts of Euro-American contact with 

Native Americans occurred in 1738 when Verendrye 

traveled between Fort LaReine on the Assiniboine 

River to the Missouri River (probably near either 

present-day Bismarck or Minot, North Dakota) 

(Robinson 1966, Schweigert 1990). Organized fur 

companies such as North West Company, Hudson’s 

Bay Company, and American Fur Company and 

independent trappers traded with Native 

American tribes between 1780 and 1850. However, 

major trading posts apparently were never 

established in the middle Souris River region of 

North Dakota (Schweigert 1990). Similarly, 

between the 1850s and 1880s, there were several 

military and civilian expeditions through the area, 

but again settlements were not mentioned 

(Schweigert 1990). 

Although speculative, the journal kept by settler 

Henry A. Boller suggests that he and his party 

crossed the Des Lacs River at a point south of the 

southern end of Middle Des Lacs Lake and camped 

at the Assiniboine encampment approximately 5 

miles east of the river valley. Whatever the case 

may have been, it is certain that Boller traveled 

through the Des Lacs River valley in 1858, several 

decades before the rapid and widespread settling of 

the area by Euro-Americans. 

Boller’s accounts of his journey to the Des Lacs 

River valley paints a picture of a vast and 

continuous landscape devoid of trees, but alive with 

life. Shortly after departing Fort Atkinson, Boller 

characterizes their route as “uninteresting...high 

rolling prairie, totally destitute of timber.” Again, 

making reference to a nonforested landscape, 

Boller notes that out of necessity of “there being no 

wood within miles,” he and his party were “busied 

in collecting dry buffalo chips” to provide fuel for 

their evening campfires. 

Although Boller continued to characterize his route 

to the Des Lacs River valley as “a most barren and 

uninteresting country,” the wildlife seemed to be 

overly abundant. Boller notes that the “buffalo 

were plenty...wild fowl were present in countless 

numbers...plenty of ducks could be obtained with 

but little trouble...[wolf] forms could everywhere 

be seen sneaking over the adjacent hills.” Again, in 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

58 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

reference to the abundance of bison in the area, 

Boller noted that the country “abounded in 

innumerable lakes or ponds of stagnant water, and 

all more or less highly flavored with buffalo urine.” 

Boller also made special mention of a grizzly bear 

that was sighted “a short distance from the line of 

march.” 

Boller’s first and only reference to the presence of 

trees came on his party’s approach to the Des Lacs 

River. It seems, however, that these trees did not 

make a big impression on Boller, as they were not 

mentioned again in his journal. Boller described the 

trees as “a dark line” that “marked [their] approach 

to a running stream, the River of Lakes.” From his 

brief description, the trees appeared to be no more 

than in a narrow line along the river edge. Boller 

also enthusiastically mentions that the river “had a 

hard rocky bottom, making a very good crossing,” 

which according to Boller was “a wonder in this 

part of the country.” 

After crossing the river and “toiling up the steep 

and stony bluffs on the opposite shore...reach[ing] a 

broad plateau”, Boller’s party was “strung out over 

the prairie” with “the conical skin lodges [of the 

Assiniboines]...now plainly in sight, not more than 

five miles off.” Boller describes the Assiniboines 

encampment as “in the middle of an open plain 

without a stick of timber in sight...large bands of 

buffalos were in plain sight from the encampment... 

the whole country seemed fairly alive with moving 

herds...the proximity of the herds and the 

abundance of meat in the camp [made] the 

[Assiniboines] dainty in their selections.” 

Alexander Henry’s 1806 journey from Fort Souris 

across the Souris River valley and Missouri Coteau 

to villages on the Upper Missouri River brought 

him into the vicinity of the Des Lacs River valley, 

thus providing another invaluable early description 

of the area’s landscape. On reaching the Des Lacs 

River valley, most likely near the confluence of Des 

Lacs and Souris rivers, Henry described a 

landscape of “steep hills...covered with huge 

stones” and “low valleys in continual succession... 

there [was] no wood of any kind” (Coues 1897). 

After continuing his trek across the valley, Henry 

and his party soon spotted a “cluster of wood at the 

N. extremity...of a long lake running N. and S.” 

(Coues 1897). According to Henry, this came as a 

surprise to his guide, “who said he never knew of 

any wooded lake in this plain” (Coues 1897). Henry 

also noted the “thousands of buffalo which covered 

the plains” (Gough 1988). 

Early Settlement 

The first settlements began to appear in the early 

1880s. The town of Scripton (near Velva) was 

established in 1882 and settlement of the Souris 

Valley upstream from Minot occurred in 1883. 

These initial settlers were ranchers that claimed 

lands in the Souris and Des Lacs river valleys for 

exclusive use by cattle and forage production 

(personal communication with Henry Stammen, 

Foxholm, ND, 1978). 

A lignite mine was established near Burlington at 

the mouth of the Des Lacs River; by 1883, 12,000 

pounds of lignite had been excavated. The 1885 

Census of Dakota Territory listed 31, 257, and 800 

people living in what would become Renville, 

Ward, and McHenry counties, respectively 

(Schweigert 1990). In Ward County, 600 head of 

cattle and 1,093 acres were planted to crops in 

1884, and census records indicate there were 280 

farms in McHenry County. 

In 1886, extension of the Great Northern Railway 

from Devils Lake to Minot (Robinson 1966) was 

initiated. Following completion, the area was more 

accessible for settlers and both the Souris and Des 

Lacs river valleys filled with people. In 1893, the 

Soo Line was established from Minot north to 

Portal at the Canada border, part of which runs 

through present-day Des Lacs NWR for 12.6 miles. 

The Great Northern Railway extended a track that 

ran parallel to the Souris River from Granville to 

Sherwood. In 1905, the Soo Line constructed a rail 

from Oslo, Minnesota, to Kenmare that crossed the 

Souris River south of Greene (Schweigert 1990). 

Towns developed at regular intervals along these 

lines and, by 1905, nearly every quarter section 

(160 acres) of land in north-central North Dakota 

had been claimed. At this time, Minot had a 

population of about 10,000. 

The Des Lacs River area was part of a vast cattle 

range that extended from Texas to the Canada 

border. Thousands of acres were ranched, as the 

lush prairie grasses of the area provided excellent 

pasture for finishing of cattle. In 1894, more than 

125,000 head of cattle were trailed overland from 

the Chinook and Malta, Montana, area for shipment 

at Spiral, a major cattle-shipping center located a 

few miles northwest of the Des Lacs NWR 

headquarters along the Soo Line. Sheep were 

grazed in the hills and coulees in the areas to the 

west and southwest. 

The first major influx of Euro-Americans into the 

Des Lacs River area began in the early 1890s near 

the present city of Kenmare. However, evidence 

indicates that a rancher settled the area in 1864 

and the first lignite coalmine opened in 1880. 

Accounts left by one early rancher, Andrew 

McBride, relates that in 1892 there were only three 

other settlers within a 20-mile radius of his 

homestead, located at the southern end of Middle 

Des Lacs Lake. The coming of the railroad in 1893, 

however, opened up the area to settlement, 

although the development of town sites and the 

arrival of immigrants did not begin until after 1896. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Descriptions 59 

The land in Kenmare was first opened to 

homesteaders in July 1896 and was 

incorporated as a village in 1901. 

In 1897, Kenmare took 

on the appearance of 

a booming frontier town 

with 1,200 cars of settlers 

arriving and the 

establishment of livery 

stables, restaurants, 

saloons, and other area 

businesses. The area was 

also a trade center for grain 

shipping and the terminal 

point for a short-lived river barge 

business. Navigation of the Upper 

Des Lacs Lake was begun in 1903 in a 

sternwheeler; barges were used to ship grain 

to a point near Kenmare to be unloaded and 

shipped via the Soo Line railroad. In 1904, records 

show that A.A. Robinson hauled about 200,000 

bushels of grain on the boat to a site near Kenmare 

and loaded it onto the Soo Line Railroad. 

The 1890s marked the beginning of a major 

transformation of the landscape in the Des Lacs 

River valley. Decades of activities associated with 

Euro-American settlement has resulted in 

dramatic changes in the composition and 

abundance of the area’s native fauna (for example, 

bison were extirpated) and flora (for example, 

increases in woody and brushy vegetation). 

Fortunately, detailed records were taken of the 

vegetation and wildlife of the Des Lacs River 

valley, particularly near Kenmare, in the early 

years of settlement. 

George K. Dike came to the Des Lacs River valley 

area in September 1895. Dike’s survey notes 

described a prairie country, although noting the 

occurrence of trees and brush in coulees and along 

lakeshores. The photographs of E.H. Gross 

corroborate Dike’s surveys and provide convincing 

evidence of the scarcity of trees in the Des Lacs 

River valley, especially near Kenmare, in the early 

20th century. Vernon Bailey’s field reports (1913) 

of the flora and fauna of the Kenmare and Des Lacs 

River valley area from July 1913 also suggested a 

prairie landscape, but included areas of dense 

woodland. According to Bailey (1913), the Kenmare 

area in 1913 was “rolling prairie...[with] numerous 

coulees...many of [which were] densely wooded or 

full of brush.” He also noted the deliberate planting 

by farmers of trees such as boxelder and willow as 

windbreaks (Bailey 1913). 

Although the landscape was being rapidly modified 

by agricultural and mining activities during the 

early 1900s, the bird fauna still appeared to be 

thriving in the Des Lacs River valley. According to 

Bailey’s field notes, ducks, especially northern 

pintail, mallard, blue-winged teal, and northern 

shoveler, were abundant, as well as many other 

waterbird and shorebird species (Bailey 1913). 

More importantly, however, were Bailey’s 

numerous accounts of species sensitive to woody 

growth and other invasive vegetation. This 

suggests that the grasslands surrounding the Des 

Lacs River valley in the early 1900s were of higher 

quality than those of today. The prairie-adapted 

species documented by Bailey (1913) included the 

northern harrier (common), Swainson’s hawk 

(common), ferruginous hawk, greater prairie 

chicken (common), upland sandpiper, burrowing 

owl, short-eared owl (common), Baird’s sparrow 

(common), and grasshopper sparrow (common). 

Conversely, certain species that were not very 

common during Bailey’s survey in 1913 (such as the 

ring-billed gull, double-crested cormorant, and 

American white pelican) are currently common and 

abundant at the refuge. 

Civilian Conservation Corps and 

Works Progress Administration 

The election of Franklin Roosevelt as president in 

1932 unleashed a host of programs aimed at 

stemming the Great Depression cycle. These 

programs were meant to build the nation’s 

infrastructure to support the failing economy and 

to overhaul the methods that had lead to the 

disastrous conditions. 

Roosevelt was a strong advocate for conserving 

natural resources and felt strongly that the federal 

government should take an active role in the 

nation’s economy. His somewhat romantic 

sentiment was turned into several broad-brush 

executive orders to create work programs with a 

strong central conservation ethic. Five days after 

taking the oath of office, President Roosevelt called 

a conference with the secretaries of Agriculture, 

Interior, and War. The president discussed his ideas 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

for recruiting 500,000 men to work in the nation’s 

forests and eroded farmland. 

The CCC was legislated, followed several months 

later with an executive order setting up the 

development of the Works Projects Administration 

(later renamed Works Progress Administration). 

Both programs contributed to the Depression-era 

development of the Souris River basin refuges. The 

men labored for months and years to build the 

headquarters, roads, dams, and recreation facilities 

that survive today and are an integral part of the 

refuges. 

Camp Des Lacs was located at Kenmare, North 

Dakota. The camp was part of the 797th Company of 

the CCC; its official army name was Camp Sam G. 

Anderson. Camp Des Lacs was one of four CCC 

camps operating under the U.S. Bureau of Biological 

Survey, in the restoration and development of four 

migratory waterfowl refuges in the northwestern 

part of North Dakota. The camp was established to 

carry on the restoration and development of the 

Des Lacs and Lostwood migratory waterfowl 

refuges. 

The CCC built almost all the present-day patrol 

roads, dams, and spillways at Des Lacs NWR. 

Several structures remain including the 

cinderblock residence, cold storage building, well 

house, Tasker’s Coulee picnic shelter, and 

Northgate rubble dam. In addition, the CCC built 

fences, planted trees, and transplanted emergent 

vegetation. 

The 796th Company of the CCC was assigned to 

Camp BF-1 (known as Camp Maurek, located at 

Upper Souris NWR) and Camp BF-5 (known as 

Camp Heintzelman, located at Mohall). The camps 

operated from May 1935 to October 1941. A Works 

Project Administration workforce was employed at 

the Upper Souris NWR from December 1936 to 

November 1939, and for a short time in 1940. 

At Upper Souris NWR, the CCC laborers helped 

build miles of truck roads, diversion ditches, 

spillways, waterfowl-nesting islands, and fishspawning habitat. Crews from the CCC and Works 

Progress Administration cleared the area to be 

flooded by Lake Darling of fence materials, farm 

buildings, and trees that lined the river channel. 

Contractors built dams 83 (Lake Darling), 87, and 

96. The CCC crews assisted by building spillways, 

culverts, bridges, and water control structures 

using quality masonry in which local fieldstones 

were incorporated. (Speulda and Lewis 2003). 

The 766th Company of the CCC was assigned to 

Camp BF-4; after temporarily locating near 

Bottineau, the company was moved to a location 

west of Kramer. The camp was commonly known 

as Camp Ding, after J. Ding Darling. The CCC 

were stationed at the refuge from 1935 to 1942. 

At J. Clark Salyer NWR, the company built dikes 

and miles of roads and fences; collected wildflower, 

grass, tree, and shrub seeds; planted trees; and 

installed many other wildlife habitat facilities. A 

Works Progress Administration workforce was 

also employed at the refuge from 1936 to 1941 and 

assisted the CCC with their projects. 

Historical Sites 

There are a limited number of sites at J. Clark 

Salyer NWR eligible for listing in the Register of 

Historical Sites. They are dams 1, 320, 326, 332, 341, 

and 357. There are many farmstead sites at the 

refuge but the exact locations are unknown at this 

time. 

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS 

There are several, officially designated, special 

management areas in the Souris River basin 

refuges: 

Q	 The American Bird Conservancy recognizes each 

of the three refuges as a globally important bird 

area. The important bird area program, initiated 

by BirdLife International in Europe during the 

mid-1980s, was developed to recognize and 

support sites significant to bird populations. 

Based on the criteria developed by BirdLife 

International, an important bird area must 

maintain and support one or more of the 

following: (1) species of concern (for example, 

threatened and endangered); (2) restricted-range 

species; (3) species vulnerable because of 

population concentration; and (4) species 

vulnerable because they occur at high densities 

due to their congregative behavior. 

Q	 The auto tour route at the Des Lacs NWR is 

designated as a national scenic backway. The 

route starts at the south end of the refuge on the 

east side of the lake and proceeds north 6.5 miles 

to a point just south of Kenmare. The route then 

proceeds through Kenmare for 2.2 miles. The 

backway starts again on the south end of Boat 

Dock Road, 1 mile north of Kenmare. The route 

then proceeds north 5 miles on the west side of 

Upper Des Lacs Lake, until it exits the refuge 

and joins into Ward County Road 1. 

Q	 The Munch’s Coulee Hiking Trail at Des Lacs 

NWR was designated as a national recreation 

trail in June 2005. The trail is located adjacent to 

the Lower Des Lacs Lake, situated just off the 

national scenic backway. The trail has an 

accessible hard-surfaced lower section that is 

0.25 mile long. The foot trail is a loop on top of 

the bluffs overlooking the river valley. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Munch’s Coulee Hiking Trail at Des Lacs NWR.

61 

Deb Parker/USFWS 

Q	 J. Clark Salyer NWR has been designated as a 

regional shorebird site in the Western 

Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. 

Q	 Lake Darling at Upper Souris NWR is 

designated critical habitat for the piping plover, 

a shorebird listed by the Service as threatened 

in the northern Great Plains. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Each of the Souris River basin refuges supports a 

variety of the priority public uses identified in the 

Improvement Act. 

Des Lacs NWR 

The Des Lacs NWR provides visitors opportunities 

for five of the six priority public uses identified in 

the Improvement Act. Fishing is not allowed, as 

there is no sustainable fishery population. Most 

activity centers on hunting and wildlife 

observation. 

Yearly visitation is approximately 11,000. In 2004, 

the following percentages of visitation were 

estimated: 

Q	 70% wildlife observation and photography 

Q	 10% hunting 

Q	 5% environmental education and interpretation 

Q	 14% non-wildlife-dependent activities (such as 

group events at Tasker’s Coulee) 

Hunting 

The hunting program provides opportunity to hunt 

deer, turkey, pheasant, gray partridge, sharptailed grouse, cottontail, snowshoe hare, and fox. 

Many hunters request waterfowl hunting and are 

referred to other public lands or to private lands, as 

waterfowl hunting is not permitted at the refuge. A 

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Descriptions 

hunting “tear sheet” provides information, 

regulations, and a map for a variety of game 

seasons. Some aspects of the hunting program 

follow: 

Q	 Turkeys are hunted in the spring and fall. 

Q	 Upland game is permitted in late-November to 

early January annually, after deer rifle season 

closes and waterfowl have generally migrated 

out of the area. 

Q	 Deer hunting is permitted for archery, rifle, and 

muzzleloader hunters in accordance with state 

seasons. Archery season opens in early 

September, rifle season in early November, and 

muzzleloader season in early December. No 

special regulations exist except to have a unit 

tag. Youth deer hunting is allowed and 

encouraged at the refuge during the September 

season. 

Q	 The Canada Goose Trail, White-tailed Deer 

Trail, and Boat Dock Road to Highway 52 are 

open for game retrieval access with vehicles 

during rifle deer season. Deer hunters are able 

to retrieve game during designated times posted 

at these locations, to encourage hunters to walk 

to access more remote areas of the refuge. 

Q	 Requests for accessible hunting permits (to 

shoot from vehicles) are evaluated for hunters 

with disabilities and are generally allowed. 

Q	 The use of dogs is permitted for upland game 

hunting only. 

Q	 No field trials or shooting ranges are permitted 

at the refuge. 

Fishing 

Fishing does not occur at the refuge. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

An auto tour route is part of a system of North 

Dakota’s scenic backways and byways. The route 

traverses 14 miles along Upper Des Lacs, Middle 

Des Lacs, and Lower Des Lacs lakes and includes 

driving through Kenmare. Thirteen interpretive 

panels are located along the auto tour route and 

overlooks are available at Middle Des Lacs and 

Lower Des Lacs lakes. The direction of travel is 

two-way and the route is generally open from April 

through November. The auto tour route is not 

maintained during winter months. The refuge, 

Ward County, and Kenmare Park Board rotate 

summer road maintenance annually, as agreed 

upon through a memorandum of understanding. 

Four nature trails are available at the refuge: 

Q	 Canada Goose Trail—7.5-mile nature trail is 

open to hiking and bicycling, and one-way 

vehicle traffic for 17 days in mid-September 

annually
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

62 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Q	 Munch’s Coulee Hiking Trail—1-mile nature trail 

loop is open to hiking with an accessible section 

Q	 White-tailed Deer Trail—1-mile nature trail is 

open to hiking 

Q	 Tasker’s Coulee has informal mowed nature 

trails 

A viewing and photography blind to observe 

displaying sharp-tailed grouse is available in the 

spring. Spotting scopes and binoculars are 

available for visitors. An all-weather binocular is 

mounted on the observation deck at headquarters 

and provides visitors with an excellent view of the 

Middle Des Lacs Lake and wildlife. A paved 

overlook with interpretive panels is located 

adjacent to the headquarters area. 

Tasker’s Coulee has tables, a CCC-era covered 

shelter, accessible restrooms, and informal mowed 

trails. The boat dock day use area has a boat ramp, 

tables, and vault toilets. Nonmotorized boats are 

allowed. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Videos and trunks are available for loan. 

Binoculars, dip nets, spotting scopes, and 

microscopes are available for use. Refuge staff 

have developed curricula on fire ecology of the 

northern Great Plains, which is available for use in 

schools. Small-group environmental education 

programs are provided on request to Boy Scouts, 

Cub Scouts, and other groups. Environmental 

education duties are currently shared among the 

staff. 

Visitor exhibits are available at refuge headquarters 

and focus on early history of the area, habitats and 

waterfowl production, grassland birds, grebes, 

sharp-tailed grouse, and butterflies. 

A general brochure is available and provides 

information about refuge wildlife and habitats and 

visitor opportunities. The Souris River basin 

refuges’ bird list and the brochure for the auto tour 

route describe refuge wildlife. 

The refuge staff hosts a variety of special events: 

Q	 “Green Wing Day” promotes youth hunting 

safety and conservation 

Q	 National Wildlife Refuge Week 

Q	 “Eco-Ed Days” promotes conservation and 

resource management for fifth- and sixth-grade 

students 

Q	 “Haunted Hayride” 

The refuge also assists with the annual Kenmare 

Goosefest celebration in October. 

A number of community groups and individuals 

(including Natural Resource Conservation Service 

[NRCS], Ducks Unlimited, and Kenmare Association 

of Commerce) participate in the planning and 

implementation of special events. Other community 

groups have donated equipment and personnel for 

various special events. 

J. Clark Salyer NWR 

J. Clark Salyer NWR provides visitors wildlifedependent activities including hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation. Yearly visitation is 

approximately 15,000. 

Hunting 

The refuge is open for the hunting of waterfowl, 

white-tailed deer, turkey, sharp-tailed grouse, gray 

partridge, ring-necked pheasant, and fox. A 

hunting brochure provides information, 

regulations, and a map for a variety of game 

seasons. Some aspects of the hunting program 

follow: 

Q	 There are nine designated public hunting areas 

that are open for the hunting of waterfowl and 

upland game birds, which follow the statedesignated hunting seasons. 

Q	 Most of the refuge, with exception of specific 

closed areas, is open to deer hunting with 

archery, muzzleloader, and rifle equipment 

following state seasons. 

Q	 Late-season hunting for upland game bird and 

for fox is allowed after the close of the deer 

firearm season. 

Q	 The portion of the refuge south of the Upham– 

Willow City Road is open for hunting turkey, 

grouse, and partridge during state seasons. 

Fishing 

Fourteen public fishing areas cover the entire 

length of the refuge. All of these locations are open 

to bank fishing and several allow limited 

nonmotorized boat fishing. Fishing is allowed along 

the entire length of Souris River Canoe Trail. All 

areas are open to winter ice fishing following state 

regulations. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

There are numerous opportunities for these 

activities, many opportunistic and some formalized. 

The self-guided Scenic Trail, Grassland Trail, and 

Souris River Canoe Trail cover prairie, forest, 

wetland, and hardwood bottomland habitats. 

Wildflowers, songbirds, waterfowl, and waterbirds 

are seasonally abundant. 

A photography blind is placed near a sharp-tailed 

grouse dancing ground each spring and visitors can 

reserve its use. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visitors have an excellent view of marsh habitat and 

associated wildlife from a two-tiered viewing platform 

and an accessible observation deck at pool 326, J. Clark 

Salyer NWR. 

63 

USFWS 

Environmental Education 

The refuge conducts an extensive operation for the 

banding of waterfowl each autumn. The project 

requires a lot of time and staff to accomplish the 

banding of 4,000–5,000 ducks. Volunteers from 

universities and local schools provide a substantial 

amount of time toward this operation. Their 

assistance with collecting, handling, marking, and 

releasing thousands of birds could not be 

accomplished without their help. This activity not 

only provides the refuge with adequate staff to get 

the work done, but it provides a wonderful outdoor 

classroom for students from elementary school to 

college to learn about national wildlife refuges and 

wildlife resources. 

In addition to the above activity, minimal 

opportunities are provided to educate the public 

because of the lack of funding and trained staff. 

There are more than 60,000 residents and more 

than a dozen schools within commuting distance of 

the refuge. Videos and trunks are available for loan 

as well as binoculars, dip nets, and spotting scopes 

for specific groups and organizations. 

Interpretation 

Two interpreted auto tour routes are open to the 

public: 

Q	 The 22-mile Scenic Trail begins at the refuge 

headquarters and traverses wetland, grassland, 

and woodland habitat from pool 326 to the south 

boundary and back to Highway 14. A brochure 

provides interpretation of eighteen stops along 

the route. The brochure includes information on 

wildlife, habitat, management techniques, and 

history. The direction of travel is two-way. The 

route is generally open from April through 

November, but is not maintained during winter 

months. 

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Descriptions 

Q	 The 5-mile Grassland Trail is located along the 

northern shoreline of pool 341 on the west side of 

the refuge. It moves through mixed-grass prairie 

habitat and meanders down to the shoreline of 

the marsh. The trail is interpreted through a 

leaflet that provides information on seven stops 

along its route. This unimproved one-way trail 

begins off the Newberg Road and exits at the 

Shevelo Road; it is open from April to 

November. 

The Souris River Canoe Trail is designated as a 

national recreation trail. The canoe trail traverses 

bottomland, hardwood forest habitat within the 

Souris River floodplain. It can be paddled as a 51⁄2- 

or 13-mile trip. The 51⁄2-mile route travels from 

Johnson Bridge to Thompson Well and takes 2–3 

hours to complete. The 13-mile route travels from 

Johnson Bridge to dam 1 and takes 5–7 hours to 

float. Numbered markers are located at each mile 

along the river. An interpretive brochure provides 

a map and information about the habitat and 

wildlife a visitor will encounter. 

Thompson Well is an historical stop along the 

Scenic Trail that has drinking water from a handpumped well, a shelter, accessible restrooms, and a 

portable dock for access to the Souris River Canoe 

Trail. The Sandhills Walk, also along the Scenic 

Trail, is an area designated for hiking into the 

unique sandhills, containing bur oak forest with 

shrub and grassland understory. 

A viewing and photography blind to observe 

displaying sharp-tailed grouse is available in the 

spring. 

Visitor exhibits at refuge headquarters focus on 

early history of the area, habitats, and wildlife. 

Brochures are available and provide information 

about wildlife, habitats, and visitor opportunities. 

A paved walkway with interpretive panels leads to 

the observation point located adjacent to the 

headquarters area. Spotting scopes and binoculars 

are available for visitors. 

Upper Souris NWR 

Upper Souris NWR provides visitors with a full 

complement of wildlife-dependent activities 

including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation. 

Yearly visitation is approximately 60,000–70,000 

with a peak of 150,000 visitors. In 2004, the 

following percentages of visitation were estimated 

for each wildlife-dependent activity: 

Q	 3% of visitors participated in hunting 

Q	 78% of visitors participated in fishing 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

64 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Q	 9% of visitors participated in wildlife observation 

and photography 

Q	 less than 1% of visitors participated in 

environmental education activities 

Q	 8% of visitors participated in interpretive 

activities 

Hunting 

Hunting, particularly for white-tailed deer, is very 

popular. Deer hunting with archery equipment 

begins in early September, followed by rifle and 

muzzleloader seasons. 

Several areas are open to hunting sharp-tailed 

grouse, gray partridge, and ring-necked pheasant. 

To reduce waterfowl disturbance, upland bird 

hunting is open during different times of the fall 

and at different areas of the refuge. 

A hunting brochure is available that provides 

information, regulations, and a map. 

Fishing 

Fishing is allowed year-round, with visitors 

permitted to drive on the ice covering Lake Darling 

to fish. Lake Darling is a magnet for anglers 

looking to catch walleye, northern pike, perch, and 

smallmouth bass. 

There are 2 boat-fishing areas at Lake Darling and 

13 bank-fishing areas scattered along the lake and 

the Souris River. There are four boat-launching 

facilities. Boat fishing is allowed from May 1 through 

September 30. 

Bob Savannah/USFWS

Fishing tournaments are allowed on Lake Darling 

through the special use permit process. 

A fishing brochure containing information, rules, 

and a map is available. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

There are numerous opportunities for these 

activities—many are opportunistic and some are 

formalized. 

The Prairie-Marsh Scenic Drive is open to vehicles 

during the summer and early fall. Numbered signs 

along the drive correspond to points of interest 

that are described 

in the tour brochure 

available at the 

beginning of the 

drive. Visitors are 

welcome to walk 

around the coulees, 

roads and prairiecovered hills in the 

immediate vicinity 

of the scenic drive. 

This is an excellent 

place to observe 

wetland and 

grassland animals and plants—the area has 

spectacular summer-long blooms of native 

wildflowers. 

 USFWS 

Photography blinds are placed at three sharp-tailed 

grouse dancing grounds (leks) each spring and 

visitors can reserve the use of these blinds at no 

charge. The peak time for active dancing occurs at 

sunrise. Another blind placed at the end of Pelican 

Nature Trail is available year-round. Visitors are 

welcome to hide in this blind and let the wildlife 

come to them. 

Five nature trails beckon visitors to get out of their 

vehicles and explore the refuge. All trails present 

opportunities for observation and photography. 

These trails are for walking and are less than 2 

miles long. One trail is almost flat and is hardsurfaced, making it wheelchair-accessible. Other 

trails require some stamina to climb up and down 

the hills. Some trails have interpreted stops and 

benches for relaxing. 

Canoes are permitted on two Souris River canoe 

trails and on Lake Darling from May 1 through 

September 30. Canoeing can be a very quiet way to 

sneak up to wildlife such as the colorful wood duck 

and capture an unforgettable picture. It is a 

convenient way to view a beaver lodge and get a 

closer look at its inhabitants. 

Environmental Education 

There is a growing need for environmental education 

as people move from rural to urban areas and lose 

their connection to the land. There are more than 

60,000 residents and more than a dozen schools 

within commuting distance of the refuge. One of 

the largest potential audiences is the Minot Air 

Force Base (12 miles east of refuge headquarters). 

The refuge has a diversity of habitats and wildlife 

that can be used to teach environmental education. 

However, only minimal opportunities can be made 

available yearly because of a lack of trained and 

available staff. 

In the past, the refuge has sponsored “Migratory 

Bird Day,” “Zoo Day,” “Special Fishing Day,” 
 

wildlife refuge week activities, and “Envirothon.” 

The latter is a national scholastic competition 

among high school students that also teaches 

environmental principles. Teams compete and 

broaden their knowledge of the environment. 

Students learn aquatic sampling at the “Envirothon” 

hosted by Upper Souris NWR. 

USFWS 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

65 

Interpretation 

Visitors have access to a wide array of interpretive 

media that describe refuge management, wildlife, 

wetlands, grasslands, Neotropical birds, history, 

fishing, and hunting. 

Interpretive panels are found at two visitor kiosks, 

along an auto tour route and a walking trail, at road 

pull-offs, and at refuge headquarters. Interpretive 

exhibits at refuge headquarters focus on the CCC 

and historical trade routes. In 2006, two new kiosks 

with interpretive signs will be completed. 

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Descriptions 

The Prairie-Marsh Scenic Drive will be improved 

by adding new interpretive stops, redesigning the 

trails brochure, and paving the road surface. This 

12-stop interpreted drive will give visitors a firstclass look at prairie habitats and marsh habitats 

that support a diversity of wildlife. 

The Theodore Roosevelt Nature and History 

Association has generously cooperated with the 

refuge to provide visitors a chance to purchase 

wildlife and habitat books and games for all ages 

(sales area is open 8 a.m.–4:30 p.m. weekdays). 

Profit from the sale of items is returned to the 

refuge for biology and visitor service programs. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

The local and regional demographics—that is, 

statistical data about the population—are 

described below for the communities in the fivecounty study area pertaining to the Souris River 

basin refuges. 

Population 

Table 2 shows population estimates and trends for 

the regional area and communities near the 

refuges. In 2000, the five counties in the study area 

accounted for approximately 12% of North Dakota’s 

total population (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). From 

1990 to 2000, North Dakota’s overall population 

increased by 0.5%. Ward County was the only 

county within the study area to increase its 

population (1.5 %), over the same period. The other 

four counties all had negative population growth 

rates—ranging from a decrease of 25.3% in Burke 

County to an 8.3% decrease in McHenry County, 

over the same period. 

Table 2. Local and regional population estimates and characteristics for the five-county study area, 

North Dakota. 

Population in 2000 

Persons per Square % Population Change Number of Residents Area Mile 1990–2000 

Bottineau County 7,149 4.3 -10.8 

Burke County 2,242 2.0 -25.3 

McHenry County 5,987 3.2 -8.3 

Renville County 2,610 3.0 -17.4 

Ward County 58,795 29.2 1.5 

Five-county Area Total 76,783 — — 


North Dakota Total 642,200 9.3 0.5 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

66 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Bowbells in Burke County and Kenmare in Ward 

County are the centers of visitation activity 

associated with the Des Lacs NWR, as follows: 

Q	 Kenmare, a community of 1,081 residents, offers 

world-class upland hunting as well as abundant 

opportunities for hunters to bag white-tailed 

deer and pronghorn. Goose hunting is also a 

popular hunting activity in and around Kenmare 

as reflected in its nickname, the “Goose Capital 

of North Dakota” (city of Kenmare). Kenmare 

residents are also proud of the birding and 

ecotourism opportunities provided by the refuge 

(city of Kenmare). 

Q	 Bowbells, a town of 406, is another popular 

destination for hunters. Its abundant wildlife 

provides thrills for hunters of a variety of game, 

from waterfowl to pheasant to big game. Fishing 

at the Northgate Dam recreation area gives 

anglers the opportunity to land trout, walleye, 

largemouth bass, and bluegill (city of Bowbells). 

Farmers in the area produce flax, canola, peas, 

barley, oats, sunflowers, durum, and hard red 

spring wheat (city of Bowbells). 

The towns of Newburg, Bottineau, and Westhope 

in Bottineau County and the towns of Upham, 

Towner, and Granville in McHenry County are the 

principal communities near the J. Clark Salyer 

NWR. These six communities surrounding the 

refuge are relatively small, with populations ranging 

from 88 in Newburg to 2,336 in the county seat of 

Bottineau (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Descriptions 

of four of these communities follow: 

Q	 The town of Upham is located on the western 

side of the refuge and hosts the refuge 

headquarters. In 2000, the population of Upham 

was 155 residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). 

Q	 The town of Westhope has 533 residents and is 

northwest of the refuge near the Canada border. 

Q	 Towner (McHenry County seat) is a small 

community on the southern end of the refuge 

with a population of 574 (U.S. Census Bureau 

2000). The only tree nursery in the state is 

located in Towner. 

Q	 Granville has 286 residents and is on the 

southern end of the refuge (U.S. Census Bureau 

2000). Granville is home to Big Sky Buffalo 

Ranch, which houses “Mystical,” an albino bison 

bull. 

Carpio and Minot in Ward County and Tolley and 

Grano in Renville County are the primary local 

communities surrounding the Upper Souris NWR. 

Ward County is the fourth most-populated county 

in the state, with a population of 58,795 residents. 

The bulk of these residents are concentrated in the 

county seat of Minot, home to 36,567 people. 

Community descriptions follow: 

Q	 Minot was nicknamed the “Magic City” some 100 

years ago because “when the railroad arrived, 

the city sprouted up like magic” (Minot 2005). 

Minot is home to the Minot Air Force Base, 

which houses the 5th Bomb Wing and the 91st 

Space Wing, as well as Minot State University. 

Q	 Carpio is a small town composed of 148 

residents, located southwest of the refuge on the 

Des Lacs River. 

Q	 Tolley and Grano are small communities located 

along the north central portion of the refuge. In 

2000, Tolley’s population was 63 and Grano’s was 

9 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). 

In 2000, four out of five counties in the study area 

consisted of a higher percentage of white persons 

not of Hispanic or Latino origin than the North 

Dakota state average of 92.4%. Ward County 

exactly matched the state average and McHenry 

County had the greatest percentage, 98.7%. 

Ancestry patterns were similar across counties, 

with heavy German and Norwegian influences 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2000). 

The state percentage of residents from Hispanic or 

Latino descent was 1.2%, and all five counties were 

similar to this estimate. Likewise, the Asian 

population of the five counties was similar to the 

state average of 0.6%. North Dakota’s American 

Indian population compiled 4.9% of the state total. 

All five counties were below this average, with 

Ward County having the highest American Indian 

or Alaska Native population, consisting of 2.1% of 

the county’s residents. Ward County had a greater 

percentage of its population that comprises Black 

or African Americans, with 2.2%, compared to the 

state average of 0.6%. The four other counties 

closely resembled the state average (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2000). 

Approximately 83.9% of North Dakota residents 25 

years and older were high school graduates. The 

five counties were all similar to the state average 

in this category, ranging from 76.9% in McHenry 

County to 87.4% in Ward County. The percentage 

of residents 25 years and older who held a bachelor’s 

or advanced degree ranged from 12% in Burke 

County to 22% in Ward County. The state average 

was 22% (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). 

Employment and Income 

Employment estimates for the five-county study 

area are shown in table 3. Agriculture composes a 

substantial percentage of employment in all counties. 

As a percent of a county’s total jobs, farm 

employment ranges from 36.1% in McHenry 

County to 3.4% in Ward County (U.S. Department 

of Commerce 2002). 

Ward County is the most populated in the study 

area, which explains its role as the economic hub 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Descriptions 67 

 

for northern North Dakota, in addition to its 

relatively lower dependence on farm employment. 

The city of Minot, located in Ward County, hosts a 

diverse range of corporate offices for such 

companies as ING and Choice Hotels International, 

as well as Minot State University and Minot Air 

Force Base (Minot Chamber of Commerce 2005). 

The services and government sectors are also key 

employers in the five-county region. As a 

percentage of total nonfarm employment, the 

service sector ranged from 22% in Renville County 

to more than 35% in McHenry County. Government 

employment composed nearly 20–25% of all nonfarm 

employment in all five counties, with Renville 

County having the greatest percentage, 28%. 

U.S Census Bureau (2000) data for median 

household income, unemployment and percentage 

of persons below poverty in 1999 are shown in table 4 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The median household 

income for the five-county study area is below the 

state and national averages. In addition, the 

percent of unemployed of all counties is below the 

state and national averages. The percent of 

population below the federal poverty line is an 

indicator of the economic distress within a 

community. Bottineau, Renville, and Ward counties 

are below the state average of 11.9% of persons 

living in poverty and the national average of 12.4%. 

Both Burke and McHenry counties are above both 

the state and national averages for this category. 

Table 3. Employment for the five-county study area, North Dakota (2000). 

 Percent of Total Employment 

County

Industry Bottineau Burke McHenry Renville Ward 

Farm Employment 22.5% 31.5% 27.9% 36.1% 3.4% 

Nonfarm Employment 77.5% 68.5% 72.1% 63.9% 96.6% 

 Agricultural services, forestry, fishing D1 D D D 0.8%

 Mining 3.8% 5.2% 6.0% D 0.8% 

 Construction D D 3.2% 8.2% 5.0% 

 Manufacturing 2.5% D 2.3% D 2.2% 

 Transportation and public utilities 6.1% 10.2% D D 5.1% 

 Wholesale trade 4.1% 5.9% 6.6% 6.6% 4.5% 

 Retail trade 17.8% 16.1% 13.4% 11.2% 19.3% 

 Finance, insurance, and real estate 7.5% 6.4% 6.2% 5.8% 7.1% 

 Services 31.3% 25.8% 35.7% 21.9% 29.8% 

 Government (federal, state, and local) 18.5% 21.6% 20.2% 28.2% 25.5% 

Total Full- and Part-time Employment 4,501 1,701 1,600 2,873 40,144 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce (2002). 


1

D—not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals. 

Table 4. Income, unemployment, and poverty estimates for the five-county study area, North Dakota. 

Median Household Percent Unemployed Percent of Persons 

 Area Income (1999) (2000) Below Poverty (1999) 

United States $41,994 4.1% 12.4% 

North Dakota $36,604 3.0% 11.9% 


Bottineau County $29,853 2.7% 10.7% 

Burke County $25,330 1.5% 15.4% 


McHenry County $27,274 2.9% 15.8% 

Renville County $30,746 1.1% 11.0% 


Ward County $33,670 2.7% 10.8% 

 Source: U.S Census Bureau (2000). 

4 Management Direction 


 

Northern pintail. 

Dave Menke/USFWS 

.5 

This chapter 

1

describes the management direction 

the Service designed—with public and partner 

coordination—to achieve the vision for the Souris 

River basin refuges as described in chapter 2. The 

chapter includes the following sections: 

Q overview 

Q management direction 

Q step-down management plans 

Q staffing and funding 

Q partnership opportunities 

Q monitoring and evaluation 

The pages specified below contain the management 

direction—designed to achieve the vision (in chapter 2) 

for the Souris River basin refuges—for each of the 

three refuges: 

Des Lacs NWR, pages 70–88 

J. Clark Salyer NWR, pages 88–111
 

Upper Souris NWR, pages 111–133
 

NOTE: Although a number of needs were identified 

during the planning process, there are no 

assurances that projects identified in this CCP will 

be fully or even partially funded. However, within 

every planning effort, there are opportunities to 

examine current funding and resources and to 

determine the best available uses based on a 

comprehensive evaluation of critical needs. If this 

were never completed, issues could go unresolved 

due to a lack of public and administrative 

understanding and support. 

OVERVIEW 

The CCP for the Souris River basin refuges 

emphasizes restoration of ecological processes 

important in the evolution and maintenance of 

native plant communities and wildlife populations in 

the northern Great Plains. The Service will carry 

out the CCP with assistance from existing and new 

partner agencies and organizations and the public. 

The Service has developed objectives in support of 

goals identified in “Chapter 2, The Refuges” for 

management of the Souris River basin refuges. 

Strategies to achieve objectives are suggested. 

Rationale is included that supports goals, objectives, 

and strategies. Assumptions are discussed. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

70 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Goals and Objectives— 

Biological Resources 

Biological goals and objectives emphasize 

management of plant communities as habitat for 

wildlife, especially migratory birds. The goals and 

objectives are organized by major habitat types 

represented at the three refuges. 

Biological goals and objectives are habitat-based 

rather than wildlife-based, because wildlife often 

respond to factors beyond control of local refuge 

management (for example, disease outbreaks or 

habitat conditions on important staging or wintering 

sites can affect populations of migratory birds). 

Furthermore, management practices (for example, 

fire, grazing, haying, and water level manipulation) 

are usually applied to plant communities rather than 

to wildlife populations. Habitat-based objectives 

emphasize monitoring of important vegetation 

attributes such as community composition and 

vegetation structure over time. In most cases, 

wildlife population responses to habitat changes are 

not monitored. Rather, site-specific inventories, 

applied research, and literature reviews allow for 

reasonable predictions of wildlife response to habitat 

management. 

The Service will assess biological, economic, and 

political feasibilities associated with habitat 

restoration. Specific criteria and objectives identify 

areas for restoration, with high-priority areas more 

likely restored than those more degraded. In 

recognition of inadequate resources to manage all 

wildlife habitats and populations occurring at the 

Souris River basin refuges, evaluation will require 

careful and deliberate consideration of management 

priorities (especially allocation of funding and 

staffing) relative to expected ecological resource 

benefits. The Service will adjust management 

efforts equal to changes in staff and funding. 

Management practices such as grazing, haying, and 

farming are compatible with the mission of the 

Service as applied at the Souris River basin refuges 

(see appendixes O–Q). In addition, appendix R 

describes the fire management program for the 

refuges. 

Goals and Objectives— 

Cultural Resources, Visitor Services, 

Research and Science, Refuge 

Operations 

The Service developed goals, objectives, and 

strategies for cultural resources, visitor services, 

research and science, and refuge operations. 

Cultural resources will be protected when found. 

Some visitor services will likely decrease as some 

staff and funding shift to habitat restoration, while 

others will remain at current levels. Research and 

science will support habitat restoration. 

DES LACS NWR 

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION 

The following goals, objectives, and strategies for 

Des Lacs NWR outline the actions needed to 

achieve the vision of the Souris River basin refuges. 

The Service intends to meet these objectives during 

the next 15 years. 

Drift Prairie Goal 

Restore and maintain extensive examples of plant 

communities dominated by native flora characteristic 

of the mid-1800s drift prairie. Create the temporally 

and spatially dynamic habitat conditions that will 

attract most breeding bird species and other 

vertebrate fauna characteristic of that era. 

Drift Prairie Objective 1 

By 1 year after CCP approval, use current 

vegetation inventory data and landscape 

considerations to characterize each habitat 

management unit with >40 acres of drift prairie as 

either high or low management priority. Reevaluate 

prioritization 15 years after CCP approval. 

Strategy 

— Apply multiple selection criteria. 

CRITERIA FOR HIGH-PRIORITY UNITS 

Floristic Composition. Vegetation is 

characterized by >20% mean frequency 

(percentage occurrence) of pristine, 

native herbaceous types (plant groups 

41–43 and 46–48 [Grant et al. 2004b]; 

see appendix G) plus native herbaceousdominated vegetation with Kentucky 

bluegrass as the main subdominant 

(plant group 53). 

Floristic Potential. Vegetation is 

characterized by <20% mean frequency 

of smooth brome-dominated types 

(plant groups 61 and 62). 

Landscape Context. The unit is 

contiguous with the best examples of 

prairie slope habitat (largest slopes 

with the most intact native plant 

composition or greatest availability to 

the public, or both). 

or 

is adjacent to other high-priority, drift 

prairie units or tracts of native prairie 

adjacent to the refuge under non­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, Des Lacs NWR 71 

Service ownership (especially 

important if the unit has relatively 

little drift prairie area, <40 acres). 

CRITERIA FOR LOW-PRIORITY UNITS 

Floristic Composition. Vegetation is 

characterized by <20% mean frequency 

of pristine, native herbaceous types 

(plant groups 41–43 and 46–48 [Grant et 

al. 2004b]) plus native herbaceousdominated vegetation with Kentucky 

bluegrass as the main subdominant 

(plant group 53). 

Floristic Potential. Vegetation is 

characterized by >20% mean frequency 

of smooth brome-dominated types 

(plant groups 61 and 62). 

Landscape Context. The unit is neither 

contiguous with significant prairie 

slope habitat, nor adjacent to highpriority drift prairie units or tracts of 

native prairie adjacent to the refuge. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Most northern mixed-grass prairie has been 

destroyed. Losses have been particularly severe in 

the Drift Plain physiographic region, such that drift 

prairie could be considered an endangered resource. 

Key roles of the Refuge System include contribution 

to ecosystem integrity and conservation of biological 

diversity. The Souris River basin refuges should 

contribute to the conservation of native prairie 

communities unique to the Drift Plain region. 

However, the native mixed-grass drift prairie at the 

refuges is badly deteriorated, mainly through 

extensive invasion by introduced cool-season 

grasses. 

Recent inventory data indicate that occurrences of 

relatively intact, native herbaceous flora are rare 

(<5% frequency) on most drift prairie management 

units at Des Lacs NWR. Native warm-season 

grasses are nearly absent. Under appropriate 

management, warm-season grasses can outcompete 

introduced cool-season grasses if the former are 

sufficiently abundant (>20% frequency). 

Most drift prairie at Des Lacs NWR likely has 

already passed a threshold, such that restoration of 

a modestly diverse, native herbaceous flora is an 

unrealistic and impractical goal. However, 

restoration may be possible on some tracts where 

native grasses, sedges, and forbs are more common 

and widespread. Such tracts need to be identified by 

objective criteria that focus on (1) diversity and 

prevalence of existing native plants, and (2) landscape 

area and connectivity, which underlie the quality of 

nesting habitat for grassland birds, a species group 

of significant conservation concern (see appendix I) 

in North America. 

This approach will shift investment to manage more 

intensively (than under current management) select 

units. This will improve the chances of restoring at 

least some drift prairie. 

Drift Prairie Objective 2 

On high-priority drift prairie units, use frequent and 

precisely timed disturbances (principally fire and 

grazing) to restore vegetation to the following 

standards within 15 years of CCP approval. This will 

provide habitat for most wildlife species that were 

characteristic of North Dakota’s eastern mixedgrass prairie but that currently are rare or absent at 

the refuge (burrowing owl, horned lark, Baird’s 

sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, chestnut-collared 

longspur, northern pintail, and Richardson’s ground 

squirrel). 

Q	 Composition on each unit includes (1) >40% 

pristine native and native-dominated/ bluegrasssubdominant vegetation (plant groups 41–43, 46– 

48, and 53), (2) <20% smooth brome-dominated 

vegetation (plant groups 61 and 62), and (3) <20% 

low shrub-dominated vegetation (plant groups 11– 

17); based on percentage frequency of occurrence 

on belt transects (Grant et al. 2004b). 

Q	 Native trees and tall shrubs are absent or nearly 

so, comprising <0.1% land cover on each unit, and 

no nonnative or planted native woody vegetation 

exists. 

Q	 Leafy spurge frequency is decreased by >50% on 

each unit, to <1% frequency (frequencies per belt 

transects; most high-priority units currently have 

little to no spurge); absinth wormwood is actively 

controlled; and yellow toadflax and other newly 

appearing species of noxious weed that pose a 

threat to the drift prairie are eliminated within 

5 years of initial detection. 

Strategies 

—	 Disturb the vegetation, typically by livestock 

grazing or fire, at least 2 of every 3 years. An 

ideal management sequence over 5 years might 

be BGGGR (B=prescribe burn the first year; 

G=graze in each of years 2, 3, and 4; then 

R=rest), then reinitiate the sequence. The area 

covered by trees, tall shrubs, and low shrubs 

will be incrementally reduced with this burning 

frequency. 

—	 Primarily use prescribed fire when smooth 

brome plants are at least in the 4- to 5-leaf stage, 

but not yet showing an inflorescence; this 

generally occurs during a narrow mid-May 

through early June “window.” A less preferred 

option is to burn in fall in anticipation of a 

negative, winter drought effect on smooth 

brome and Kentucky bluegrass. 

—	 Graze mainly during late May through August 

or September via a rotation approach with many 
 

 

 

 

 

 

72 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

(7–10) relatively small (40–60 acres) grazing cells 

per unit and short grazing periods (4–7 days) per 

cell. Adjust stocking rates to facilitate regrazing 

of individual smooth brome plants at least once 

within a grazing period, but move livestock to the 

next cell before native plants are regrazed (be 

sure to note grazing of native upland sedges, an 

important forage base in some management units). 

—	 Annually survey for noxious weeds. Continue 

widespread use of biological control by 

monitoring local areas for Apthona spp. beetles 

and by redistributing beetles among leafy 

spurge patches as needed. Use herbicides as 

needed along boundaries with private lands. 

—	 Reseed adjoining old cropland units into native 

vegetation dominated by warm-season grasses 

(see objectives for old cropland). Manage these 

intensively, in concert with the high-priority 

drift prairie units they adjoin, to sustain a 

native-dominated flora and to reduce sources of 

invasion by introduced cool-season grasses and 

noxious weeds (see objectives and strategies for 

old cropland). 

—	 Experiment on low-priority tracts with new or 

high-risk restoration methods for use on highpriority tracts. 

—	 Experiment with specialized control of dense 

silverberry patches. Cutting tends to stimulate 

resprouting in silverberry, as does burning. 

Therefore, foliar applications of glyphosate, 

which have been used to control other species of 

the genus Elaeagnus, may achieve the best 

possible control. Application must be done in 

ways that does not harm native, understory, 

herbaceous vegetation (for example, use a wick 

applicator). One approach may be to chemically 

treat silverberry and achieve a kill, and then 

apply prescribed fire. 

—	 Experiment with horses as alternative grazing 

tools; horses may have greater impact than 

cattle on woody vegetation, especially 

silverberry. Since horses may founder (succumb 

to hoof inflammation) on rich, green vegetation, 

an appropriate approach in a 3-year grazing 

cycle may be to use cattle during the first 2 years, 

then horses the third year. 

—	 Experiment with control of introduced coolseason grasses and release of native plants on a 

small, localized scale with selective herbicide 

treatment. 

—	 Experiment with seeding of native warm-season 

grass mixes in brome monotypes on unit edges. 

Apply prescribed fire followed by multiple 

herbicide treatments over 2 years for site 

preparation. Use similar approaches on bromedominated edges of adjoining, low-priority units. 

NOTE: Service policy regarding refuge 

management implicitly promotes seeding to 

reestablish native plants in native sod where 

such plants have become rare or absent 

(“National Wildlife Refuge System Biological 

Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental 

Health,” 601 FW 3, 2001). 

—	 Experiment with “interseeding” of native 

plants, principally warm-season species, into 

brome monotypes within units. Apply 

prescribed fire or repeated intensive grazing, 

and then use a wick applicator to apply herbicide 

to emerging smooth brome and Kentucky 

bluegrass. Follow by seeding via drill. 

—	 Experiment with localized hand plantings and 

husbandry (such as weed control and herbivore 

exclusion) of select native forbs such as 

milkvetches (Astragalus spp.) to increase plant 

species diversity and structural diversity. 

—	 Transplant and release Richardson’s ground 

squirrels on areas of low-stature vegetation 

within high-priority units, wherever an adjacent 

source for colonization appears unavailable. 

—	 Remove local, human disturbances and artifacts 

of twentieth-century origin (including the refuge 

era). This includes prominent plow furrows, old 

road grades, rock piles, and impoundment dams 

on intermittent drainages (except on those 

essential as livestock water sources). Restore 

such sites as close as possible to their original 

condition. 

Restored tracts of drift prairie will provide nesting 

habitat for Baird’s sparrow, which has a declining 

population. 

© 2007 Cliff Beittel 

Rationale and Assumptions 

This objective focuses on restoration of floristic 

composition. Smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass 

are widespread and common on the Drift Plain at 

Des Lacs NWR. Kentucky bluegrass tends to 

increase under prolonged rest or with grazing, but 

decreases with fire especially when burning occurs 

during stem elongation or in dry years. Smooth 

brome also increases under rest but, in contrast to 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, Des Lacs NWR 73 

Kentucky bluegrass, appears sensitive to repeated 

grazing but unaffected or variably affected by 

prescribed fire. A strategy to improve competitive 

abilities of native herbaceous plants should match 

the types, timing, and frequencies of disturbances 

under which these plants evolved. Meanwhile, a 

strategy to decrease competitive abilities of 

bluegrass and brome on the relatively rich loam soils 

of the Drift Plain should focus on combined use of 

fire and grazing. 

Smooth brome-dominated types are twice as 

prevalent as Kentucky bluegrass-dominated types 

on the drift prairie of Des Lacs NWR, indicating 

that smooth brome may be more competitive than 

Kentucky bluegrass in the relatively rich loam soils. 

Of the two introduced species, smooth brome 

generally seems more difficult to control and more 

significantly alters the quality and structure of 

northern prairie habitats. Therefore, restoration 

management should focus more on strategies to 

reduce brome. 

The contemporary breeding bird community on the 

drift prairie of Des Lacs NWR is characterized by 

three to four species that tolerate introduced coolseason grasses and relatively dense, rank, 

oftentimes brushy cover. Grassland bird species that 

are uncommon to absent generally require shorter, 

sparser, more herbaceous prairie vegetation than 

that available in the refuge’s drift prairie. These 

species also are of much greater conservation 

concern due mainly to declining population trends 

(for example, Sprague’s pipit and chestnut-collared 

longspur). Thus, habitat for a broader array of 

northern prairie birds—including several endemic 

species and other species characteristic of the 

historical mixed-grass prairie community—can be 

significantly increased by providing frequent 

disturbance and the resulting increases in early 

successional stages. 

In the historical setting, Richardson’s ground 

squirrels were characteristically widespread and 

contributed to the maintenance of early seral stages, 

and their burrows provided unique microhabitats. 

The ground squirrel should be a component of the 

restored prairie community. 

Historically, the drift prairie was treeless. Trees and 

tall shrubs can diminish the survival of nests of 

grassland birds by harboring potential nest 

predators. They also provide perches from which 

brown-headed cowbirds can find other species’ nests 

in which to lay eggs. Furthermore, recent data from 

the Souris River basin refuges indicate that 

relatively small areas of tall woody vegetation can 

effectively fragment grassland habitats and cause 

many grassland bird species to avoid entire 

landscapes. Elimination of tall woody cover is a 

logical strategy for restoration of landscape 

structure and plant community makeup, as well as to 

improve the attractiveness and security of the 

habitat for a variety of grassland-breeding bird 

species. 

Drift Prairie Objective 3 

On low-priority drift prairie units, apply disturbance 

(principally fire) every 5–8 years to remove plant 

litter, restore plant vigor, reverse woody plant 

expansion, and provide a mix of structural types 

that include (1) relatively short/sparse vegetation 

for species such as killdeer, horned lark, and 

Brewer’s blackbird, (2) moderately short vegetation 

for species such as blue-winged teal and upland 

sandpiper, and (3) tall/dense vegetation for species 

such as mallard, short-eared owl, Le Conte’s 

sparrow, and bobolink. Vegetation should present 

the below characteristics within 15 years of CCP 

approval. 

NOTE: There is almost no monitoring of vegetation 

on these units except for routine, cursory 

surveillance for noxious weeds. Knowledge of 

relationships between fire frequency and resulting, 

postfire vegetation structure is adequate to predict 

habitat conditions described below. 

One-fourth of the area in 0- to 1-year 

postdisturbance, one-fourth in 2–3 years 

postdisturbance, and one-half in 4–6+ years 

postdisturbance—corresponding roughly to 

a structure of <2 inches VOR, 2–3.9 inches 

VOR, and >3.9 inches VOR (mean VORs in 

early spring, per Robel et al. 1970). 

Native trees and tall shrubs compose <0.2% 

land cover on each unit above the prairie 

slope, and all nonnative woody vegetation 

and planted, native woody vegetation is 

eliminated from at least half of the units. 

Leafy spurge is maintained at <2% 

frequency, absinth wormwood is actively 

controlled, and yellow toadflax and other 

newly appearing species of noxious weed 

that pose a threat to the drift prairie are 

eliminated within 5 years of initial 

detection. 

Strategies 

—	 Apply prescribed fire on each unit at least every 

5–8 years, increasing burn frequency during dry 

years when possible to reduce more effectively 

reduce tall shrubs and trees. Rotate burns 

among units. Burn opportunistically, at any 

time, mainly to remove litter and control tall 

shrubs and trees. 

—	 To increase structural diversity, occasionally 

introduce livestock grazing—with wide latitude 

on timing, intensity, and duration—when doing 

so will not detract from management of highpriority units. Experiment with seeding and 

“interseeding” of native, warm-season grass 

mixes in smooth brome monotypes, mainly to 
 

 

 

74 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

help develop effective restoration approaches 

for high-priority units. 

—	 Periodically survey for noxious weeds. Continue 

widespread use of biological control by 

monitoring local areas for Apthona spp. beetles 

and redistributing beetles among leafy spurge 

patches as needed. Use herbicides as needed 

along boundaries with private lands. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

This objective focuses on providing vegetation 

structural diversity. Most drift prairie at Des Lacs 

NWR has almost no intact native herbaceous 

vegetation. From a practical standpoint, most of the 

drift prairie probably cannot be restored to a state 

where native herbaceous vegetation is a widely 

noticeable or otherwise common vegetation 

component. However, with modest effort, the 

prevalent, introduced cool-season grasses and 

scattered low shrubs can be managed to provide a 

mix of postdisturbance structural types attractive to 

a broad array of native, grassland bird species. 

The most appropriate management of these units is 

to provide structural variety and use the units as a 

basis for creating extensive areas of grassland 

(including off-refuge lands) to satisfy needs of 

several area-sensitive, native, grassland bird 

species. This will also reduce predation and nest 

(brood) parasitism associated with edge-dominated, 

highly fragmented grassland. The rationale for 

reducing tall shrubs and trees is similar to that for 

high-priority drift prairie (objective 2 above). 

Drift Prairie Objective 4 

Improve or help maintain the habitat quality and the 

economic sustainability of nonfederally owned, 

native prairie remnants adjacent to drift prairie 

units within 15 years of CCP approval. Extend 

protection and stewardship to most other grassland 

that adjoins drift prairie units. Seek opportunities to 

expand the total grassland area and create broad, 

contiguous blocks of open grassland, principally as 

habitat for breeding grassland birds. 

Strategy 

—	 Use grassland easements and extension 

agreements, for example, for specialized 

livestock grazing systems on native prairie, or 

native grass establishment and management, or 

to remove “hostile” cover such as trees and tall 

shrubs that could harbor nest (brood) parasites 

and nest predators. Certain grazing systems can 

improve livestock carrying capacity and the 

condition of annually grazed prairie, to enhance 

the economic viability of native prairie and 

reduce chances of conversion to other land uses, 

especially cultivation. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

The quality of prairie as breeding habitat for 

grassland birds (in terms of average annual nest 

success and relative contribution to population 

recruitment) is directly related to its extent or, 

conversely, indirectly related to the degree of its 

fragmentation. 

Native prairie on the Drift Plain could be considered 

an endangered resource and little of it remains in 

the Des Lacs River valley. Conserving remnant 

tracts adjacent to the refuge, by whatever means 

possible, should be among the highest priorities for 

landscape conservation.

 Drift prairie tracts with moderate amounts of native grasses and forbs will be considered high priority for restoration. 

 Dan Severson/USFWS 
 

Prairie Slope Goal 

Restore representative examples of prairie slopes to 

preserve some of the most pristine plant 

communities that remain in the Souris River basin 

and promote appreciation and stewardship of prairie 

resources. 

Prairie Slope Objective 1 

By 1 year after CCP approval, use vegetation 

inventory data and topographic considerations to 

characterize management units with significant 

prairie slope resources as high-priority units. 

Reevaluate prioritization 15 years after CCP 

approval. 

Strategy 

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 

—	 Apply multiple selection criteria. 

CRITERIA FOR HIGH-PRIORITY UNITS 

Floristic Composition. Vegetation is 

characterized by >60% mean frequency 

of pristine, native herbaceous types 

(plant groups 41–43 and 46–48 [Grant et 

al. 2004b]) plus native low shrub with a 

native plant understory (plant groups 

11, 12, and 15) 

Physical Characteristics. Unit aspect 

is principally south- to west-facing; 

slope is 25–60%; and elevation gain is 

>100 feet from slope bottom to top. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Native flora is relatively intact along much of the 

east side of the Des Lacs River valley, in particular, 

areas with the longest southwest-facing slopes on 

Des Lacs NWR. Conservation and appreciation of 

native plant communities needs special 

consideration. 

Some of these high-priority prairie slopes may 

adjoin high-priority drift prairie and can be managed

in conjunction with the drift prairie. However, some 

of the best-quality slopes may adjoin low-priority 

drift prairie. These latter slopes need to be 

identified and managed more intensively than the 

drift prairie they adjoin, to retain or improve their 

native plant diversity. Much of this high-quality 

prairie occurs along a major roadway (Old Lake 

Road, recently designated as a scenic byway), and 

has much exposure to the public along with access. 

Prairie Slope Objective 2 

On high-priority prairie slope units, apply 

disturbance (principally fire and grazing) every 

5–6 years to restore vegetation to the following 

standards within 15 years after CCP approval. 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, Des Lacs NWR 75 

Q	 Composition on the slope in each unit includes 

(1) >65% pristine, native herbaceous types (plant 

groups 41–43 and 46–48), (2) <10% smooth bromedominated types (plant groups 61 and 62), and 

(3) <20% low shrub-dominated types (plant 

groups 11–17); based on percentage frequency of 

occurrence on belt transects located from top to 

bottom of slope. 

Q	 Native trees and tall shrubs are few, comprising 

<1% of all cover on the prairie slope of each unit, 

and no nonnative or planted native woody 

vegetation exists. 

Q	 Leafy spurge frequency is decreased by >50% on 

slope of each unit to <1% frequency, absinth 

wormwood is actively controlled, and yellow 

toadflax and other newly appearing species of 

noxious weeds that pose a threat to the prairie 

slope are eliminated within 5 years of initial 

detection. 

Strategies 

—	 Use fire and generally follow historical fire 

patterns with which native plants evolved. Burn 

about every 5–6 years, alternating the timing of 

burning among late spring (mid-May through 

early June), summer (mid-July through early 

September), and fall (late September through 

late October) seasons. Late May and early June 

burns should be particularly effective 

restoration strategies on slopes, allowing the 

unusually prevalent warm-season grasses to 

outcompete smooth brome and Kentucky 

bluegrass. Avoid early spring burning, which 

generally will promote introduced cool-season 

grasses and woody species that resprout 

vigorously. 

—	 Use livestock grazing, generally following 

grazing strategies for high-priority drift prairie 

units, but with lighter (50–75% lower) initial 

stocking rates. Use grazing mainly for smooth 

brome control. Have livestock regraze individual 

brome plants at least once within a grazing 

period, but move cattle to the next cell just 

before native plants are regrazed. Avoid early 

spring grazing, which may reduce the 

competitiveness of native cool-season grasses. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

The contemporary prairie-slope plant community is 

dominated by a balance of native warm- and coolseason grasses and forbs, especially on mid- and 

upper slopes (for example, sideoats grama and 

porcupine grass are unusually prevalent). Native 

plants are highly competitive on the relatively arid, 

thin soils of these sites and, compared to their 

counterparts on drift prairie, need less frequent and 

less intensive management for restoration. 

However, on drainages and subirrigated sites 

scattered along the slopes and on the more mesic 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

76 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

lower slopes, smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, 

and western snowberry generally are codominant, 

along with big bluestem. Scattered tall shrubs and 

trees also are often conspicuous in these sites and 

leafy spurge infestations on slopes are distributed 

here. Thus, restoration management should target 

these mesic areas of slopes. The management 

approach is similar to that on high-priority drift 

prairie units, but is more flexible and less frequent 

and intensive—disturbs the vegetation, typically by 

livestock grazing or fire, about every other year, on 

average. A management sequence over 5 years 

might be BRGGR or BRGRR. 

Prairie slope is not extensive but supports some of 

the most pristine native flora in the Souris River 

basin, making this a highly valued resource worthy 

of careful stewardship. Prairie slopes probably offer 

the most accessible, best examples of native prairie 

heritage to the public. 

Old Cropland Goal 

On high-priority old cropland areas, establish nativedominated, perennial herbaceous cover that, with 

modest management, resists invasion by introduced 

cool-season grasses and noxious weeds. This seeded 

cover will help form extensive, contiguous blocks of 

structurally diverse, open grassland for grasslanddependent, breeding bird species. 

Old Cropland Objective 1 

By 10 years after CCP approval, locate and 

determine boundaries of old cropland areas and 

record these in the refuge’s geographic information 

system (GIS) database. 

Strategies 

—	 Identify old cropland areas, including those
 

considered DNC, that were seeded to
 

introduced grasses and forbs and/or native 


grasses since the mid-1970s.
 

—	 Identify other old cropland areas, as evidenced
 

by 


R	 distinct field edges, especially deep 

furrows and linear piles of wind-borne 

topsoil that had been deposited along 

preexisting fence lines and subsequently 

vegetated; 

R	 rock piles or rocks strewn linearly along 

what appears to be a field edge (although 

rock sometimes was cleared for native 

hay harvests); 

R	 nearly monotypic stands of smooth 

brome, typically with some Kentucky 

bluegrass but with little native sedge in 

the understory (several native plant 

species such as western snowberry, 

Wood’s rose, white sage, western 

yarrow, several goldenrod species, and 

silver scurfpea often reinvade these 

stands); 

R	 no partly buried rocks with profuse 

lichens; 

R	 no clubmoss or cryptogamic crust. 

—	 Use acquisition records, old refuge narratives, 


1938–39 aerial photographs, and U.S. Soil 


Conservation Service records for ancillary 


support.
 

—	 Flag the probable boundaries of areas verified 

as old cropland, record via GPS, and upload into 

the refuge’s GIS database. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Furrows and other linear disturbances caused by 

implements (for example, plows, disks, and seed 

drills) are much more evident after an area is 

treated with prescribed fire or heavily grazed. They 

are also more readily detected from horseback. 

Evidence of soil A-horizon disturbance due to 

cultivation may be determined by NRCS staff. Some 

areas with signs of farming disturbance (for 

example, furrows) may have been cropped only for a 

few years circa 1900–30 or may have been broken 

during this period yet never cropped. Such areas 

often are successfully reinvaded by native plants, 

and may currently support native vegetation at 

levels approaching the most pristine areas on similar 

site types at the refuge that are considered native sod. 

Old Cropland Objective 2 

Within 15 years after CCP approval, convert DNC 

on at least eight old cropland units to vegetation 

dominated by several species of native warm-season 

grasses that vary in stature and growth form and 

that include several species of native forbs wherever 

possible. Give priority to units with stands of 

vegetation that have become decadent and overrun 

by undesirable, introduced cool-season grasses, 

especially where such units are adjacent to or within 

high-priority drift prairie units or high-priority 

prairie slope units. 

Strategies 

—	 Following multiple applications of a broadspectrum herbicide, seed a native plant mixture 

that mainly consists of 80–90% warm-season 

grass species especially big bluestem, little 

bluestem, switchgrass, and sideoats grama. 

—	 During the first 3–4 years after seeding, 


annually mow the stand with a hay conditioner 


and harvest the hay. Substitute grazing or 


prescribed fire treatments in the subsequent 


3–4 years. Use herbicide spot spraying or
 

“interseeding” where necessary. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Although initially expensive, native warm-season 

grasses are economically and ecologically superior to 

seeded stands of introduced plants in old croplands 

because 

R	 permanent, perennial cover eliminates 

regular (every 12–14 years) replacement 

of seeded, introduced species cover via a 

farming cycle and thus nearly eliminates 

potential for soil erosion; 

R	 native grasses reduce local habitat
 

fragmentation and eliminate “edge”
 

associated with the farming cycle; 


R	 a warm-season growth strategy for 

plants vastly improves the capacity for 

an assemblage of plants to outcompete 

smooth brome—by which seeded stands 

of introduced grasses and forbs are most 

typically degraded—mainly by affording 

broader and more effectively timed 

management opportunities; 

R	 there is improved opportunity for use of 

prescribed fire in late spring compared to 

high-priority drift prairie units because 

the warm-season-dominated cover has 

relatively high fuel value through early 

June, versus mostly green vegetation on 

cool season–dominated cover on the drift 

prairie by late May; 

R	 there is a broader “window” (later in 

summer) for harvest of hay that still has 

forage value; 

R	 native grasses are in compliance with 

policy that discourages planting of 

introduced species on Service lands and 

encourages planting of native species 

(“National Wildlife Refuge System 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 

Environmental Health,” 601 FW 3, 2001); 

R	 native grasses reduce “source sites” from 

which introduced and weedy plants 

invade adjoining native prairie; 

R	 native grasses have improved and longer 

lasting structural diversity within 

stands. 

Old Cropland Objective 3 

By 10 years after CCP approval, identify other old 

cropland areas (those not known to have been 

seeded since the mid-1970s) that are high 

management priority (areas most important to 

convert to native warm-season grasses). Develop a 

detailed plan to convert these during the subsequent 

10–15 years to vegetation dominated by several 

species of native warm-season grasses that vary in 

stature and growth form and that include several 

species of native forbs wherever possible. 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, Des Lacs NWR 77 

NOTE: There are no goals and objectives for 

remaining old cropland areas in uplands. They are 

low priority and will be managed with adjoining 

habitats. 

Strategy 

—	 Apply multiple selection criteria. 

CRITERIA FOR HIGH MANAGEMENT PRIORITY 

OLD CROPLAND IN UPLANDS (excluding DNC 

and other old cropland known to have been 

seeded since the mid-1970s) 

Floristic Composition. Vegetation is 

characterized by <20% mean frequency 

of pristine, native herbaceous types 

(plant groups 41–43 and 46–48 [Grant et al. 

2004b]) plus native herbaceousdominated vegetation with Kentucky 

bluegrass as the main subdominant 

(plant group 53). 

Floristic Potential. Vegetation is 

characterized by >20% mean frequency 

of smooth brome-dominated types 

(plant groups 54, 61, and 62). 

Landscape Context. The unit has no 

size criterion 

and 

bears clear evidence of a farming 

history 

and 

is contiguous with high-priority drift 

prairie, prairie slope units, or tracts of 

native prairie adjacent to the refuge 

under non-Service ownership. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Native grass and forb seed is very costly, as is the 

time and expense of materials needed to prepare 

seedbeds, plant seed, and annually manage newly 

seeded areas (see strategies and rationale under 

objective 2). 

Old cropland that adjoins high-priority drift prairie 

or prairie slope and supports little, native, 

herbaceous vegetation likely is a source of invasion 

by undesirable, introduced grasses and weedy forbs. 

Without attempts to establish native vegetation 

through seeding, such areas are unpromising 

candidates for restoration to grassland in which 

native herbaceous plants are evident, much less an 

important codominant component of the plant 

community. 

Old cropland areas with a more prominent native 

plant component—such as areas farmed for 5–10 

years before refuge establishment, presumably 

before smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass were 

widely distributed—may have been reinvaded by 

native herbaceous plants. These areas may have 
 

 

 

 

 

 

78 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

restoration potential that at least equals that of 

adjoining, high-quality drift prairie or prairie slope. 

Old Cropland Objective 4 

After seeding and establishing native warm-season 

plants in an old cropland unit, maintain native plants 

as the most dominant vegetation cover, per 

qualitative estimation. 

NOTE: There are no goals and objectives for other 

old cropland units (those not yet converted to warmseason-dominated communities); they are low 

priority. 

Strategies 

—	 Seeded warm-season stands of herbaceous 

plants should be well established 5–8 years after 

seeding; manage these by a disturbance 

treatment about every 2–3 years. They probably 

can be disturbed more flexibly with regard to 

phenology, mainly to discourage smooth brome 

invasion. 

—	 Use grazing as an alternate management 

treatment and take advantage of the wide, 

spring-grazing “window” afforded by the warmseason-dominated community. 

—	 Integrate management with that of surrounding 

drift prairie while focusing on treatment 

approaches that promote native warm-season 

plant species. 

—	 In the interim between prescribed burns, 

possibly harvest hay every 2–3 years from old 

cropland units, alternating among July, August, 

and September to favor warm-season grasses. 

—	 If and where occasionally needed along unit 

boundaries, use herbicides to reduce 

encroaching, introduced cool-season grasses and 

release native warm-season plants. Use 

integrated pest management to treat local 

infestations of noxious weeds as needed. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

The warm-season growth strategy for plants vastly 

improves the capacity for an assemblage of 

grassland plants to outcompete smooth brome—by 

which seeded stands of introduced grasses and forbs 

are most typically degraded—mainly by affording 

broader and more effectively timed management 

opportunities. 

Old Cropland Objective 5 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, eliminate planted 

tall shrubs and trees and any naturalized, nonnative 

woody vegetation that occurs within or adjacent to 

high-priority old cropland areas as they are being 

restored to native-dominated vegetation. 

Strategies 

—	 Remove tree-shrub plantings by mechanical 

means (for example, cutting ash trees by hand; 

shearing caragana shrubs with a tractor blade or 

bucket during winter). Follow with herbicide 

treatment of stumps, or follow with broadly 

applied herbicide, rotary mowing, and/or 

prescribed burning of resprouting vegetation 

wherever necessary. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Trees and tall shrubs can diminish the survival of 

nests of grassland birds by harboring potential nest 

predators. They also provide perches from which 

brown-headed cowbirds can find other species’ nests 

in which to lay eggs. Recent data from the Souris 

River basin refuges indicate that relatively small 

areas of tall woody vegetation can effectively 

fragment grassland habitats and cause many 

grassland bird species to avoid entire landscapes. 

Elimination of tall woody cover is a logical strategy 

for restoration of landscape structure and plant 

community makeup and improvement of the 

attractiveness and security of the habitat for a 

variety of grassland-breeding bird species. 

Coulee Woodland and 

Coulee Woodland Edge Goal 

Acknowledge a nearly irreversible, localized 

establishment of mature, contiguous woodland and 

minimally manage these areas as breeding and 

migration habitat principally for forest-interior, 

migratory bird species such as veery and ovenbird. 

Strive to eliminate remaining, noncontiguous, edgedominated tree and tall shrub cover, particularly 

near high-priority drift prairie and the largest, most 

contiguous grassland tracts. 

Coulee Woodland and Edge Objective 1 

By 1 year after CCP approval, use GIS vegetation 

data and topographic considerations to classify 

management units with significant (>20% cover) 

tree and tall shrub cover as either “coulee woodland 

units” or “coulee woodland edge units.” 

Strategies 

—	 Use these criteria for identifying units with 

significant tree and tall shrub cover as coulee 

woodland units: the uppermost vegetation strata 

of a unit comprises >50% tree cover with some 

tall shrub, forming woodland patches that 

generally are contiguous (minimum woodland 

width × length = 330 × 660 feet, about 5 acres). 

—	 Use these criteria for identifying units with 

significant tree and tall shrub cover as coulee 

woodland edge units: the uppermost vegetation 

strata of a unit comprise 5–50% tree and tall 
 

 

 

shrub cover, generally occurring in narrow 

bands and are not contiguous. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

It is critical to the refuge’s vision and restoration 

approach to distinguish management units with 

considerable woodland cover versus those with 

much woodland edge. Coulee woodland at Des Lacs 

NWR is difficult to restore back to prairie, mainly 

because understory and ground fuels are too limited 

to carry fires of sufficient extent and intensity to kill 

overstory trees. Such areas probably do not have 

native prairie, grass-forb seed banks. However, 

coulee woodland could continue to provide modest 

habitat for forest-interior bird species such as veery 

and ovenbird without slowing widespread 

improvement in grassland bird habitat elsewhere at 

the refuge. 

 

 The ovenbird finds desirable habitat in coulee woodland. 

 Maslowski/USFWS S.

In contrast, coulee woodland edge is a widespread 

habitat type that, in the absence of fire, will continue 

to fragment drift prairie and some prairie slope. 

None of the breeding bird species that are common 

in this edge habitat is of management concern. 

However, 11 grassland bird species that occur or 

used to occur at Des Lacs NWR are species of 

concern. 

Conversion of woodland edge habitat to open prairie 

at the refuge could be achieved through repeated 

use of prescribed fire. This conversion will 

insignificantly influence continental population 

trends of woodland bird species, while helping 

reverse population declines of grassland bird 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, Des Lacs NWR 79 

species. Reduction of woodland edge may also 

reduce cowbird parasitism rates on grassland bird 

nests. 

Coulee Woodland and Edge Objective 2 

Minimally manage several tracts of green ashdominated, contiguous coulee woodland that cover 

about 800 acres and present the following 

characteristics within 15 years: 

Q	 There are 260–350 trees per acre and 55–60% 

canopy cover (roughly same as current condition, 

based on 1995 random plot data in Nenneman et 

al. 2003). 

Q	 Chokecherry, serviceberry, and green ash 

saplings are principle understory shrubs with 

>75% frequency each (current condition, based on 

1995 data from random plots [Nenneman and 

Murphy, unpublished]). 

Q	 Noxious weeds are controlled within woodland 

(common buckthorn, leafy spurge, common 

burdock, and other noxious weed species are each 

reduced to <3% frequency and newly discovered 

species of noxious weeds eliminated) and 

elsewhere on each woodland unit (buckthorn and 

other introduced species of tall shrubs or trees 

are eliminated and leafy spurge is reduced by 

>50%, to <5% frequency). Infestations of other, 

newly appearing species of noxious weed are 

detected and eliminated. 

Strategies 

—	 Except for active control of noxious weeds, rely 

mainly on passive management—do almost 

nothing. Contiguous woodland cover at Des 

Lacs NWR probably is nearing its maximum 

extent, apparently limited by local site potential 

(Grant and Murphy 2005). American elm 

formerly was codominant with green ash but by 

the late 1990s was widely decimated at the 

refuge by Dutch elm disease, with little recent 

evidence of recruitment (3% shrub frequency). 

—	 In open areas around woodland, continue to 

reduce leafy spurge by occasional redistribution 

of Apthona spp. beetles, plus limited use of 

herbicides at refuge boundaries if necessary. 

Leafy spurge occurs uncommonly in woodland 

(<3% frequency, 1996 data). 

—	 Within woodland, control common buckthorn by 

combinations of mechanical (hand cutting) and 

chemical means (herbicides applied on stumps 

freshly exposed by cutting). Common buckthorn 

was common (25% frequency) on random 

woodland plots in 1996. The shrub appears to be 

steadily increasing, especially in HB14 (south 

half) and HB18. Without prompt, concerted, 

control efforts, buckthorn likely will dominate 

forest understories at Des Lacs NWR within 

15 years and significantly diminish habitat 

values for forest-interior bird species such as 
80 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND

© Cindie Brunner

veery and ovenbird in addition to having other 

undesirable effects. Buckthorn is readily 

identified in late fall because it retains green 

leaves long after leaf-fall of other deciduous 

trees and tall shrubs. Seeds of the shrub are 

readily disseminated by many bird species and 

extended control must include regular vigilance. 

— Remove or aggressively 

destroy, wherever 

opportunity allows, 

other introduced woody 

plants (Russian olive, 

honeysuckle, and 

Siberian pea). These 

plants seldom occur in 

woodland (<3% 

frequency, 1996 data), 

but occur outside 

woodland in the same 

and other units (for 

example, Russian olive 

is particularly widespread 

near refuge headquarters). 

Rationale and Assumptions 

The area covered by coulee woodland increased 

significantly through the late 1960s but appears to 

have reached its potential extent. Most areas 

covered by coulee woodland at Des Lacs NWR may 

be difficult to restore back to prairie but probably 

could continue to provide modest habitat for forestinterior bird species without hindering widespread 

improvement in grassland bird habitat elsewhere at 

the refuge. 

Coulee Woodland and Edge Objective 3 

On each coulee woodland edge unit, apply 

disturbance (principally fire) every 5–6 years to 

restore the vegetation to the following standards 

within 15 years: 

Q Tree and tall shrub cover are reduced by >50% 

(measured via remote imagery). 

Q Plant litter is removed and herbaceous plant vigor 

and structural diversity are restored by 

management treatment applied every 5–6 years 

(these responses will be unmeasured and instead 

will be assumed to coincide with disturbance 

events). 

Q At any given time, about one-fourth of the area of 

all woodland edge units is in 0–1 year 

postdisturbance, one-fourth is in 2–3 years 

postdisturbance, and one-half is in 4–6+ years 

postdisturbance. This corresponds roughly to 

VOR height-density classes of 0–2.0 inches, 2.0–

3.9 inches, and 3.9–5.9 inches respectively, to 

contribute to the variety of grassland structural 

types across the landscape. 

Q Noxious weeds are controlled: (1) buckthorn, 

caragana, and other introduced species of tall 

shrubs or trees are nearly eliminated; (2) leafy 

spurge is reduced by >50%, to <5% frequency; 

(3) absinth wormwood and Canada thistle are 

actively controlled at the refuge boundary; and 

(4) infestations of yellow toadflax and any other, 

newly appearing species of noxious weed are 

detected and eliminated. 

Strategies 

— Apply prescribed fire every 5–6 years, varying 

the timing of burns within a given unit. Concede 

to continued invasion by introduced cool-season 

grasses, especially smooth brome, over much of 

these units, although upper slope areas may 

continue to support small patches (0.1–2.0 acres) 

of relatively diverse, native plant communities 

with a prominent warm-season grass component 

(somewhat similar to southwest-facing prairie 

slopes). 

— So long as critical needs of priority management 

units (especially high-priority drift prairie) are 

not compromised, seek opportunities for 

occasional grazing by livestock during years 

between prescribed burns to improve structural 

heterogeneity and slow litter accumulation. 

Grazing prescriptions can be very flexible, even 

allowing occasional, relatively severe 

defoliations, although such events may result in 

local increases in weeds such as Canada thistle 

and yellow sweetclover. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Coulee woodland edge is a widespread habitat type 

at Des Lacs NWR that, in the absence of fire, will 

continue to fragment drift prairie and some prairie 

slope. None of the breeding bird species that are 

common in this edge habitat is of management 

concern, whereas 11 grassland bird species that 

occur or used to occur at the refuge are considered 

species of concern. Conversion of woodland edge 

habitat to open prairie, through repeated prescribed 

fire, will negligibly influence continental population 

trends of woodland bird species while helping 

reverse population declines of grassland bird 

species. Reduction of woodland edge may also help 

reduce cowbird parasitism rates on grassland bird 

nests. 

Meadow Goal 

Restore and maintain extensive examples of plant 

communities dominated by native flora characteristic 

of seasonally flooded meadows within the Souris 

River floodplain to attract grassland- and wetlanddependent bird species and other wildlife. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, Des Lacs NWR 81 

Meadow Objective 1 

Manage meadows to present a mosaic of shortsparse herbaceous cover to tall-dense herbaceous 

cover and limit tall woody vegetation to <1% of the 

overall plant cover. 

Strategy 

—	 Manage meadows with the broader habitats that 

they adjoin or in which they are embedded 

(marsh units, prairie slope), using periodic 

prescribed fire and grazing where possible. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Meadow is limited in area at Des Lacs NWR, 

occurring in small, isolated, often long, narrow 

patches (<40 acres). Meadows occur at the mouths of 

major coulees or on the periphery of marsh units 

along the southern one-third of the refuge. Although 

these areas contribute to plant and wildlife diversity 

(for example, the Baltic rush-saltgrass-sedge 

community includes several unique species of sedge, 

along with sedge wren and Nelson’s sharp-tailed 

sparrow), it generally is impractical to exclusively 

target these areas in management planning. 

Combinations of prescribed burning and grazing are 

appropriate management. However, grazing without 

recurrent fire treatments could increase occurrences 

of grazing-tolerant species such as foxtail barley and 

curly-cup gumweed. Local invasion by two 

introduced, rhizomatous grasses, reed canarygrass 

and quackgrass, might be exacerbated by grazing 

without recurrent fire. Fire also will maintain the 

current low occurrence of willow and meadowsweet, 

plus that of western snowberry in the relatively 

high, less moist sites within meadows. 

Wetland Goal 

Manage riverine wetlands, including marshes and 

lakes, to sustain the long-term capacity of riverine 

wetlands to support diverse plant and wildlife 

communities. Restore ecological processes that 

sustain long-term productivity of wetlands. 

Wetland Objective 1 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, synthesize 

available information on the effects of physical 

alterations, altered hydrology and hydroperiod, 

increased sedimentation, and changes in water 

quality of the riverine system, past and present: 

(1) develop a report to describe consequences of 

these alterations on long-term viability of riverine 

marshes, (2) determine biological potentials and 

constraints for each wetland impoundment, and 

(3) develop criteria to prioritize refuge 

impoundments with the greatest potential for 

sustained productivity. 

Strategies 

—	 Use past narratives, aerial photographs, 

unpublished refuge files, and scientific literature 

to evaluate the biological potential of wetland 

impoundments and prioritize units for 

management. 

—	 Map physical areas within each impoundment
 

that are expected to respond to management. 


—	 Develop and prioritize a list of knowledge gaps
 

and research needs. 


—	 In cooperation with USGS’s Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, complete a sediment 

accretion study and contaminants studies. 

—	 Monitor groundwater and soil moisture levels in 

impoundments and within the adjacent meadow 

zone. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

This objective focuses on compilation of past and 

current data about development and management of 

the Des Lacs River wetlands. Although riverine 

wetlands form one of the most extensive and 

important habitats at the refuge, site-specific 

information is limited about effects of habitat 

management (especially water level management) 

on vegetation structure and composition, species 

diversity and density of aquatic invertebrates, and 

wetland-dependent bird species. Models for 

managing northern prairie wetlands exist but their 

utility is limited for managing riverine marshes at 

the Souris River basin refuges, primarily because 

impoundments include flow-through of the rivers, 

which limits wetland management capabilities. 

This objective requires compilation of existing 

wetland management records along with a clear, 

succinct treatment of threats and management 

opportunities and limitations for riverine wetlands. 

Laubhan and others (2003) completed a biological 

assessment of wetland conditions for the Souris 

River basin refuges; this report provides a start in 

meeting this objective and those that follow. 

Wetland Objective 2 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, evaluate and 

comprehend crucial ecological processes that 

maintain long-term wetland productivity. Develop a 

range of biological indicators (for example, sago 

pondweed biomass, decline of important 

invertebrate species, and shifts in extent and 

juxtaposition of aquatic emergent vegetation) useful 

as references or benchmarks for implementing 

management strategies such as water level 

management and prescribed fire to maintain 

wetland productivity over the long term. 
82 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Strategies 

—	 Complete development of a USGS computer 

application that uses long-term flow data from 

gauging stations to assess effects associated 

with long-term alterations in river hydrology 

and hydroperiod on wetland plants, wildlife, and 

ultimately the potential to sustain long-term 

wetland productivity. 

—	 In cooperation with USGS’s Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, complete a sediment 

accretion study and determine effects of 

sedimentation for long-term management of 

riverine marshes. 

—	 In cooperation with USGS and others, assess 


available contour maps for wetlands; where 


inadequate, develop detailed contour maps of
 

marsh bottoms for all impoundments to help
 

construct models that predict vegetation 


response to water level management. 


—	 In the absence of full restoration of the natural 

hydrograph and hydroperiod of the Des Lacs 

River, continue to study the economic, physical, 

and biological feasibility of constructing a major 

bypass channel to expand management 

opportunities at all impoundments. 

—	 Develop a method to inventory contemporary
 

vegetation communities in managed wetlands. 


Expand use of remote imagery (1) to monitor 


sago pondweed biomass, which is positively
 

correlated with invertebrate diversity and 


density at the refuge (Euliss et al. 2003), and
 

(2) to develop methods for long-term monitoring 

of other wetland vegetation. 

—	 In cooperation with USGS and others, use 


information derived above to develop models 


that predict effects of water management
 

(especially hydroperiod) on wetland plants, 


invertebrates, and migratory birds. Revise 


objective 1 accordingly.
 

Unit 2 at Des Lacs NWR. 

Dan Severson/USFWS 

Rationale and Assumptions 

This objective focuses on synthesizing existing 

scientific research on wetland function and cycles in 

northern prairie wetlands and impounded riverine 

wetlands. It also prompts site-specific inventory, 

monitoring, and research to support management of 

riverine marshes. 

A biological assessment of wetland conditions for the 

Souris River basin refuges was completed recently 

(Laubhan et al. 2003). This report provides context 

for the original construction and subsequent physical 

and operational modifications to the managed 

wetland system at the Souris River basin refuges. 

Additionally, long-term threats to the system are 

discussed. However, past management of riverine 

wetlands has been based more on “gut feeling,” an 

irregular local climate, and politics, than on sound 

science. Site-specific data are lacking regarding 

effects of wetland management on vegetation 

structure and composition, aquatic invertebrate 

densities, and wetland-dependent wildlife species. 

Relative to upland habitats, managers have less 

effective control over wetland systems, due in part 

to the following: 

R	 misunderstandings about the biological 

significance of drought and of complete 

drawdown, dating back to the original 

construction of wetland impoundments; 

R	 limited knowledge of long-term impacts 

of low-head dams on rivers in the 

northern Great Plains; 

R	 significant physical limitations of 

constructed impoundments, especially 

inability to manipulate water levels of 

adjacent impoundments independently; 

R	 inherent difficulties in conducting basic 

inventory, long-term monitoring, or 

applied research in wetlands relative to 

upland sites. 

Wetland Objective 3 

During the 15 years after CCP approval, develop 

and implement a new management philosophy that 

emphasizes long-term wetland productivity over 

older models based on “oasis” management, where 

wet acres are maximized (especially during extreme 

drought) or years of “hemi-marsh” conditions are 

maximized. In high-priority impoundments, use 

periodic disturbance to provide the full spectrum of 

wetland conditions—for example, (1) dry marsh, 

(2) densely vegetated marsh (regenerative phase), 

(3) hemi-marsh, (4) open marsh (degenerative 

phase), and (5) open water—to benefit wetlanddependent migratory birds. 
 

Strategies 

—	 Re-create, where possible, the natural 

hydrology and hydroperiod of the Des Lacs 

River. In most areas, physical disruptions such 

as rights-of-way, dikes, and control structures 

compromise the degree to which this strategy 

could be carried out. Focus management on the 

lower refuge impoundments (units 4–7), which 

probably have the greatest potential for 

sustained productivity (from objective 1). 

—	 Use natural climatic fluctuations to increase 

wetland management opportunities. Periodic 

drought may hasten full or partial drawdowns in 

some units. Although such drawdowns maximize 

the long-term viability of wetlands, the 

availability of wetlands with water is reduced 

during drought. In contrast, previous 

management emphasized retaining as much 

water as possible to offset landscape-level 

drought effects on migratory birds at the 

expense of long-term capacity to sustain 

wetland productivity in refuge impoundments. 

—	 Use periodic, growing-season drawdown over 


multiple seasons if required to (1) stimulate 


production of seed-bearing annual plants, 


(2) increase invertebrate biomass, and 

(3) stimulate establishment and expansion of 

emergent and submergent plant species. 

—	 During the drawdown phase, use additional 

disturbances, especially prescribed fire, 

mechanical soil treatment (for example, disking 

and farming), and defoliation (haying or grazing) 

to boost vegetation and invertebrate response 

during the regenerative phase and control 

robust emergent vegetation. Refer to 

appendixes O, P, and Q for compatibility 

determinations for grazing, haying, and farming, 

respectively. 

—	 Use periodic inundation to reduce robust
 

emergent vegetation, especially cattail and 


common reed. 


—	 Use aerially applied herbicides when needed to 

reduce the extent of monotypic, robust stands of 

emergent vegetation in portions of impoundments 

that, historically, do not respond to water level 

management (cannot hold >3 feet of water during 

the growing season). 

—	 Obtain remaining water rights through North 

Dakota State Water Commission. Buy additional 

water rights. 

—	 Detect and eliminate purple loosestrife and salt 

cedar. 

—	 Maintain carp-free status. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

This objective focuses on implementation and 

management, using the best available science. Past 

management goals and objectives rarely addressed 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, Des Lacs NWR 83 

or incorporated unforeseen impacts related to the 

physical disruptions of the river (for example, 

original construction of dikes and dams), or changes 

in habitat (biotic and abiotic) resulting from these 

events. Inevitable decreases in water quality and in 

marsh management capabilities—especially because 

of accretion of sediments—are assumed, based on 

current knowledge of such trends on this and similar 

impounded riverine marshes in the northern Great 

Plains. 

Productivity of northern prairie wetlands was 

historically maintained by periodic wet and dry 

cycles. Productivity is particularly enhanced during 

reflooding following natural drought or drawdown 

(in managed wetlands). Riverine marshes have an 

inherent reduced capacity to be dewatered during 

the growing season because the river flows through 

each impoundment. Departures from a natural 

hydroperiod can render prescriptive drawdowns 

ineffective because marsh sediments never dry 

sufficiently to (1) oxidize soils, (2) establish annual 

wetland plants (important waterfowl foods and a 

substrate for invertebrate production), or 

(3) establish perennial emergent and submergent 

vegetation (food cover and invertebrate substrate). 

Furthermore, control of robust emergent plants 

(cattail, reed, and bulrush) becomes difficult because 

of continued anoxic (absence of oxygen) conditions, 

with little reduction in organic material in marsh 

soils. Consequently, wetlands often cycle rapidly 

between open water and a dense-vegetated marsh 

phase, both of which are less productive than 

intervening stages. A periodic dry marsh phase is 

rarely achieved. Instead, under this objective, 

wetland management will become more 

opportunistic. Periodic drawdowns will be 

emphasized, typically working in conjunction with 

wet-to-dry cycles to achieve management objectives. 

Wetland Objective 4 

Over the course of the CCP, introduce efforts on a 

watershed level that reduce sedimentation and 

nonpoint source pollution and/or their effects on 

riverine marshes. 

Strategies 

—	 Develop models similar to the “mallard model” 


developed by the HAPET that target areas
 

within the watershed (for example, adjacent to
 

major tributaries or drainage systems) that
 

have the highest potential for sediment 


transport, especially during extreme rainfall or 


snowmelt events. 


—	 Use models to target areas for conversion from 


cropland to grassland via USDA’s CRP, 


Wetland Reserve Program, or other USDA 


conservation initiatives. Identify drained 


wetlands within targeted areas for restoration. 


Initiate and develop additional conservation 

 

84 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

measures that reduce or mitigate impacts from 

sedimentation and pollution. 

—	 Work with the NRCS to ensure compliance with 

“Sodbuster,” “Swampbuster,” and other 

provisions in the Farm Bill (current and future) 

that reduce soil erosion. 

—	 Explore construction of sediment traps at the 


refuge to reduce sediment inputs. Where 


management capability has already been
 

reduced, explore the feasibility of dredging to
 

reduce accumulated sediment in certain 


impoundments. 


—	 Protect native prairie and prairie wetlands 


within target areas or adjacent to the refuge,
 

using perpetual easements.
 

—	 In cooperation with the USGS and the state of 

North Dakota, monitor and document sediment 

loads and water quality associated with various 

flows. Consider trying to pass flows with high 

sediment loads or that significantly reduce 

water quality. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Initial samples collected at the Souris River basin 

refuges document only slightly elevated levels of 

sediment accretion for most impoundments. 

However, over many decades, sedimentation is 

expected to continue to the point where storage 

capacity (water depth) of pools will decline. This will 

result in reduced capability to manage wetland 

vegetation, especially robust emergent plants, using 

water level manipulations. Results from an ongoing 

sedimentation study at the Souris River basin 

refuges are expected to confirm this assumption. 

Sedimentation and pollution mainly originate within 

the watershed, but outside refuge boundaries. 

Sediment is transported mainly via agricultural 

runoff carried in major tributaries and wetland 

drainage projects. Flows that contain high sediment 

loads or that significantly reduce water quality 

appear associated with floods originating from heavy 

winter snowmelt or significant rainfall events. 

Island Goal 

Manage islands to attract waterfowl and increase 

nest survival, especially during drought years when 

wetland habitat outside of the Souris River basin 

refuges is limited. 

Island Objective 1 

By 1 year after CCP approval, prioritize nesting 

islands based on past waterfowl use, nest survival, 

and maintenance feasibility. 

Strategies 

—	 Use data from nest studies (1990s) to evaluate
 

each nesting island for waterfowl production.
 

—	 Emphasize islands far from shore with a large, 

surrounding, open-water barrier and islands 

with extensive, relatively dense, tall, nesting 

cover (for example, VOR >5.9 inches). 

—	 Identify and maintain islands that (1) have value 

for migratory bird species of management 

concern as secure nesting habitat, and 

(2) require almost no maintenance (for example, 

erosion control and occasional predator removal; 

less than $250 average annual expenditures per 

island). 

—	 Allow islands that are poorly designed and 

unproductive for nesting waterfowl to 

deteriorate. 

Canvasback. 

Donna Dewhurst/USFWS 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Island management will be lower priority than 

restoration of other, more extensive, habitat types. 

Therefore, limited resources expended on island 

management should target islands with the greatest 

potential to produce waterfowl. Data on waterbird 

nesting and nest success were collected during the 

1990s on islands available for nesting by waterfowl 

and other migratory birds. Data on presence of 

mammalian predators also were collected, based on 

annual trapping records. Anecdotal, incidental notes 

have been gathered on use of islands for nesting and 

roosting by a variety of migratory bird species. 

Island Objective 2 

Remove nesting islands with a history of low 

waterfowl nest densities and/or low nest survival. 

Burn some islands with low nest survival in late 

April or May to discourage waterfowl nesting. 

Strategies 

—	 Allow islands to deteriorate slowly through 


erosion. 


—	 Level islands by bulldozing during drought or 


drawdown periods. 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, Des Lacs NWR 85 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Islands that consistently support low levels of 

waterfowl nest success detract from species 

population goals. 

Island Objective 3 

During drought conditions, remove mammalian 

predators from islands selected as high priority for 

management and discourage nesting by gulls. 

Strategies 

—	 Trap predators such as skunk, raccoon, and mink 

soon after ice-out in the spring, during drought 

years or when resources allow. The spring 

“window” for effectively capturing mink is 

narrow; capture is unlikely once nesting has 

begun. 

—	 Except for poisoning (currently not an approved 

strategy), the best control for mink is attained 

by limiting winter muskrat populations that 

maintain survival of mink during winter months. 

—	 Partial winter drawdowns can be used to control 

muskrat populations. 

—	 Discourage gull nesting by maintaining tall, 


dense vegetation.
 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Islands can potentially support high levels of 

waterfowl nest density and nest success, but only if 

free from predators. Island objectives remain 

secondary to marsh management objectives that 

maintain long-term wetland productivity. 

Cultural Resource Goal 

Discover and protect cultural resources and 

interpret sites when the interpretation does not 

adversely affect habitat management. 

Cultural Resource Objective 1 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, identify and 

protect cultural resources present at the refuge. 

Strategies 

—	 Complete cultural resource surveys as needed
 

for management purposes.
 

—	 Identify and store known cultural resource sites 

on a secure GIS database layer that can be used 

during management planning. 

—	 Secure funding to survey the entire refuge for 


cultural resource sites. 


—	 Protect known sites with refuge law 


enforcement, barriers, signing, and special use 


permits. 


Rationale and Assumptions 

There are limited resources (funding and staff) that 

will be allocated yearly to the refuge. The priority 

for these funding and staffing resources is to protect 

and manage upland and wetland habitats for wildlife. 

Protection of cultural resources is an integral part of 

the purpose. All cultural resource laws and policies 

will be complied with to prevent the destruction of 

known and unknown sites. 

Cultural Resource Objective 2 

Within 10 years of CCP approval, develop a cultural 

resource interpretive program that will convey the 

cultural history of the Des Lacs River valley to 

refuge visitors. 

Strategy 

—	 Develop a self-guided interpretive route at the 


Munch’s Coulee National Recreation Trail that 


details life on the prairie in the 18th century, 


using replicated cultural resource sites. 


Rationale and Assumptions 

The interpretation of cultural resources is 

encouraged if sufficient funding and staff are 

available (so that habitat management will not be 

negatively affected). Interpretation of the Souris 

River basin culture will enhance visitors’ 

appreciation and knowledge of the role of refuges to 

protect native habitats and wildlife. In addition, 

visitors will be taught to respect, value, and protect 

cultural resources. 

Creating replicas of cultural resource sites will 

convey the message that is learned from cultural 

resource sites without risking damage to actual 

sites. 

Replicas will allow many types of sites to be viewed 

in a limited area, reducing impacts to important 

habitats. 

Visitor Service Goal 

Provide wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities 

to a diverse audience when the administration of 

these programs does not adversely affect wildlife 

and habitat management. 

Visitor Service Objective 1—Hunting 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, provide hunting 

opportunities for 500 visitors when resources needed 

to administer these programs do not adversely 

affect the refuge’s ability to implement habitat 

management. Continue to provide hunters with safe, 

reasonable harvest opportunities; uncrowded 

conditions; minimal conflicts with other users; and 

satisfaction with their overall experiences. 
Strategies 

—	 Annually determine whether resources (funding 

and staff) will be available to provide hunting 

opportunities at the current level. 

—	 When compatible, add other designated game
 

animals to the list of species open for hunting.
 

—	 Provide hunting opportunities and access for 


hunters with disabilities, on request, when 


determined to be compatible. 


—	 Continue to work with the NDGF to provide 


quality hunting opportunities where possible. 


—	 Continue providing the public with information 

on refuge hunting opportunities by news 

releases, updated hunting brochures, signs, and 

the refuge website, as needed. 

—	 Continue to regulate hunting with refuge law 


enforcement.
 

Rationale and Assumptions 

“Hunting is clearly an important activity with 

visitors making multiple trips to the refuge to do so. 

These visitors feel that hunting at the refuge 

provides a unique experience they cannot find 

elsewhere,” (Sexton et al. 2005). However, there are 

limited resources (funding and staff) that will be 

allocated yearly to the refuge. The priority for these 

resources is to protect and manage upland and 

wetland habitats. Hunting programs will be allowed 

if resources needed to administer hunting will not 

materially detract from habitat management. The 

Service intends to keep the present level of 

programs, unless funding or staffing shortfalls 

increase. The greatest expenses for the hunting 

program are for law enforcement, sign development 

and maintenance, development and printing of 

hunting brochures, answering questions, and 

updating the refuge website. 

The compatibility determination for recreational 

hunting is in appendix S. 

Visitor Service Objective 2—Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, provide wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities for no 

less than 8,000 visitors annually as a result of 

improved tour routes and habitat and wildlife 

diversity. 

Strategies 

—	 Continue efforts to improve the Scenic Backway 

auto tour route (asphalt surfacing on the south 

section and improved gravel surfacing on the 

north section). 

—	 Develop partnerships with wildlife groups and 


organizations to market available birding and 


wildlife opportunities at the refuge. 


86 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

 Scenic byway at Des Lacs NWR. 

 Robert Murphy/USFWS 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Visitors drawn to the refuge for nonconsumptive 

activities found birding, wildlife observation, the 

auto tour route, and walking interpretive trails to be 

the most important activities. Visitors tend to 

observe and photograph wildlife collaterally at the 

same time they participate in other wildlifedependent activities. The auto tour route gives 

visitors excellent opportunities to view birds and 

other wildlife. Although there are no plans to 

expand these existing facilities, they can be 

enhanced. Habitat management improvements will 

provide a greater diversity of wildlife available for 

observation and photography. 

The compatibility determination for wildlife 

observation and photography is in appendix T. 

Visitor Service Objective 3—Environmental 

Education and Interpretation 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, provide 

environmental education programming to no less 

than 100 students per year. Provide interpretive 

exhibits that will be viewed by 15% of visitors per 

year. Emphasize learning about natural plant and 

animal communities, ecological processes, refuge 

management, and restoration of upland and wetland. 

Strategies 

—	 Develop educational partnerships with schools 

and other government entities to efficiently tell 

the refuge story. 

—	 Complete the redesign of visitor center exhibits 

to tell the story of the refuge and the Refuge 

System, and to emphasize the importance of the 

prairie grassland ecosystem. 

—	 Maintain existing interpretation panels at the 


Scenic Backway and overlooks. 


—	 Complete the interpretation of Munch’s Coulee 

National Recreation Trail. 

—	 In cooperation with partners, participate in at
 

least one special event annually to increase
 

visitors’ knowledge and understanding of 


wildlife conservation and related issues.

 

Rationale and Assumptions 

There are limited opportunities to educate a large 

number of people about the refuge and the Refuge 

System in the rural communities surrounding the 

refuge. Most visitors and users of the refuge are 

local. There are opportunities to educate local youth 

about wildlife and habitat; most of these youth will 

leave the state when they graduate and take the 

message elsewhere. 

Unfortunately, the Des Lacs NWR does not have 

educational facilities or staff to provide this valuable 

service. The refuge’s priority is to protect and 

manage upland and wetland habitats to prevent 

degradation. Existing educational programs will be 

continued, but less frequently, and will rely on 

volunteers and other groups to contribute more 

time. 

The compatibility determination for environmental 

education and interpretation is in appendix T. 

Non-wildlife-dependent Public Use 

Objectives and strategies are not developed for nonwildlife-dependent public use activities. Examples of 

these activities are canoeing, boating, berry picking, 

horseback riding, walking, hiking, bicycling, crosscountry skiing, snowshoeing, four wheeling, 

swimming, water skiing, sailing, and snowmobiling. 

These types of activities may be compatible when 

associated with wildlife-dependent public use. For 

example, berry picking along a trail might be 

allowed as a compatible activity incidental to the 

wildlife-dependent public use of wildlife observation. 

Compatibility of activities will be determined on an 

individual basis by the refuge manager as needed in 

the future. 

Research and Science Goal 

Conduct innovative natural resource management 

using sound science and applied research to advance 

the understanding of natural resource function and 

management within the northern Great Plains. 

Research and Science Objective 1 

During the 15 years following CCP approval, 

identify and prioritize research needs required to 

meet the refuge’s goals and objectives; promote 

investigations that reliably address these needs. 

Strategies 

—	 Conduct vegetation and wildlife inventories of 

all plant communities within major habitats 

identified in chapter 3. Use initial inventories as 

baseline data to assess past and future changes 

in plant and animal community composition. 

—	 Use periodic surveys (for example, every 

5 years) to assess vegetation composition and 

structure of high-priority refuge habitats. 

—	 Focus wildlife population research on 

assessments of species-habitat relationships. 

Develop models that predict wildlife response to 

habitat management or restoration. 

—	 Design and conduct issue-driven research 

unlikely to be reliably addressed using longterm monitoring. Develop predictive models of 

habitat management and restoration. 

—	 Promote refuge research and science priorities 

within the broader scientific community. Ensure 

that cooperative research focuses on meeting 

information needs identified in habitat 

management goals and objectives. 

 Refuge staff member measures vegetation. 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, Des Lacs NWR 87 Cory Rubin/USFWS 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Habitat-based goals and objectives form the basis 

for setting research and monitoring priorities for 

Des Lacs NWR. Investigations must be sufficiently 

designed, funded, and carried out to reliably address 

proposed hypotheses or questions. 

Partnerships are integral to meeting the research 

and science goal and objectives. Cooperative efforts 

are supported with shared funding, lodging, 

vehicles, equipment, knowledge, and expertise. 

Operations Goal 

Efficiently use funding and staffing for the benefit of 

all natural and cultural resources, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, and present and future 

generations. Effectively manage visitor service 

programs that complement habitat management. 

Operations Objective 1 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, hire three 

additional personnel to restore native prairie habitat 
 

 

88 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

and manage wetland resources on 100% of highpriority habitat units and 50% of moderate-priority 

habitat units. 

Strategies 

—	 Hire a full-time refuge manager with duties to 

plan and carry out intensive habitat restoration 

efforts on the highest priority habitats and 

units. 

—	 Hire a full-time wildlife biologist to monitor 

wildlife and habitat responses to habitat 

protection, management, and restoration efforts. 

—	 Hire a full-time tractor operator to carry out the 

habitat restoration work. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

There are limited resources (funds and staff) 

allocated yearly to the refuge. The priority for these 

resources is to manage upland and wetland habitats. 

If the target (minimum) staffing level and funding 

are not reached or only partially reached, fewer 

accomplishments will be achieved. 

Operations Objective 2 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, secure additional 

funding necessary to complete habitat restoration on 

100% of high-priority habitat units and 50% of 

moderate-priority habitat units. Include restoration 

with (1) native prairie reseeding, and (2) intensive 

management of existing native prairie including 

woody plant reduction, invasive species control, and 

increased prescribed fire and grazing activities. 

Strategies 

—	 Use additional funding to purchase native grass 

and forb seeds for reseeding former cropland 

and planted cover. 

—	 Use additional funding to purchase herbicides to 

control invasive species and remove/control 

woody plant expansion. 

—	 Continue to use maintenance management
 

funding to maintain or replace equipment and 


facilities, as needed, to Service standards. 


—	 Secure additional funding to construct an 


equipment storage building to protect existing 


equipment and implements to extend their 


useful life. Equipment is necessary for habitat 


protection and restoration and maintenance of
 

existing facilities. 


—	 Maintain existing facilities and equipment to
 

Service standards, including necessary roads,
 

dikes, water control structures, buildings, and 


fences (all of which are critical in habitat 


management and protection).
 

Rationale and Assumptions 

There are limited resources (funds and staff) 

allocated yearly to the refuge. The priority for these 

resources is to protect and manage upland and 

wetland habitats for wildlife. Operational funding 

will be targeted to work on the highest priority 

habitats and habitat units at the refuge. 

Management intensity will be increased on those 

habitats and units and will require additional 

personnel and funding to restore native prairie. 

J. CLARK SALYER NWR 

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION 

The following goals, objectives, and strategies for 

J. Clark Salyer NWR outline the actions needed to 

achieve the vision of the Souris River basin refuges. 

The Service intends to meet these objectives during 

the next 15 years. 

Drift Prairie Goal 

Restore and maintain extensive examples of plant 

communities dominated by native flora characteristic 

of the mid-1800s drift prairie. Create the temporally 

and spatially dynamic habitat conditions that will 

attract most breeding bird species and other 

vertebrate fauna characteristic of that era. 

Prairie Slope Goal 

Restore representative examples of prairie slopes to 

preserve some of the most pristine plant 

communities that remain in the Souris River basin 

and promote appreciation and stewardship of prairie 

resources. 

NOTE: The limited prairie slope habitat at J. Clark 

Salyer NWR will be managed in conjunction with 

the refuge’s drift prairie, through application of the 

following drift prairie objectives. 

Drift Prairie Objective 1 

By 1 year after CCP approval, use current vegetation 

inventory data and landscape considerations to 

characterize each habitat management unit with 

>40 acres of drift prairie as either high or low 

management priority. Reevaluate prioritization 

15 years after CCP approval. 

Strategy 

—	 Apply multiple selection criteria. 

CRITERIA FOR HIGH-PRIORITY UNITS 

Floristic Composition. Vegetation is 

characterized by >10% mean frequency 
Chapter 4—Management Direction, J. Clark Salyer NWR 89 

of pristine, native herbaceous types 

(plant groups 41–43 and 46–48 [Grant et al. 

2004b]; see appendix G), plus native 

herbaceous-dominated vegetation with 

Kentucky bluegrass as the main 

subdominant (plant group 53). 

Floristic Potential. Vegetation is 

characterized by <30% mean frequency 

of smooth brome-dominated vegetation 

(plant groups 61 and 62). 

Landscape Context. The unit is 

contiguous with the best examples of 

prairie slope habitat (largest prairie 

slopes with the most intact native plant 

composition). 

or 

is adjacent to other high-priority, drift 

prairie units and/or tracts of native 

prairie adjacent to the refuge under 

non-Service ownership (especially 

important if the unit has relatively 

little drift prairie area, i.e., <40 acres). 

CRITERIA FOR LOW-PRIORITY UNITS

Floristic Composition. Vegetation is 

characterized by <10% mean frequency 

of pristine, native herbaceous types 

(plant groups 41–43 and 46–48 [Grant et al. 

2004b]) plus native herbaceousdominated vegetation with Kentucky 

bluegrass as the main subdominant 

(plant group 53). 

Floristic Potential. Vegetation is 

characterized by >30% mean frequency 

of smooth brome-dominated vegetation 

(plant groups 61 and 62). 

Landscape context. The unit is small 

(<100 acres) and not contiguous with 

significant prairie slope habitat, nor 

adjacent to high-priority drift prairie 

units and/or tracts of native prairie 

adjacent to the refuge. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Most northern mixed-grass prairie has been 

destroyed. Losses have been particularly severe in 

the Drift Plain physiographic region, such that drift 

prairie could be considered an endangered resource. 

Key roles of the Refuge System include contribution 

to ecosystem integrity and the conservation of 

biological diversity. The Souris River basin refuges 

should contribute to the conservation of native 

prairie communities unique to the Drift Plain region. 

However, the native mixed-grass drift prairie at the 

refuges is badly deteriorated, mainly through 

extensive invasion by introduced cool-season grasses. 

Recent inventory data indicate that occurrences of 

relatively intact, native herbaceous flora are rare 

(<5% frequency) on most drift prairie manageme

units of J. Clark Salyer NWR. Native warm-seas

grasses are nearly absent. Under appropriate 

management, warm-season grasses can outcompe

introduced cool-season grasses if the former are 

sufficiently abundant (>20% frequency). 

Most drift prairie at J. Clark 

Salyer NWR likely has already 

passed a threshold, such that 

restoration of a modestly 

diverse, native herbaceous 

flora is an unrealistic and 

impractical goal. However, 

restoration may be possible on 

some tracts where native 

grasses, sedges, and forbs 

are more common and 

widespread. Such tracts 

need to be identified by 

objective criteria that 

focus on (1) diversity 

and prevalence of existing 

native plants, and 

(2) landscape area and 

connectivity, which underlie 

the quality of nesting habitat 

for grassland birds, a species 

group of significant 

conservation concern (see 

appendix I) in North 

America. 

A major assumption is that, 

under current management, 

native herbaceous flora will 

continue to decline and 

disappear on drift prairie units. 

This approach will improve the 

chances that some drift prairie 

will be restored. 

Drift Prairie Objective 2 

On high-priority drift prairie 

units, apply frequent and precisely 

timed disturbance (principally 

nt 

on 

te 

fire and grazing) to restore 

vegetation to the following 

standards within 15 years of CCP 

approval. This will provide habitat for most wildlife 

species that were characteristic of North Dakota’s 

eastern mixed-grass prairie but that currently are 

rare or absent at the refuge (burrowing owl, horned 

lark, Baird’s sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, chestnutcollared longspur, northern pintail, and Richardson’s 

ground squirrel). 

Q Composition on each unit includes (1) >40% 

pristine native and native-dominated/ bluegrasssubdominant vegetation (plant groups 41–43, 46–

48, and 53), (2) <20% smooth brome-dominated 

vegetation (plant groups 61 and 62), and (3) <20% 

Blue-eyed grass.

© Cindie Brunner 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

90 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

low shrub-dominated vegetation (plant groups 11– 

17); based on percentage frequency of occurrence 

on belt transects (Grant et al. 2004b). 

Q	 Native trees and tall shrubs are absent or nearly 

so, comprising <0.1% land cover on each unit, and 

no nonnative or planted native woody vegetation 

exists. 

Q	 Leafy spurge is decreased by >50% on each unit, 

to <1% frequency (frequencies per belt transects; 

most high-priority units currently have little to no 

spurge), absinth wormwood is actively controlled, 

and yellow toadflax and other newly appearing 

species of noxious weed that pose a threat to the 

drift prairie are eliminated within 5 years of initial 

detection. 

Strategies 

—	 Disturb the vegetation, typically by livestock 

grazing or fire, at least 2 of every 3 years. An 

ideal management sequence over 5 years might 

be BGGGR (B=prescribe burn the first year; 

G=graze in each of years 2, 3, and 4; R=rest), and 

then reinitiate the sequence. The area covered 

by trees, tall shrubs, and low shrubs will be 

incrementally reduced with this burning 

frequency. 

—	 Primarily use prescribed fire when smooth 

brome plants are at least in the 4- to 5-leaf stage, 

but not yet showing an inflorescence; this 

generally occurs during a narrow mid-May 

through early June “window.” A less preferred 

option is to burn in fall in anticipation of a 

negative, winter drought effect on smooth 

brome and Kentucky bluegrass. 

—	 Graze mainly during May through August or 

September, via a rotation approach with many 

(7–10) relatively small (40–60 acres) grazing cells 

per unit and short grazing periods (4–7 days) per 

cell. Adjust stocking rates to facilitate regrazing 

of individual smooth brome plants at least once 

within a grazing period, but move livestock to 

the next cell before native plants are regrazed (be 

sure to note grazing of native upland sedges, an 

important forage base in some management units). 

—	 Annually survey for noxious weeds. Continue 

widespread use of biological control by 

monitoring local areas for Apthona spp. beetles 

and by redistributing beetles among leafy 

spurge patches as needed. Use herbicides as 

needed along boundaries with private lands. 

—	 Reseed adjoining old cropland units into native 

vegetation dominated by warm-season grasses 

(see objectives for old cropland). Manage these 

intensively, in concert with the high-priority 

drift prairie units they adjoin, to sustain a 

native-dominated flora and to reduce sources of 

invasion by introduced cool-season grasses and 

noxious weeds (see objectives and strategies for 

old cropland). 

—	 Experiment on low-priority tracts with new or 


high-risk restoration methods for use on high-


priority tracts. 


—	 Experiment with horses as alternative grazing 

tools; horses may have greater impact than 

cattle on woody vegetation, especially 

silverberry. Since horses may founder (succumb 

to hoof inflammation) on rich, green vegetation, 

an appropriate approach in a 3-year grazing 

cycle may be to use cattle during the first 2 years, 

then horses the third year. 

—	 Experiment with control of introduced coolseason grasses and release of native plants on a 

small, localized scale with selective herbicide 

treatment. 

—	 Experiment with seeding of native warm-season 

grass mixes in brome monotypes on unit edges. 

Apply prescribed fire followed by multiple 

herbicide treatments over 2 years for site 

preparation. Use similar approaches on bromedominated edges of adjoining, low-priority units. 

NOTE: Service policy regarding refuge 

management implicitly promotes seeding to 

reestablish native plants in native sod where 

such plants have become rare or absent 

(“National Wildlife Refuge System Biological 

Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental 

Health,” 601 FW 3, 2001). 

—	 Experiment with “interseeding” of native 

plants, principally warm-season species, into 

brome monotypes within units. Apply 

prescribed fire or repeated intensive grazing, 

and then use a wick applicator to apply herbicide 

to emerging smooth brome and Kentucky 

bluegrass. Follow by seeding via drill. 

—	 Experiment with localized hand plantings and 

husbandry (such as weed control and herbivore 

exclusion) of select native forbs such as 

milkvetches (Astragalus spp.) to increase plant 

species diversity and structural diversity. 

—	 Transplant and release Richardson’s ground 

squirrels on areas of low-stature vegetation 

within high-priority units wherever an adjacent 

source for colonization appears unavailable. 

—	 Remove local, human disturbances and artifacts 

of twentieth-century origin (including the refuge 

era). This includes prominent plow furrows, old 

road grades, rock piles, and impoundment dams 

on intermittent drainages (except on those 

essential as livestock water sources). Restore 

such sites as close as possible to their original 

condition. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

This objective focuses on restoration of floristic 

composition. Smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass 

are widespread and common on the Drift Plain at 

J. Clark Salyer NWR. Kentucky bluegrass tends to 
 

 

 

 

 

increase under prolonged rest or with grazing, but 

decreases with fire especially when burning occurs 

during stem elongation or in dry years. Smooth 

brome also increases under rest but, in contrast to 

Kentucky bluegrass, appears sensitive to repeated 

grazing but unaffected or variably affected by 

prescribed fire. A strategy to improve competitive 

abilities of native herbaceous plants should match 

the types, timing, and frequencies of disturbances 

under which these plants evolved. Meanwhile, a 

strategy to decrease competitive abilities of 

bluegrass and brome on the relatively rich loam soils 

of the Drift Plain should focus on combined use of 

fire and grazing. 

Smooth brome-dominated types are twice as 

prevalent as Kentucky bluegrass-dominated types 

on the drift prairie of J. Clark Salyer NWR, 

indicating that smooth brome may be more 

competitive than Kentucky bluegrass in the 

relatively rich loam soils. Of the two introduced 

species, smooth brome generally seems more 

difficult to control and more significantly alters the 

quality and structure of northern prairie habitats. 

Therefore, restoration management should focus 

more on strategies to reduce brome. 

The contemporary breeding bird community on the 

drift prairie at J. Clark Salyer NWR is characterized 

by three to four species that tolerate introduced 

cool-season grasses and relatively dense, rank, 

oftentimes brushy cover. Grassland bird species that 

are uncommon to absent generally require shorter, 

sparser, more herbaceous, prairie vegetation than 

that available in the refuge’s drift prairie. These 

species also are of much greater conservation 

concern due mainly to declining population trends 

(for example, Sprague’s pipit and chestnut-collared 

longspur). Thus, habitat for a broader array of 

northern prairie birds (including species 

characteristic of the historical mixed-grass prairie 

community) can be significantly increased by 

providing frequent disturbance and the resulting 

increases in early successional stages. 

In the historical setting, Richardson’s ground 

squirrels were characteristically widespread and 

contributed to the maintenance of early seral stages, 

and their burrows provided unique microhabitats. 

The ground squirrel should be a component of the 

restored prairie community. 

Historically, the drift prairie was a treeless 

landscape. Trees and tall shrubs can diminish the 

survival of nests of grassland birds by harboring 

potential nest predators. They also provide perches 

from which brown-headed cowbirds can find other 

species’ nests in which to lay eggs. Furthermore, 

recent data from the Souris River basin refuges 

indicate that relatively small areas of tall woody 

vegetation can effectively fragment grassland 

habitats and cause many grassland bird species to 

avoid entire landscapes. Elimination of tall woody 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, J. Clark Salyer NWR 91 

cover is a logical strategy for restoration of 

landscape structure and plant community makeup, 

and to improve the attractiveness and security of 

the habitat for a variety of grassland-breeding bird 

species. 

In restorations, vegetation composition is considered 

along a habitat continuum, where plant communities 

can be separated by degree of invasion by 

undesirable plants. A continuum for drift prairie 

(least desirable vegetation to the left) follows: 

woodlandÅtall shrub landÅleafy spurgeÅsmooth 

bromeÅlow shrubÅKentucky bluegrassÅnative 

herbaceous vegetation. With management, less 

desirable plant species are replaced by more 

desirable plant groups. For example, it is acceptable 

in the short term to increase Kentucky bluegrass in 

areas where leafy spurge is reduced. Conversely, 

replacement of Kentucky bluegrass by smooth 

brome is undesirable. 

Drift Prairie Objective 3 

On low-priority drift prairie units, apply disturbance 

(principally fire) every 5–8 years to remove plant 

litter, restore plant vigor, reverse woody plant 

expansion, and provide a mix of structural types 

that include (1) relatively short/sparse vegetation 

for species such as killdeer, horned lark, and 

Brewer’s blackbird, (2) moderately short vegetation 

for species such as blue-winged teal and upland 

sandpiper, and (3) tall/dense vegetation for species 

such as mallard, short-eared owl, Le Conte’s 

sparrow, and bobolink. Vegetation should present 

the below characteristics within 15 years of CCP 

approval. 

NOTE: There is almost no monitoring of vegetation 

on these units except routine, cursory surveillance 

for noxious weeds. Knowledge of relationships 

between fire frequency and resulting, postfire, 

vegetation structure is adequate to predict habitat 

conditions described below. 

Highbush cranberry at J. Clark Salyer NWR. 

Gary Eslinger/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

92 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

One-fourth of the area in 0- to 1-year 

postdisturbance, one-fourth in 2–3 years 

postdisturbance, and one-half in 4–6+ years 

postdisturbance—corresponding roughly to 

a structure of <2 inches VOR, 2–3.9 inches 

VOR, and >3.9 inches VOR (mean VORs in 

early spring, per Robel et al. 1970). 

Native trees and tall shrubs compose <0.2% 

land cover on each unit above the prairie 

slope, and all nonnative woody vegetation 

and planted, native woody vegetation is 

eliminated from at least half of the units. 

Leafy spurge frequency is maintained at 

<2% frequency, absinth wormwood is 

actively controlled, and yellow toadflax and 

other newly appearing species of noxious 

weed that pose a threat to the drift prairie 

are eliminated within 5 years of initial 

detection. 

Strategies 

—	 Apply prescribed fire on each unit at least every 

5–8 years, increasing burn frequency during dry 

years when possible to more effectively reduce 

tall shrubs and trees. Rotate burns among units. 

Burn opportunistically, at any time, mainly to 

remove litter and control tall shrubs and trees. 

—	 To increase structural diversity, occasionally 

introduce livestock grazing—with wide latitude 

on timing, intensity, and duration, if doing so 

will not detract from management of highpriority units. Experiment with seeding and 

“interseeding” of native, warm-season grass 

mixes in smooth brome monotypes, mainly to 

help develop effective restoration approaches 

for high-priority units. 

—	 Periodically survey for noxious weeds. Continue 

widespread use of biological control by 

monitoring local areas for Apthona spp. beetles 

and redistributing beetles among leafy spurge 

patches as needed. Use herbicides as needed 

along boundaries with private lands. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

This objective focuses on providing vegetation 

structural diversity. Most drift prairie at J. Clark 

Salyer NWR has almost no intact, native, 

herbaceous vegetation. From a practical standpoint, 

low-priority drift prairie probably cannot be 

restored to a state where native herbaceous 

vegetation is a widely noticeable or otherwise 

common vegetation component. However, with 

modest effort, the prevalent, introduced cool-season 

grasses and scattered low shrubs can be managed to 

provide a mix of postdisturbance structural types 

attractive to a broad array of native, grassland bird 

species. 

The most appropriate management of these units is 

to provide structural variety and use the units as a 

basis for creating extensive areas of grassland 

(including off-refuge lands) to satisfy needs of 

several area-sensitive, native, grassland bird 

species. This will also reduce predation and nest 

(brood) parasitism associated with edge-dominated, 

highly fragmented grassland. The rationale for 

reducing tall shrubs and trees is similar to that for 

high-priority drift prairie (objective 2). 

Drift Prairie Objective 4 

Improve or help maintain the habitat quality and the 

economic sustainability of nonfederally owned, 

native prairie remnants adjacent to drift prairie 

units within 15 years of CCP approval. Extend 

protection and stewardship to most other grassland 

that adjoins drift prairie units. Seek opportunities to 

expand the total grassland area and create broad, 

contiguous blocks of open grassland, principally as 

habitat for breeding grassland birds. 

Strategy 

—	 Use grassland easements and extension 

agreements, for example, for specialized 

livestock grazing systems on native prairie, or 

native grass establishment and management, or 

to remove “hostile” cover such as trees and tall 

shrubs that could harbor nest predators and 

parasitic brown-headed cowbirds. Certain 

grazing systems can improve livestock carrying 

capacity and the condition of annually grazed 

prairie to enhance the economic viability of 

native prairie and reduce chances of conversion 

to other land uses, especially cultivation. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

The quality of prairie as breeding habitat for 

grassland birds (in terms of average annual nest 

success and relative contribution to population 

recruitment) is directly related to its extent or, 

conversely, indirectly related to the degree of its 

fragmentation. 

Native prairie on the Drift Plain could be considered 

an endangered resource and little of it remains in 

the Souris River valley. Conservation of remnant 

tracts adjacent to the refuge, by whatever means 

possible, should be among the highest priorities for 

landscape conservation. 

Prairie Parkland Goal 

Restore and maintain extensive examples of plant 

communities characteristic of the mid-1800s prairie 

parkland. Create the temporally and spatially 

dynamic habitat conditions that will attract most 

breeding bird species and other vertebrate fauna 

characteristic of that era. 
 

Prairie Parkland Objective 1 

By 1 year after CCP approval, use the on-site 

vegetation inventory data, recent satellite imagery, 

and landscape considerations to characterize each 

management unit within the prairie parkland as 

high, moderate, or low management priority. 

Reevaluate prioritization 15 years after CCP 

approval. 

Strategy 

—	 Apply multiple selection criteria. 

CRITERIA FOR HIGH-PRIORITY UNITS 

Contemporary woodland coverage. A 

unit is characterized by <30% total 

cover of trees and tall shrubs (mainly 

aspen-oak woodland and chokecherry 

shrub land). 

Floristic potential. Vegetation 

(excluding woodland) is characterized 

by >30% mean frequency of pristine, 

native herbaceous types (plant groups 

41–43 and 46–48 [Grant et al. 2004b]) 

plus native herbaceous-dominated 

vegetation with Kentucky bluegrass as 

the main subdominant (plant group 53). 

Degree of connectivity to treeless 

grassland. The unit is adjacent to 

treeless refuge grassland or private 

grassland, especially native prairie. 

CRITERIA FOR MODERATE-PRIORITY UNITS 

Contemporary woodland coverage. A 

unit is characterized by 30–70% total 

cover of trees and tall shrubs (mainly 

aspen-oak woodland and chokecherry 

shrub land); many tracts may be 

medium to large grasslands (40–600 

acres) that are mostly surrounded by 

aspen-oak woodland. 

Floristic potential. Vegetation 

(excluding woodland) is characterized 

by >40% mean frequency of pristine, 

native herbaceous types (plant groups 

41–43 and 46–48 [Grant et al. 2004b]) 

plus native herbaceous-dominated 

vegetation with Kentucky bluegrass as 

main subdominant (plant group 53). 

Degree of connectivity to treeless 

grassland. By default, moderatepriority units are isolated from other 

treeless grasslands. 

CRITERIA FOR LOW-PRIORITY UNITS 

Contemporary woodland coverage. A 

unit is characterized by >70% total 

cover of trees and tall shrubs (mainly 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, J. Clark Salyer NWR 93 

aspen-oak woodland and chokecherry 

shrub land). 

Floristic potential. Extensive 

woodland cover makes restoration of 

grassland patches unlikely, regardless 

of floristic composition. 

Size and degree of connectivity to 

treeless grassland. Remaining 

grassland patches (<30% cover) are 

isolated by surrounding woodland from 

other higher priority grasslands, 

making restoration impractical. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Criteria used to prioritize management units reflect 

three important issues affecting ecological integrity 

of the prairie parkland: (1) trees and tall shrubs 

compromise the integrity of native prairie; 

(2) woody plants are detrimental to grassland birds 

as an ecological group; and (3) intact nativedominated plant communities are more likely to be 

restored than units invaded by woody and 

introduced plants. 

Prairie Parkland Objective 2 

On high-priority prairie parkland units, apply 

periodic disturbance (principally fire and grazing) to 

restore vegetation to the following standards within 

15 years of CCP approval, to provide habitat for 

most indigenous bird species, especially Baird’s 

sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, vesper sparrow, chestnutcollared longspur, western meadowlark, and upland 

sandpiper. 

Q	 Aspen woodland on a unit has <10% coverage by 

15 years after CCP approval. 

Q	 Vegetation composition is >40% pristine native 

and native-dominated/bluegrass subdominant 

(plant groups 41–43, 46–48, and 53 [Grant et al. 

2004b]). 

Strategies 

—	 Use high-intensity spring fires (late March to 

April, prior to leaf-out) to initially kill mature 

aspen trees; within 4 years, again use fire during 

the dormant season (spring or fall) to reduce 

viability of aspen clones, especially dense aspen 

suckers. Continue control of trees and tall 

shrubs with periodic fire (every 3–6 years) 

applied from March to November. As woodland 

cover is reduced, frequency and timing of fire 

can change to facilitate control of other invasive 

species, especially Kentucky bluegrass. 

—	 Between prescribed fire intervals, use grazing 

to periodically reduce shading and seed 

production of yellow sweetclover. Where smooth 

brome occurs, use season-long (light to moderate 

stocking rates) or rotation grazing (begin mid- to 

late April) to reduce cover of smooth brome. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Tracts with brome may be grazed in consecutive 

years, allowing 1 year of rest to accumulate 

sufficient fuels for burning. 

—	 Experiment with “interseeding” of native warmseason grasses into brome monotypes or on unit 

edges, using fire followed by multiple herbicide 

treatments over 2 years for site preparation. 

—	 In winter (over frozen ground), use mechanical
 

treatment (bulldozer) to create islands of dead
 

fuel within large or fire-resistant aspen
 

woodland. Use a drum chopper or hydro ax to
 

reduce dead standing timber and willows near
 

hazards such as prescribed fire unit boundaries 


and reduce aspen and willow sprouting in
 

patches resistant to fire. 


—	 Experiment with control of leafy spurge using 


Plateau® herbicide. Release flea beetles 


(Apthona spp.) in patches of leafy spurge 


growing on various microsites. If flea beetles
 

become locally adapted to survive on sandy 


sites, then begin wide-scale releases to control 


leafy spurge.
 

Rationale and Assumptions 

This objective focuses on restoration of open, 

treeless grasslands. Trees, tall shrubs, and 

introduced cool-season plants, especially Kentucky 

bluegrass and leafy spurge, compromise the 

integrity of native prairie. 

 

 

The aboveground growth of these aspen trees has been 

killed by fire and is being replaced by grasses and forbs

 to improve the landscape for birds that depend on open

 grassland for nesting.

Dan Severson/USFWS 

94 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Since 1850, the extent of aspen woodland has more 

than doubled in prairie parkland units, due primarily 

to fire suppression and elimination of large herds of 

bison and elk. Reducing trees and tall shrubs will 

benefit 10–15 grassland-dependent bird species 

including three species endemic to the northern 

Great Plains (Baird’s sparrow, chestnut-collared 

longspur, and Sprague’s pipit). Prairie parkland 

becomes largely unsuitable for these species when 

woodland cover (within a quarter-section) exceeds 

25–30%. Trees and tall shrubs can diminish the 

survival of nests of grassland birds by harboring 

potential nest predators. Trees and shrubs provide 

perches from which brown-headed cowbirds can find 

other species’ nests in which to lay eggs. 

The quality of prairie parkland units is further 

diminished by introduced plants and by loss of 

important ecological processes such as fire and 

grazing that historically maintained these areas as 

predominantly grassland. Introduced grasses 

decrease the suitability of prairies for some bird 

species such as Sprague’s pipit, chestnut-collared 

longspur, and horned lark. 

Based on recent inventory data, parkland prairies 

are degraded mainly by Kentucky bluegrass and, to 

a lesser extent, by leafy spurge and smooth brome. 

Kentucky bluegrass increases under prolonged rest 

or with grazing, but decreases with fire. Smooth 

brome also increases under rest but, in contrast to 

Kentucky bluegrass, appears sensitive to repeated 

grazing and may be unaffected by fire (see drift 

prairie for more detail on controlling Kentucky 

bluegrass and smooth brome). 

Leafy spurge remains a serious long-term threat to 

the integrity of prairie parkland. Use of flea beetles 

has been ineffective for spurge that grows on sandy 

soils. Chemical control also is limited—many sites 

are inaccessible and use of certain chemicals (such as 

Tordon®) is prohibited because of concerns about 

groundwater contamination. 

In restorations, vegetation composition is considered 

along a habitat continuum, where plant communities 

are separated by degree of invasion by undesirable 

plants. A continuum for prairie parkland (least 

desirable vegetation to the left) follows: mature 

woodlandÅearly successional woodland/tall shrub 

landÅleafy spurgeÅsmooth bromeÅlow shrub 

ÅKentucky bluegrassÅnative herbaceous 

vegetation. With management, less desirable plant 

species are replaced by plants that are more 

desirable. For example, it is acceptable in the short 

term to increase Kentucky bluegrass cover in areas 

where aspen woodland has been reduced. Conversely, 

replacement of Kentucky bluegrass due to expansion 

of leafy spurge is undesirable. 

Prairie Parkland Objective 3 

On moderate-priority units, within 15 years after 

CCP approval, eliminate aspen groves on prairie 

interiors and maintain current patch size by 

minimizing woodland encroachment along grasslandwoodland edges. These grasslands attract Sprague’s 

pipit, vesper sparrow, horned lark, and clay-colored 

sparrow. Additionally, restore prairies to the 

following standards. 

Q	 Plant composition includes >50% pristine native 

and native dominant/bluegrass subdominant 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, J. Clark Salyer NWR 95 

groups (plant groups 41–43, 46–48, and 53 [Grant 

et al. 2004a]). 

Q Leafy spurge is reduced to <2% composition and 

smooth brome (plant groups 61 and 62) compose 

<4% cover. 

Strategies 

—	 Use fire every 5–10 years to (1) eliminate aspen 

groves within the interior of moderate-priority 

units, (2) control invasion of woodland edge into 

the prairie patches, and (3) reduce cover of 

Kentucky bluegrass. 

—	 Use mechanical treatments (drum chopper) in
 

cases where fire is impractical for removing 


trees and tall shrubs. 


—	 Use herbicides for spot control of minor
 

invasions of leafy spurge and smooth brome. 


—	 Experiment with control of leafy spurge using 


Plateau® herbicide. Release flea beetles 


(Apthona spp.) in patches of leafy spurge 


growing on various microsites. If flea beetles
 

become locally adapted to survive on sandy 


sites, then begin wide-scale releases to control 


leafy spurge.
 

Rationale and Assumptions 

This objective focuses on restoration of high-quality 

prairie plant communities. Most moderate-priority 

units are prairie patches that are mostly surrounded 

by aspen woodland (the extent of open, treeless 

grasslands is less than that on high-priority units). 

Many of the most floristically intact prairie 

communities occur in moderate-priority units where 

woodland cover currently exceeds 30%. Moderatepriority units are attractive to several grassland 

bird species of regional or national management 

concern such as vesper sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, 

clay-colored sparrow, and grasshopper sparrow. 

Rationale for controlling introduced cool-season 

plants is the same as for objective 2. 

Prairie Parkland Objective 4 

In low-priority units, opportunistically rejuvenate 

100–200 acres of mature (>60 years old) aspen 

woodland to provide structural diversity (various 

age classes) important for woodland birds. 

Strategies 

—	 Under certain circumstances (once every 15–25 

years), expand prescribed fire in moderate- or 

high-priority prairie parkland units to include 

adjacent low-priority units that are extensively 

wooded; some mature (>60 years old) aspen-oak 

woodland can be periodically regenerated using 

prescribed fire. 

—	 Use mechanical treatment (winter shearing with 

a bulldozer) or commercial timber removal to 

periodically rejuvenate small patches (<10 acres) 

within large aspen-oak woodlands. Retain 

mature bur oak and shade-tolerant tree species 

such as green ash. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

This objective recognizes that most low-priority 

units are former grasslands that have been mostly 

replaced by aspen-oak woodland. Large contiguous 

patches of woodland are a significant component of 

contemporary prairie parkland. However, 

restoration of these (former) grasslands is unlikely. 

Within low-priority units, woodland patches will 

continue to expand and further displace small, 

scattered prairies. 

Aspen woodland is an early successional forest type 

maintained by periodic disturbance, usually fire. 

Large woodlands provide important habitat for 

area-sensitive, forest-interior bird species (such as 

veery, ovenbird, hairy woodpecker, rose-breasted 

grosbeak, and ruffed grouse), many of which have 

shown steep regional or continental population 

declines. Ideally, large woodlands include several 

age classes of aspen and oak. Some bird species (for 

example, ruffed grouse) rely on many age classes 

during their lifecycle. Other species such as yellow 

warbler and willow flycatcher breed mainly in young 

(<20 years) aspen woodland. Many species (for 

example, ovenbird, veery, and hairy woodpecker) 

nest only in mature aspen-oak woodland. 

Prairie Parkland Objective 5 

Opportunistically protect extensive native prairie 

remnants adjacent to high- and moderate-priority 

prairie parkland units. 

Strategy 

—	 Use grassland easements and extension 

agreements, for example, for specialized 

livestock grazing systems on native prairie, or 

native grass establishment and management, or 

to remove “hostile” cover such as trees and tall 

shrubs that could harbor nest (brood) parasites 

and nest predators. Certain grazing systems can 

improve livestock carrying capacity and the 

condition of annually grazed prairie to enhance 

the economic viability of native prairie and 

reduce chances of conversion to other land uses, 

especially cultivation. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Northern mixed-grass prairie has declined by >70% 

from its historical extent. More than 1,560 square 

miles of native rangeland have been converted for 

agricultural production in North Dakota, South 

Dakota, and Montana since 1985. 

Grassland in McHenry County, including J. Clark 

Salyer NWR, comprises one of the largest, most 
 

 

 

 

 

96 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

contiguous patches of northern mixed-grass prairie 

remaining in North America. Large prairie patches 

are more valuable than smaller prairie patches to 

grassland-dependent wildlife, especially grassland 

birds (for example, sharp-tailed grouse, upland 

sandpiper, marbled godwit, and Baird’s sparrow). In 

addition, large prairie patches have less edge and, 

therefore, less potential for invasion by introduced 

cool-season plants such as smooth brome. Protecting 

adjacent prairie from conversion to agricultural 

production is critical to preserving the integrity of 

refuge tracts and meeting the goal and objectives for 

prairie parkland habitat. 

Sandhills Goal 

Restore and maintain plant communities characteristic 

of the mid-1800s sandhills within the prairie 

parkland landscape. 

Sandhills Objective 1 

By 1 year after CCP approval, use on-site 

vegetation inventory data, data from satellite 

imagery, and landscape considerations to 

characterize the sandhills, which are embedded 

within more extensive prairie parkland, as either 

high or low management priority. Reevaluate 

prioritization 15 years after CCP approval. 

Strategy 

—	 Apply multiple selection criteria. 

CRITERIA FOR HIGH-PRIORITY UNITS 

Contemporary woodland coverage. A 

unit is characterized by <30% total 

cover by trees and tall shrubs (mainly 

aspen-oak woodland and chokecherry 

shrub land). 

Floristic potential. Vegetation 

(excluding woodland area) is 

characterized by >35% mean frequency 

of pristine, native herbaceous types 

(plant groups 41–43 and 46–48 [Grant et al. 

2004b]) and <10% leafy spurge. 

Degree of connectivity to treeless 

grasslands. The unit is embedded 

within high-priority prairie parkland 

units. 

NOTE: The remaining sandhills are low 

priority for management; they are mainly 

dominated by woody plants or leafy spurge 

or both. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Criteria used to prioritize management units reflect 

three important issues affecting ecological integrity 

of sandhills: (1) trees and tall shrubs compromise 

integrity of native prairie; (2) woody plants are 

detrimental to grassland birds as an ecological 

group; and (3) more intact, native-dominated plant 

communities are more likely to be restored than 

sandhills invaded by woody and introduced plants. 

Sandhills Objective 2 

On high-priority units, by 15 years after CCP 

approval, restore two representative examples of 

sandhills to the following standard: (1) reduce aspen 

woodland to <10% coverage while retaining all oak 

savanna; (2) reduce leafy spurge to <5% composition, 

contingent on finding an effective, widely applicable 

method to control leafy spurge; and (3) contingent on 

(2), apply leafy spurge control to low-priority 

sandhills. 

Strategies 

—	 Use high-intensity spring fires (late March to 

April, prior to leaf-out) to initially kill mature 

aspen trees. Within 4 years, again use fire 

during the dormant season (spring or fall) to 

reduce viability of aspen clones, especially dense 

aspen suckers. Continue control of trees and tall 

shrubs with periodic fire (every 6–10 years) 

applied from March to November. 

—	 Where access allows, experiment with control of 

leafy spurge using Plateau® herbicide. Release 

flea beetles (Apthona spp.) in patches of leafy 

spurge growing on various microsites. If flea 

beetles become locally adapted to survive on 

sandy sites, begin wide-scale releases to control 

leafy spurge. 

—	 Until leafy spurge can be controlled, exclude 

livestock grazing from the sandhills. Soil 

disturbance associated with grazing hastens the 

spread of leafy spurge. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

This objective extends restoration objectives for the 

prairie parkland to the high-priority sandhills. 

The sandhills are embedded within the more 

extensive prairie parkland and, like prairie parkland, 

the sandhills prairie has been degraded by trees and 

tall shrubs. Most oak-savanna characteristic of the 

1850s has been converted to closed canopy aspenoak woodland. Oak savanna is maintained by 

periodic fires that reduces the cover of aspen, 

chokecherry, and other woody plants. Oak savanna 

is important habitat for lark sparrow, black-andwhite warbler, orange-crowned warbler, pocket 

gopher, and American badger. 

The most pristine native plant assemblages at 

J. Clark Salyer NWR occur within the sandhills 

where soils and topography limit invasion by 

introduced cool-season plants. Leafy spurge and, to 

a lesser extent, Kentucky bluegrass threaten the 

sandhills prairie. Periodic fire reduces Kentucky 

bluegrass on harsh sites in the sandhills. In contrast, 

leafy spurge is adapted to sandy soils and thrives 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, J. Clark Salyer NWR 97 

within the varied slope and aspects characteristic of 

the sandhills. Based on recent inventories, leafy 

spurge composes 17% of contemporary cover in the 

sandhills. Biological control efforts have been 

ineffective on similar sandy sites throughout North 

Dakota. Furthermore, the sandhills are mostly 

inaccessible, which limits chemical control options. It 

may take a decade or more to find an effective 

biological control for leafy spurge growing in the 

sandhills. 

Old Cropland Goal 

On high-priority old cropland areas, establish nativedominated, perennial herbaceous cover that, with 

modest management, resists invasion by introduced 

cool-season grasses and noxious weeds. This seeded 

cover will help form extensive, contiguous blocks of 

structurally diverse, open grassland for grasslanddependent, breeding bird species. 

Old Cropland Objective 1 

By 10 years after CCP approval, locate and 

determine boundaries of old cropland areas and 

record these in the refuge’s GIS database. 

Strategies 

—	 Identify old cropland areas, including those
 

considered DNC, that were seeded to
 

introduced grasses and forbs and/or native 


grasses since the mid-1970s.
 

—	 Identify other old cropland areas, as evidenced
 

by 


R	 distinct field edges, especially deep 

furrows and linear piles of wind-borne 

topsoil that had been deposited along 

preexisting fence lines and subsequently 

vegetated; 

R	 rock piles or rocks strewn linearly along 

what appears to be a field edge (although 

rock sometimes was cleared for native 

hay harvests); 

R	 nearly monotypic stands of smooth 

brome, typically with some Kentucky 

bluegrass but with little native sedge in 

the understory (several native plant 

species often reinvade these stands, such 

as western snowberry, Wood’s rose, 

white sage, western yarrow, several 

goldenrod species, and silver scurfpea); 

R no partly buried rocks with profuse 


lichens; 


R no clubmoss or cryptogamic crust.
 

—	 Use acquisition records, old refuge narratives, 


1938–39 aerial photographs, and U.S. Soil 


Conservation Service records for ancillary 


support.
 

—	 Flag the probable boundaries of areas verified 

as old cropland, record via GPS, and upload into 

the refuge’s GIS database. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Furrows and other linear disturbances caused by 

implements (for example, plows, disks, and seed 

drills) are much more evident after an area is 

treated with prescribed fire or heavily grazed. They 

are also more readily detected from horseback. 

NRCS staff may determine evidence of A-horizon 

soil disturbance due to cultivation. Some areas with 

signs of farming disturbance (for example, furrows) 

may have been cropped only for a few years circa 

1900–30 or may have been broken during this period 

yet never cropped. Such areas often are successfully 

reinvaded by native plants and may currently 

support native vegetation at levels approaching the 

most pristine areas on similar site types at the 

refuge that are considered native sod. 

Old Cropland Objective 2 

Within 15 years after CCP approval, convert at least 

10 old cropland units to vegetation dominated by 

several species of native warm-season grasses that 

vary in stature and growth form and that include 

several species of native forbs, wherever possible. 

Give priority to units with stands of vegetation that 

have become decadent and overrun by undesirable, 

introduced cool-season grasses, especially where 

such units are adjacent to or within high-priority 

drift prairie units or high-priority prairie slope units. 

Strategies 

—	 Following multiple applications of a broadspectrum herbicide, seed a native plant mixture 

that mainly consists of 80–90% warm-season 

grass species especially big bluestem, little 

bluestem, switchgrass, and sideoats grama. 

—	 During the first 3–4 years after seeding, 


annually mow the stand with a hay conditioner
 

and harvest the hay. Substitute grazing or 


prescribed fire treatments in the subsequent 


3–4 years. Use herbicide spot spraying or
 

“interseeding” where necessary. 


Rationale and Assumptions 

Although initially expensive, native warm-season 

grasses are economically and ecologically superior to 

seeded stands of introduced plants in old croplands 

because 

R	 permanent, perennial cover eliminates 

regular (every 12–14 years) replacement 

of seeded, introduced species cover via a 

farming cycle and, thus, nearly 

eliminates potential for soil erosion; 

R	 native grasses reduce local habitat
 

fragmentation and eliminate “edge”
 

associated with the farming cycle; 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

98 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

R	 a warm-season growth strategy for 

plants vastly improves the capacity for 

an assemblage of plants to outcompete 

smooth brome, mainly by affording 

broader and more effectively timed 

management opportunities; 

R	 there is improved opportunity for 

prescribed burning in late spring 

compared to high-priority drift prairie 

units because the warm season– 

dominated cover has relatively high fuel 

value through early June (versus mostly 

green vegetation on cool season– 

dominated cover on the drift prairie by 

late May); 

R	 there is a broader “window” (later in 

summer) for harvest of hay that still has 

forage value; 

R	 native grasses are in compliance with 

policy that discourages planting of 

introduced species on Service lands and 

encourages planting of native species 

(“National Wildlife Refuge System 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 

Environmental Health,” 601 FW 3, 2001); 

R	 native grasses reduce “source sites” from 

which introduced and weedy plants 

invade adjoining native prairie; 

R	 native grasses have improved and longer 

lasting structural diversity within 

stands. 

Old Cropland Objective 3 

By 10 years after CCP approval, identify other old 

cropland areas (those not known to have been seeded 

since the mid-1970s) that are high management 

priority (areas most important to convert to native 

warm-season grasses). Develop a detailed plan to 

convert these during the subsequent 10–15 years to 

vegetation dominated by several species of native 

warm-season grasses that vary in stature and 

growth form and that include several species of 

native forbs wherever possible. 

NOTE: There are no goals and objectives for 

remaining old cropland areas in uplands. They are 

low priority and will be managed with adjoining 

habitats. 

Strategy 

—	 Apply multiple selection criteria. 

CRITERIA FOR HIGH MANAGEMENT 

PRIORITY OLD CROPLAND IN UPLANDS 

(excluding DNC and other old cropland 

known to have been seeded since the mid1970s) 

Floristic composition. Vegetation is 

characterized by <20% mean frequency 

of pristine, native herbaceous types (plant 

groups 41–43 and 46–48 [Grant et al. 

2004b]), plus native herbaceousdominated vegetation with Kentucky 

bluegrass as the main subdominant 

(plant group 53). 

Floristic Potential. Vegetation is 

characterized by >20% mean frequency 

of smooth brome-dominated types 

(plant groups 54, 61, and 62). 

Landscape Context. The unit has no 

size criterion 

and 

bears clear evidence of a farming 


history
 

and 

is contiguous with high-priority drift 

prairie, prairie slope units, or tracts of 

native prairie adjacent to the refuge 

under non-Service ownership. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Native grass and forb seed is very costly, as is the 

time and expense of materials needed to prepare 

seedbeds, plant seed, and annually manage newly 

seeded areas, per strategies and rationale listed 

under objective 2. 

Old cropland that adjoins high-priority drift prairie 

or prairie parkland and supports little native 

herbaceous vegetation likely is a source of invasion 

by undesirable, introduced grasses and weedy forbs. 

Without attempts to establish native vegetation 

through seeding, such areas are unpromising 

candidates for restoration to grassland in which 

native herbaceous plants are evident, much less an 

important codominant component. This includes 

areas that were farmed for 5–10 years before refuge 

establishment (presumably, before smooth brome 

and Kentucky bluegrass were widely distributed) 

that may have been reinvaded by native plants. 

These areas may have restoration potential that at 

least equals that of adjoining, high-quality, drift 

prairie or prairie parkland. 

Old Cropland Objective 4 

After seeding and establishing native warm-season 

plants in an old cropland unit, maintain native plants 

as the most dominant vegetation cover, per 

qualitative estimation. 

NOTE: There are no goals and objectives for other 

old cropland units (those not yet converted to warmseason-dominated communities); they are low 

priority. 

Strategies 

—	 Seeded warm-season stands of herbaceous 

plants should be well established 5–8 years after 

seeding; manage these by a disturbance 

treatment about every 2–3 years. They probably 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, J. Clark Salyer NWR 99 

can be disturbed more flexibly with regard to 

phenology, mainly to discourage smooth brome 

invasion. 

—	 Use grazing as an alternate management 

treatment and take advantage of the wide, 

spring-grazing “window” afforded by the warmseason-dominated community. 

—	 Integrate management with that of surrounding 

drift prairie while focusing on treatment 

approaches that promote native warm-season 

plant species. 

—	 In the interim between prescribed burns, 

possibly harvest hay every 2–3 years from old 

cropland units, alternating among July, August, 

and September to favor warm-season grasses. 

—	 If occasionally needed along unit boundaries, use 

herbicides to reduce encroaching, introduced 

cool-season grasses and release native warmseason plants. Use integrated pest management 

to treat local infestations of noxious weeds as 

needed. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

The warm-season growth strategy for plants vastly 

improves the capacity for an assemblage of 

grassland plants to outcompete smooth brome—by 

which seeded islands of introduced grasses and forbs 

are most typically degraded—mainly by affording 

broader and more effectively timed management 

opportunities. 

Old Cropland Objective 5 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, eliminate planted 

tall shrubs and trees and any naturalized, nonnative 

woody vegetation that occurs within or adjacent to 

high-priority old cropland areas as they are being 

restored to native-dominated vegetation. 

Strategy 

—	 Remove tree-shrub plantings by mechanical 

means (for example, cutting ash trees by hand, 

shearing caragana shrubs with a tractor blade or 

bucket during winter); follow by herbicide 

treatment of stumps or by broadly applied 

herbicide, rotary mowing, and/or prescribed 

burning of resprouting vegetation wherever 

necessary. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Trees and tall shrubs can diminish the survival of 

nests of grassland birds by harboring potential nest 

predators. They also provide perches from which 

brown-headed cowbirds can find other species’ nests 

in which to lay eggs. Furthermore, recent data from 

the Souris River basin refuges indicate that 

relatively small areas of tall woody vegetation can 

effectively fragment grassland habitats and cause 

many grassland bird species to avoid entire 

landscapes. Elimination of tall woody cover is a 

logical strategy for restoration of landscape 

structure and plant community makeup and to 

improve the attractiveness and security of the 

habitat for a variety of grassland-breeding bird 

species. 

Old Cropland Objective 6 

By 2 years after CCP approval, develop and 

implement an effective, practical comprehensive 

plan for integrated control of noxious weeds in DNC 

and other old cropland areas in the riparian zone. In 

these areas, continue to maintain perennial 

herbaceous cover comprised of introduced species 

and native plant species, or both, and the vegetation 

should present the following characteristics. 

Q	 About one-half of the area in 0- to 1-year 

postdisturbance and one-half in 2–3 years 

postdisturbance; corresponds roughly to a 

structure of 0–3.9 inches VOR and >3.9 inches 

VOR, respectively (mean VORs in early spring, 

per Robel et al. 1970). 

Q	 Native trees and tall shrubs compose <0.2% land 

cover on each old cropland area. 

Q	 Leafy spurge frequency is maintained at <2% 

frequency, absinth wormwood is actively 

controlled, and yellow toadflax and other newly 

appearing species of noxious weed that pose a 

threat to the drift prairie are eliminated within 

5 years of initial detection. Canada thistle control 

is a low-priority weed control issue (mean 

frequency <25%). 

Strategies 

—	 Use hay harvest or fire at least every third year 

to maintain plant species vigor and vegetation 

structure and to control plant litter 

accumulation. 

—	 Annually survey for noxious weeds. Continue 

widespread use of biological control by 

monitoring local areas for Apthona spp. beetles 

and redistributing beetles among leafy spurge 

patches as needed. Use herbicides as needed, 

especially along boundaries with private lands. 

—	 Review and update the weed management plan, 

detailing specific methods and timetables for 

managing noxious weeds in old cropland areas of 

the riparian zone. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Smooth brome, quackgrass, and Kentucky bluegrass 

dominate old cropland in riparian areas. These areas 

have relatively moist, deep, silty loams that are 

particularly suitable for these introduced grass 

species and allow them to outcompete nearly all 

native herbaceous species. There currently are no 

practical, sustainable avenues for conversion of 

these areas to more desirable stands of native 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

herbaceous vegetation. However, there are practical 

methods for simultaneously controlling most species 

of noxious weeds and providing vegetation structure 

that is attractive to grassland bird species native to 

the region. These birds prefer relatively dense, tall 

grassland vegetation and include mallard, northern 

harrier, Le Conte’s sparrow, and bobolink. 

In addition to removing litter, periodic prescribed 

fire will slow or reverse invasion by woody 

vegetation such as western snowberry and willow. 

Canada thistle is a noxious weed that tends to 

pervade and persist in disturbed soils of the riparian 

zone at J. Clark Salyer NWR. This thistle is variably 

common across the region’s cultivated lands, mainly 

due to its prolific production of highly mobile, windborne seed. This weed species cannot be controlled 

consistently by available means within most of the 

refuge’s riparian zone. This is mainly because the 

soils typically are too damp in late spring and early 

summer to support wheeled vehicles used to apply 

herbicides at an appropriate time for effective 

control. Aerial application is possible in some areas, 

but tends to be more costly and controversial. Aerial 

application is more difficult to administer than 

ground spraying and adjacent areas of habitat or 

privately owned land may be subjected to overspray. 

Regular monitoring and control of other noxious 

weed species such as leafy spurge and wormwood 

are more crucial than control of Canada thistle and 

are far more gratifying (in terms of available 

methods of biological and other nonchemical controls 

and overall costs versus benefits). 

Riparian Woodland Goal 

Maintain the approximate presettlement extent of 

green ash–American elm riparian woodland within 

the floodplain of the Souris River to benefit a broad 

suite of woodland-associated, breeding bird species. 

Riparian Woodland Objective 1 

By 10 years after CCP approval, complete a baseline 

floristic inventory of riparian woodland. 

Strategy 

—	 Use a modified James and Shugart (1970)
 

method to inventory floristic composition and 


stand structure of all riparian woodland.
 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Vegetation composition and structure of riparian 

woodland has not been inventoried, nor have 

breeding bird communities. Qualitative observations 

suggest that most American elm has been lost to 

Dutch elm disease. 

Riparian Woodland Objective 2 

Maintain in perpetuity the presettlement extent of 

riparian woodland. Explore methods that restore 

American elm as a codominant tree species of 

riparian woodland communities. 

Strategies 

—	 Use aerial photos and satellite imagery to
 

periodically assess changes in the extent of
 

riparian woodland.
 

—	 Assess methods to control Dutch elm disease 

including (1) biological control of the fungus or of 

native and introduced elm-bark beetles that 

spread the disease, and (2) development of 

disease-resistant cultivars of American elm 

adapted to survive severe North Dakota 

winters. 

—	 Because ash-elm riparian woodland is fire 

intolerant, suppress and control fires. Since the 

potential long-term effects of alterations in the 

hydrology (especially hydroperiod) of the Souris 

River are unknown, carefully investigate even 

minor changes in woodland extent or composition. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

The extent of riparian woodland has changed little 

since the presettlement period. However, some 

meadow has been invaded by aspen–balsam poplar 

woodland and willow shrub land, which may succeed 

to ash-elm woodland and, thereby, expand riparian 

woodland cover. 

Contemporary riparian woodland forms large, 

extensive patches of mature, closed-canopy 

woodland. These woodlands are important habitat 

for forest-interior migratory birds such as northern 

waterthrush, red-eyed vireo, and American redstart. 

Great blue heron and black-crowned night-heron 

colonies also are found in riparian woodland. 

Meadow Goal 

Restore and maintain extensive examples of plant 

communities dominated by native flora characteristic 

of seasonally flooded meadows within the Souris 

River floodplain to attract grassland- and wetlanddependent bird species and other wildlife. 

Meadow Objective 1 

By 1 year after CCP approval, use on-site 

vegetation inventory data, data from satellite 

imagery, and landscape considerations to characterize 

meadows as high, moderate, or low management 

priority. Reevaluate prioritization in 15 years after 

CCP approval. 
 

Strategy 

—	 Apply multiple selection criteria. 

CRITERIA FOR HIGH-PRIORITY UNITS 

Contemporary tree and tall shrub 

coverage. A unit is characterized by 

<15% total cover by trees and tall 

shrubs (mainly aspen–balsam poplar 

woodland and willow shrub land). Some 

meadows may have significant 

continuous woody cover around unit 

perimeters, but little willow or aspen in 

unit interiors. 

Floristic potential. Vegetation 

(excluding woodland area) is 

characterized by >15% mean frequency 

of pristine, native herbaceous pristine 

types (low prairie and meadow types 

[plant groups 43 and 46, modified from 

Grant et al. 2004b] and less than 10% 

reed canarygrass [plant group 78]). 

Degree of connectivity to treeless 

grasslands. A unit is adjacent to a large 

meadow, high-priority prairie parkland 

unit, or native grassland. 

CRITERIA FOR MODERATE-PRIORITY UNITS 

Contemporary tree and tall shrub 

coverage. A unit is characterized by 

<30% total cover by trees and tall 

shrubs (mainly aspen–balsam poplar 

woodland and willow shrub land). Some 

meadows may have significant 

continuous woody cover around unit 

perimeters, but little willow or aspen in 

unit interiors. 

Floristic potential. Meadow may be 

degraded by introduced grasses, 

especially quackgrass, smooth brome, 

and reed canarygrass. 

Degree of connectivity to treeless 

grasslands. The unit is either adjacent 

to a large meadow, high-priority prairie 

parkland unit, or native prairie 

grassland. 

NOTE: The remaining low-priority 

meadows occur where willow and aspen 

have mostly replaced herbaceous plants; 

these units have little restoration potential. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Criteria used to prioritize units recognize two issues 

that compromise grassland including meadow: 

(1) tall woodland plants are detrimental to grassland 

birds as an ecological group and to the ecological 

integrity of meadow; and (2) more intact nativeChapter 4—Management Direction, J. Clark Salyer NWR 101 

dominated plant communities are more likely to be 

restored than meadows invaded by woody and 

introduced plant species. 

Meadow Objective 2 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, restore vegetation 

to the following standards on high-priority 

meadows, mainly as habitat for grassland- and 

wetland-dependent bird species. Meadow units 

include 

Q <10% cover of woody vegetation taller than 3 feet; 

Q >40% cover of low prairie and meadow types 

(plant groups 43 and 46). 

Strategies 

—	 Use cooperators to biannually clip (hay) meadow 

vegetation to control willows <3 feet tall. Use a 

drum chopper or hydro ax to remove taller woody 

vegetation. Meadows may be clipped every year 

(for several years) following extensive flooding. 

—	 Reintroduce fire to control woody vegetation
 

and litter. 


—	 Locate and control leafy spurge. Experiment 

with control of leafy spurge using Plateau® 

herbicide. Release flea beetles (Apthona spp.) in 

patches of leafy spurge growing on various 

microsites, including meadow-woodland edges. 

Use fire or a combination of haying and raking 

to reduce litter on sites for flea beetle releases. 

Once flea beetles become locally adapted to 

meadow sites, begin wide-scale releases to 

control leafy spurge. 

—	 Experiment with the timing of fire to reduce 


cool-season quackgrass and increase warm-


season prairie cordgrass. 


—	 Experiment with methods (such as chemical, 


biological, and “interseeding” methods) to
 

control isolated patches of Canada thistle and
 

reed canarygrass. 


 Spiderwort in a meadow at J. Clark Salyer NWR. 

 Gary Eslinger/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

102 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Rationale and Assumptions 

This objective—which focuses on restoration of 

open, treeless meadows and on increasing native 

plant diversity—addresses the two imminent 

threats to meadow habitat: (1) expansion of tall 

shrubs and trees; and (2) invasion of introduced 

plants, especially quackgrass, reed canarygrass, 

Canada thistle, and leafy spurge. 

Since 1938, tall shrub and tree cover in meadow 

increased from 3% to 26%. Clipping at a frequency 

<2 years appears effective in controlling trees and 

shrubs. When the interval between clippings 

increases, willows cannot be controlled by haying. In 

these cases, mechanical treatment using a hydro ax 

or drum chopper is effective. Meadows with >10–20% 

shrub and tree cover are avoided by several 

grassland bird species such as bobolink, sedge wren, 

and Le Conte’s sparrow. 

Meadow is a transitional habitat at the Souris River 

basin refuges, supporting both wetland and upland 

prairie plants, depending on moisture cycles. 

Quackgrass, reed canarygrass, Canada thistle, and 

leafy spurge degrade native grass-sedge-rush 

communities. Meadow vegetation evolved with 

periodic disturbances including flooding, grazing by 

elk and bison, and fire. Strategies should favor 

native species (adapted to these disturbances) over 

introduced species. 

In restorations, vegetation composition is considered 

along a habitat continuum, where plant communities 

are separated by degree of invasion by undesirable 

plants. A continuum for meadow (least desirable 

vegetation to the left) is mature woodlandÅwillow 

shrub landÅleafy spurge or Canada thistleÅreed 

canarygrassÅsmooth brome or quackgrassÅlow 

shrubsÅnative herbaceous vegetation. With 

management, less desirable plant species are 

replaced by plants that are more desirable. For 

example, it is acceptable in the short term to 

increase quackgrass cover in areas where willow 

shrub land has been reduced. Conversely, it is 

undesirable to replace quackgrass with leafy spurge. 

Meadow Objective 3 

Manage large meadows composed variously of 

nonnative and native plants to provide a mosaic of 

relatively short-sparse and tall-dense herbaceousdominated cover. By 15 years after CCP approval, 

reduce tall shrub and tree cover to <10% on 

moderate-priority units. 

Strategies 

—	 Use cooperators to biannually clip (hay) meadow 

vegetation to control willows <3 feet tall. Use a 

drum chopper or hydro ax to remove taller 

woody vegetation. Meadows may be clipped 

every year (for several years) following 

extensive flooding. 

—	 Experiment with control of leafy spurge using 


Plateau® herbicide. Release flea beetles 


(Apthona spp.) in patches of leafy spurge 


growing on various microsites, including 


woodland edges. Once flea beetles become 


locally adapted to meadow sites, begin wide-


scale releases to control leafy spurge. 


Rationale and Assumptions 

Moderate-priority meadows are extensively invaded 

by introduced herbaceous plants (especially 

quackgrass and reed canarygrass), such that full 

restoration of native plant assemblages is unlikely. 

This objective focuses on restoring open, treeless 

meadows. Reduction in tall woody plants should 

benefit grassland and wetland birds intolerant of 

woody plants (see objective 2). Meadows invaded by 

introduced grasses will benefit these species despite 

being floristically simple in composition. Such 

benefits have been noted for sites seeded to 

introduced grasses, most notably in the CRP 

(Johnson and Igl 1995). 

Leafy spurge is actively controlled because 

infestations function as “source sites” for spurge 

invasion into adjacent meadow, prairie parkland, and 

sandhills habitats. Biological control of leafy spurge 

using flea beetles has not been tested in meadows, 

but holds promise as an effective control measure. 

Meadow Objective 4 

Minimally manage low-priority meadows that have 

mostly shifted from grassland to woodland–tall 

shrub communities. During the life of the plan, 

opportunistically rejuvenate 100 acres of willow 

shrub land to provide structural diversity in willow 

shrub land. 

Strategies 

—	 Under certain circumstances, fire or mechanical 

treatments may be used to rejuvenate willows in 

low-priority meadows adjacent to moderate- or 

high-priority meadows. 

—	 Experiment with control of leafy spurge using 

Plateau® herbicide. Release flea beetles 

(Apthona spp.) in patches of leafy spurge 

growing on various microsites. Once flea beetles 

become locally adapted to meadow sites, begin 

wide-scale releases to control leafy spurge. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Large patches of shrub land–woodland have 

irreparably replaced grass-sedge-rush communities 

such that restoration of these meadows is unlikely. 

Willow shrub land provides unique habitat for some 

species, especially willow flycatcher, yellow warbler, 

black-billed cuckoo, common yellowthroat, moose, 

and white-tailed deer. 
 

Leafy spurge is commonly associated with aspen and 

willow patches that have invaded meadow sites. 

Many areas are inaccessible to vehicles and thus 

difficult to treat using herbicides. These infestations 

function as source sites for spurge invasion into 

adjacent meadow, prairie parkland, and sandhill 

habitats. Biological control of leafy spurge using flea 

beetles has not been tested in meadows, but holds 

promise as an effective control measure. 

Wetland Goal 

Manage riverine wetlands, including marshes and 

lakes, to sustain the long-term capacity of riverine 

wetlands to support diverse plant and wildlife 

communities. Restore ecological processes that 

sustain long-term productivity of wetlands. 

Wetland Objective 1 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, synthesize 

available information on the effects of physical 

alterations, altered hydrology and hydroperiod, 

increased sedimentation, and changes in water 

quality of the riverine system, past and present: 

(1) develop a report to describe consequences of 

these alterations on long-term viability of riverine 

marshes; (2) determine biological potentials and 

constraints for each wetland impoundment; and 

(3) develop criteria to prioritize impoundments with 

the greatest potential for sustained productivity. 

Strategies 

—	 Use past narratives, aerial photographs, 

unpublished refuge files, and scientific literature 

to evaluate the biological potential of wetland 

impoundments and prioritize units for 

management. 

—	 Map physical areas wi

that are expected to r

—	 Develop and prioritiz

and research needs. 


—	 In cooperation with 

USGS’s Northern 

Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center, 

complete sediment 

accretion and 

contaminants 

studies. 

—	 Monitor 

groundwater and soil

moisture levels in 

impoundments and 

within the adjacent 

meadow zone. 

thin each impoundment
 

espond to management. 


e a list of knowledge gaps
 

Rationale and Assumptions 

This objective focuses on compiling past and current 

data regarding development and management of the 

Souris River wetlands. Although riverine wetlands 

form one of the most extensive and important 

habitats at J. Clark Salyer NWR, site-specific 

information is limited regarding effects of habitat 

management (especially water level management) 

on vegetation structure and composition, species 

diversity and density of aquatic invertebrates, and 

wetland-dependent bird species. Models for 

managing northern prairie wetlands exist, but their 

utility is limited for managing riverine marshes at 

the Souris River basin refuges, primarily because 

impoundments include flow-through of the Souris 

River (which limits wetland management 

capabilities). 

This objective requires compilation of existing 

wetland management records along with a clear, 

succinct treatment of threats and management 

opportunities and limitations for riverine wetlands. 

Laubhan and others (2003) completed a biological 

assessment of wetland conditions for the Souris 

River basin refuges; this report provides a start in 

meeting this objective and those that follow. 

Wetland Objective 2 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, evaluate and 

comprehend crucial ecological processes that maintain 

long-term wetland productivity. Develop a range of 

biological indicators (for example, decline of 

important wetland plant or invertebrate species, 

shifts in extent and juxtaposition of emergent or 

submerged aquatic emergent vegetation) useful in 

the implementation of management strategies (for 

example, water level management and prescribed 

fire) intended to maintain long-term wetland 

productivity. 

Wetland objectives will help the refuge sustain its important migration habitat for shorebirds 

such as these black-bellied plovers. 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, J. Clark Salyer NWR 103 

USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

104 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Strategies 

—	 Complete development of a USGS computer 

application that uses long-term flow data from 

gauging stations to assess effects associated 

with long-term alterations in river hydrology 

and hydroperiod on wetland plants, wildlife, and 

(ultimately) the potential to sustain long-term 

wetland productivity. Particularly important is 

monitoring flows that cross international 

boundaries. Additionally, monitor inflows at 

major tributaries as necessary. 

—	 In cooperation with USGS’s Northern Prairie 


Wildlife Research Center, complete a sediment 


accretion study and determine impacts of 


sedimentation for long-term management of 


riverine marshes. 


—	 In cooperation with the USGS and others, 

develop detailed contour maps of marsh bottoms 

for all impoundments to help construct models 

that predict vegetation response to water level 

management. 

—	 In the absence of full restoration of the natural
 

hydrograph and hydroperiod of the Souris 


River, study the economic, physical, and
 

biological feasibility of constructing a major 


bypass channel to improve management of
 

(1) pools 320, 326, and 332, (2) the Benson 

subimpoundment, and (3) the Redhead Unit. 

—	 Develop a method to inventory contemporary
 

vegetation communities in managed wetlands. 


Develop methods for long-term monitoring of 


wetland vegetation.
 

—	 In cooperation with the USGS and others, use 

information derived above to develop predictive 

models that determine effects of water 

management (especially hydroperiod) on 

wetland plants, invertebrates, and migratory 

birds; redefine objective 1. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

This objective focuses on synthesizing existing 

scientific research on wetland function and cycles in 

northern prairie wetlands and impounded riverine 

wetlands. It also prompts site-specific inventory, 

monitoring, and research to support management of 

riverine marshes. 

A biological assessment of wetland conditions for the 

Souris River basin refuges was recently completed 

(Laubhan et al. 2003). This report provides context 

for the original construction and subsequent physical 

and operational modifications to the managed wetland 

system at the Souris River basin refuges. Additionally, 

long-term threats to the system are discussed. 

However, past management of riverine wetlands has 

been based more on “gut feeling” and politics than 

on sound science. Site-specific data are lacking 

regarding effects of wetland management on 

vegetation structure and composition, aquatic 

invertebrate densities, and species of wetlanddependent wildlife. 

Relative to upland habitats, managers have less 

effective control over wetland systems, due in part 

to the following: 

R	 misunderstandings about the biological 

significance of drought and complete 

drawdown dating back to the original 

construction of wetland impoundments; 

R	 significant physical limitations of 

constructed impoundments, especially 

the lack of independence among adjacent 

wetland units when manipulating water 

levels; 

R	 inherent difficulties in conducting basic 

inventory, long-term monitoring, or 

applied research in wetlands relative to 

upland sites. 

Wetland Objective 3 

During the 15 years after CCP approval, develop 

and implement a new management philosophy that 

emphasizes long-term wetland productivity over 

older models based on (1) political management 

based on 5-year cycles, (2) “oasis” management, 

where wet acres are maximized especially during 

extreme drought, or (3) maximizing years of “hemimarsh” conditions. 

In high-priority impoundments, use periodic 

disturbance to provide the full spectrum of wetland 

conditions—for example, dry marsh, densely 

vegetated marsh (regenerative phase), hemi-marsh, 

open marsh (degenerative phase), and open water— 

to benefit wetland-dependent species of wildlife. 

Strategies 

—	 Re-create, where possible, the natural hydrology 

and hydroperiod of the Souris River. In most 

areas, physical disruptions and conflicts among 

water users compromise the degree to which 

this strategy can be carried out. Focus 

management on units that have the greatest 

potential for sustained productivity (from 

objective 1). 

—	 Use natural climatic fluctuations to increase 

wetland management opportunities. Periodic 

drought may hasten full or partial drawdowns in 

some units. Although such drawdowns maximize 

the long-term viability of wetlands, the 

availability of wetlands with water is reduced 

during drought. In contrast, previous 

management emphasized retaining as much 

water as possible to offset landscape-level 

drought effects on migratory birds at the expense 

of long-term capacity to sustain wetland 

productivity in refuge impoundments. 

—	 Confine major releases from upstream reservoirs 

to the period from September to May, reducing 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, J. Clark Salyer NWR 105 

extended inundation during the growing season 

when most wetland birds are nesting. Ideally, 

releases from Canada to the United States 

should occur according to the natural hydroperiod 

as identified in the international agreement for 

the Souris River basin (United States and 

Canadian Negotiating Delegation 1989). 

—	 Use water stored in Lake Darling to supplement 

spring and summer flows at J. Clark Salyer NWR 

during extended or extreme drought, or during 

the regenerative marsh phase following drawdown 

of priority impoundments. 

—	 Use periodic, growing-season drawdown over 


multiple seasons if required to stimulate 


production of seed-bearing annual plants, 


increase invertebrate biomass, and stimulate 


establishment and expansion of emergent and
 

submergent plant species. 


—	 During the drawdown phase, use additional 

disturbance, especially prescribed fire, 

mechanical soil treatment (for example, disking 

and sheep-foot packer), and defoliation (haying 

or grazing) to increase vegetation and 

invertebrate response during the regenerative 

phase and to control robust emergent 

vegetation. 

—	 Use periodic water level management and 

muskrat herbivory to reduce robust emergent 

vegetation, especially cattail and common reed. 

—	 Periodically use aerially applied herbicides to 

reduce the extent of monotypic emergent 

vegetation in portions of impoundments that, 

historically, do not respond (water levels >3 feet 

cannot be attained during the growing season). 

—	 Obtain remaining prescriptive water rights 


through North Dakota State Water Commission.
 

Buy additional water rights. 


—	 Detect and eliminate purple loosestrife and salt 

cedar. 

—	 Maintain the carp-free status. 

—	 As the final water user in the United States 

portion of the Souris River, supply the North 

Dakota obligation of 20 cfs to Manitoba, Canada, 

from June 1 through October 31, unless certain 

drought conditions exist. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

This objective focuses on implementation and 

management using the best available science. 

Historically, conflicts in direction for wetland 

management have occurred among various water 

users of the Souris River. Past management goals 

and objectives rarely addressed or incorporated 

unforeseen impacts related to the physical 

disruptions of the river (original construction of 

dikes and dams), or changes in habitat (biotic and 

abiotic) resulting from these events. Inevitable 

decreases in water quality and in marsh 

management capabilities—especially because of 

accretion of sediments—are assumed, based on 

current knowledge of this and similar impounded 

riverine marshes in the northern Great Plains. 

Productivity of northern prairie wetlands 

historically was maintained by periodic wet and dry 

cycles. Productivity is particularly enhanced during 

reflooding following natural drought or drawdown 

(in managed wetlands). Riverine marshes have an 

inherent reduced capacity to be dewatered during 

the growing season because the river flows through 

each impoundment. Departures from the normal 

hydroperiod, ill-timed upstream water releases, or 

significant summer rains can render prescriptive 

drawdowns ineffective because marsh sediments 

never dry sufficiently to (1) oxidize soils, (2) establish 

wetland plants (important waterfowl foods and a 

substrate for invertebrate production), or 

(3) establish perennial emergent and submergent 

vegetation (food cover and invertebrate substrate). 

Furthermore, control of robust emergent plants 

(cattail, common reed, and bulrush) becomes difficult 

because of continued anoxic (absence of oxygen) 

conditions resulting in little reduction in organic 

material in marsh soils. Consequently, wetlands 

often cycle rapidly between open water and a densevegetated marsh phase, both of which are less 

productive than intervening stages. Because 

attainment of the periodic dry marsh phase is a 

significant factor limiting long-term wetland 

function, periodic drawdowns are emphasized under 

this objective. By necessity, wetland management 

will become more opportunistic, often working in 

conjunction with wet and dry cycles to achieve 

management objectives. 

Wetland Objective 4 

Over the course of the CCP, introduce efforts on a 

watershed level that reduce sedimentation and 

nonpoint source pollution and/or their effects on 

riverine marshes. 

Strategies 

—	 Develop models similar to the “mallard model” 

developed by the HAPET that target areas 

within the watershed (for example, adjacent to 

major tributaries or drainage systems) that 

have the highest potential for sediment 

transport, especially during extreme rainfall or 

snowmelt events. 

—	 Use models to target areas for conversion from 

cropland to grassland via USDA’s CRP, 

Wetland Reserve Program, or other USDA 

conservation initiatives. Identify drained 

wetlands within targeted areas for restoration. 

Initiate and develop additional conservation 

measures that reduce or mitigate impacts from 

sedimentation and pollution. 
106 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

—	 Work with the NRCS to ensure compliance with 

“Sodbuster,” “Swampbuster,” and other 

provisions in the Farm Bill (current and future) 

that reduce soil erosion. 

—	 Explore construction of sediment traps to 

reduce the extent of sediment accumulations. 

Where management capability has already been 

reduced, explore the feasibility of dredging to 

reduce accumulated sediment in certain 

impoundments. 

—	 Protect native prairie and prairie wetlands 


within target areas or adjacent to the refuge,
 

using perpetual easements.
 

—	 In cooperation with the USGS, the state of 

North Dakota, and the USACE, monitor and 

document sediment loads and water quality 

associated with various flows. Consider passing 

flows that contain high sediment loads or that 

significantly reduce water quality. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Initial samples collected at the Souris River basin 

refuges document only slightly elevated levels of 

sediment accretion for most impoundments. 

However, over many decades, sedimentation is 

expected to continue to the point where storage 

capacity (water depth) of pools will decline. This will 

result in reduced capability to manage wetland 

vegetation, especially robust emergent plants, using 

water level manipulations. Results from an ongoing 

sedimentation study at the Souris River basin 

refuges are expected to confirm this assumption. 

Sedimentation and pollution mainly originate within 

the watershed, but outside refuge boundaries. 

Sediment is transported via agricultural runoff 

carried in major tributaries and wetland drainage 

projects. Flows that contain high sediment loads or 

that significantly reduce water quality appear 

associated with runoff originating from heavy winter 

snowmelt or significant rainfall events. 

Island Goal 

Manage islands to attract waterfowl and increase 

nest survival, especially during drought years when 

wetland habitat outside of the Souris River basin 

refuges is limited. 

Island Objective 1 

By 1 year after CCP approval, prioritize nesting 

islands based on waterfowl nest densities, nest 

survival, and maintenance costs. 

Strategies 

—	 Use data from nest studies (1992–94) to evaluate 

nesting islands for waterfowl production. 

Prioritize management of islands far from shore 

(with a large open-water barrier surrounding 

the island) and islands with extensive cover of 

low shrubs. 

—	 Identify islands that are high maintenance, 


especially those that are prone to extensive 


erosion. 


Rationale and Assumptions 

Island management will be lower priority for 

restoration than other, more extensive, habitat 

types. Therefore, limited resources expended on 

island management should target islands with the 

greatest potential to produce waterfowl. Use of 

nesting islands by waterfowl has been intensively 

studied at J. Clark Salyer NWR since 1950, and 

criteria useful in prioritizing islands are readily 

available. 

Canada goose. 

Ryan Hagerty/USFWS 

Island Objective 2 

During drought conditions, maintain 70% apparent 

nest survival on 20 islands most attractive to 

waterfowl. Within pools 320, 326, and 332, island 

objectives remain secondary to marsh management 

objectives that enhance long-term wetland 

productivity. 

Strategies 

—	 Manage islands for the following characteristics: 

(1) large open-water barrier surrounding an 

island; (2) open shoreline without tall emergent 

vegetation; (3) far from the mainland; and 

(4) cover dominated by shrubs, grasses, or tall 

forbs. Achieve this with the following strategies: 

(1) water level management; (2) h erbicide 

application to reduce emergent cover surrounding 

an island; and (3) cover manipulation using 

plantings and prescribed fire. 

—	 Trap predators such as skunk, raccoon, and mink 

soon after ice-out in the spring, during drought 

years or when staff and funding are available. 

The spring “window” for effectively capturing 

mink is narrow; capture is unlikely once nesting 

has begun. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, J. Clark Salyer NWR 107 

—	 Additionally, control mink populations by 

reducing muskrat populations (the major winter 

food source of mink). Use partial winter 

drawdowns to control muskrat populations. 

—	 Remove nesting islands with a history of low 


nest densities and/or low nest survival. Some
 

islands with low nest survival can be burned in 


late April or May to discourage waterfowl 


nesting. 


Rationale and Assumptions 

The J. Clark Salyer NWR has more than 50 nesting 

islands that vary in attractiveness to nesting 

waterfowl. Some islands can support densities of 

more than 400 nests per acre during drought years. 

Other islands are rarely used or have perpetually 

low nest survival; these islands should be removed 

when funding and winter access allows. 

Island objectives remain secondary to marsh 

management objectives that maintain long-term 

wetland productivity. Periodic water management, 

for example, holding water level high to facilitate 

muskrat herbivory, may conflict with maintenance 

of predator-free nesting islands (mink numbers are 

mainly influenced by winter muskrat populations). 

Summer drawdowns limit the utility of nesting, 

especially during drought years. 

Cultural Resource Goal 

Discover and protect cultural resources and 

interpret sites when the interpretation does not 

adversely affect habitat management. 

Cultural Resource Objective 1 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, identify refuge 

cultural resources and protect them from 

degradation. 

Strategies 

—	 Complete a cultural resources survey as needed 

when new projects may disturb refuge lands. 

—	 Protect known cultural resources by minimizing 

disturbances in sensitive areas. 

—	 Compile historical records pertaining to cultural 

resources mainly by consolidating available files 

and photographs and by interviewing area 

residents. 

—	 In support of the Archaeological Resources 


Protection Act, develop a plan for managing 


refuge archaeological resources. 


Rationale and Assumptions 

There are limited resources (funding and staff) that 

will be allocated yearly to the refuge. The priority 

for these funding and staffing resources is to protect 

and manage upland and wetland habitats for wildlife. 

Protection of cultural resources is an integral part of 

the purpose. All cultural resource laws and policies 

will be complied with to prevent the destruction of 

known and unknown sites. 

Cultural Resource Objective 2 

Within 10 years of CCP approval, promote 

interpretation and protection of cultural resources 

and their importance to refuge wildlife and habitat 

resources. 

Strategies 

—	 Enhance the understanding of the CCC Camp 

BF-4, Company 766 site, by establishing an 

interpretive area that describes the work of the 

CCC in early development of refuge 

infrastructures. 

—	 Add an on-site kiosk and headquarters’ 


brochures to identify the Woods End and the 


Steven’s Ranch sites.


 Rationale and Assumptions 

Protection and interpretation of cultural resources 

at the refuge, especially those that relate to the 

wildlife and habitat found there, will help visitors 

understand some of the environmental changes that 

have taken place. Interpreting the work of the CCC 

in developing much of the early refuge 

infrastructure will allow visitors to understand the 

importance of habitat management and restoration. 

The Steven’s Ranch will serve as an example of the 

role grazing—first by wildlife, then by livestock— 

had in maintaining and changing native prairie 

grasslands. 

Visitor Service Goal 

Provide wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities 

to a diverse audience when the administration of 

these programs does not adversely affect wildlife 

and habitat management. 

Visitor Service Objective 1—Hunting 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, provide hunting 

opportunities for 1,000 visitors when resources 

needed to administer these programs do not 

adversely affect the refuge’s ability to implement 

habitat management. Provide hunters with safe, 

reasonable harvest opportunities, uncrowded 

conditions, minimal conflicts with other users, and 

satisfaction with their overall experiences. 

Strategies 

—	 Annually determine whether resources (funding 

and staff) will be available to provide hunting 

opportunities at the current level. 

—	 When compatible, add other designated game
 

animals to the list of species open for hunting.
 

—	 Continue to work with the NDGF to provide 


quality hunting opportunities. 

108 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Hunting white-tailed deer at J.Clark Salyer NWR. 

USFWS 

— When compatible, on request, provide special
 

use permits for hunters with disabilities. 


—	 Enhance public understanding of refuge hunting 

opportunities by regularly updating hunting 

brochures, signs, and the refuge website. 

—	 Increase the visibility of refuge law enforcement 

to seek compliance with regulations to ensure 

ethical hunting. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

There are limited resources (funding and staff) 

allocated yearly to the refuge. The priority for these 

resources is to manage upland and wetland habitat. 

Hunting programs will be allowed if resources 

needed to administer hunting will not materially 

detract from habitat management. The Service 

intends to keep the present level of programs, unless 

funding or staffing shortfalls increase. The greatest 

expenses for the hunting program are for law 

enforcement and printing of hunting brochures. 

The compatibility determination for recreational 

hunting is in appendix S. 

Visitor Service Objective 2—Fishing 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, provide fishing 

opportunities for 1,000 anglers when resources 

needed to administer the program do not adversely 

affect the refuge’s ability to implement habitat 

management. Provide anglers with safe, reasonable 

harvest opportunities, minimal conflicts with others, 

and satisfaction with their overall experiences. 

Strategies 

—	 Annually determine whether resources (funding 

and staffing) will be available to provide fishing 

opportunities at the current level. 

—	 Provide the current level of fishing 


opportunities to anglers with disabilities and 


explore ways to expand access. 


—	 Continue to work with the NDGF to provide 


quality fishing opportunities.
 

—	 Enhance public understanding of refuge fishing 

opportunities by regularly updating fishing 

brochures, signs, and the refuge website. 

—	 Increase the visibility of refuge law enforcement 

to seek compliance with regulations to ensure 

ethical fishing. 

—	 Develop cost-effective partnerships to increase 

and improve shore-angler access to the water. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

There are limited resources (funding and staff) 

allocated yearly to the refuge. The priority for these 

resources is to manage upland and wetland habitat. 

Fishing programs will be allowed if resources 

needed to administer fishing do not materially 

detract from habitat management. Most fishing 

opportunities are at bank locations along public 

roads and along water control structures. Costs to 

administer this program are limited to law 

enforcement and brochure printing; no additional 

expenses are anticipated to occur. 

The Service intends to keep the present level of 

fishing access, unless funding and staffing shortfalls 

require fishing access to be closed. Fishing 

opportunities likely will not be expanded. However, 

partnerships with local sporting groups could be 

used to enhance access for shore anglers. 

The compatibility determination for recreational 

fishing is in appendix U. 

Visitor Service Objective 3—Wildlife 

Observation and Photography 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, provide wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities for no 

less than 6,000 visitors as a result of improved 

habitat and wildlife diversity. 

Strategies 

—	 Develop a short brochure describing 


opportunities. 


—	 Develop partnerships with local groups to 


provide birding and other wildlife tours.
 

—	 Modify the refuge website to include a current
 

list of wildlife sightings. 


Rationale and Assumptions 

In a 2003–2004 refuge visitor survey, wildlife 

observation was ranked the third-largest use by 

visitors, behind fishing and hunting. Visitors tend to 

observe and photograph wildlife collaterally at the 

same time they participate in other wildlifedependent activities. For example, while fishing, 

anglers have many opportunities to see a wide 

diversity of waterbirds swimming or flying 

overhead. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, J. Clark Salyer NWR 109 

The Scenic and Grassland trails, photo blinds to 

observe grouse dances, and viewing platforms near 

refuge headquarters are the only facilities developed 

for wildlife observation and photography. Wildlife 

observation and photography go hand-in-hand with 

interpretation and environmental education 

programs. Although the Service does not plan to 

expand these facilities, a greater diversity of wildlife 

will be available for observation and photography as 

the habitat improves. 

The compatibility determination for wildlife 

observation and photography is in appendix T. 

Visitor Service Objective 4—Environmental 

Education and Interpretation 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, provide 

environmental education programming to no less 

than 100 students per year. Provide interpretive 

exhibits that will be viewed by 15 % of visitors per 

year. Emphasize learning about natural plant and 

animal communities, ecological processes, refuge 

management practices, and restoration of upland 

and wetland habitat. 

Strategies 

—	 Build an interactive website for education and 


interpretation.
 

—	 Write an education and interpretive plan that 


focuses on enhancing awareness of prairie and 


wetland ecology and management. Ensure the 


curriculum is fresh and dynamic and meets the 


needs of all students and adults.
 

—	 Develop strong educational partnerships with 


schools and other government entities to
 

efficiently tell the refuge story.
 

—	 Complete two new kiosks with interpretive 


panels.
 

—	 Complete reconstruction of the Scenic and 

Grassland trails and development of interpretive 

panels by the Federal Highway Administration. 

—	 Upgrade and replace interpretive and 

informational panels throughout the refuge and 

along the Canoe Trail so they are consistent 

with the refuge theme. 

—	 Upgrade the audiovisual equipment and the 


refuge orientation slide show.
 

—	 In cooperation with partners, participate in at
 

least two special events annually to increase 


visitors’ knowledge and understanding of 


wildlife conservation and related issues.
 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Within commuting distance of J. Clark Salyer NWR 

is a population exceeding 60,000. There are 

unlimited opportunities to educate youth about 

wildlife and habitat of the northern Great Plains and 

to carry that knowledge into adulthood. The results 

of a 2003–2004 visitor survey indicated satisfaction 

with the management of the refuge and a desire to 

learn more about the natural resources present and 

the methods used to manage it. 

Unfortunately, the refuge does not have educational 

facilities or staff to provide this valuable service. 

The refuge’s priority is to manage habitats to prevent 

degradation. Improving the habitat while keeping 

visitors informed of activities will create more 

environmental education opportunities for visitors 

to learn, appreciate, and support management 

efforts. 

The compatibility determination for environmental 

education and interpretation is in appendix T. 

Non-wildlife-dependent Public Use 

Objectives and strategies are not developed for nonwildlife-dependent public use activities. Examples of 

these activities are canoeing, boating, berry picking, 

horseback riding, walking, hiking, bicycling, crosscountry skiing, snowshoeing, four wheeling, 

swimming, water skiing, sailing, and snowmobiling. 

These types of activities may be compatible when 

associated with wildlife-dependent public use. For 

example, berry picking along a trail might be 

allowed as a compatible activity incidental to the 

wildlife-dependent public use of wildlife observation. 

Compatibility of activities will be determined on an 

individual basis by the refuge manager as needed in 

the future. 

Research and Science Goal 

Conduct innovative natural resource management 

using sound science and applied research to advance 

the understanding of natural resource function and 

management within the northern Great Plains. 

Research and Science Objective 1 

During the 15 years following CCP approval, 

identify and prioritize research needs required to 

meet the refuge’s goals and objectives; promote 

investigations that reliably address these needs. 

Strategies 

—	 Conduct vegetation and wildlife inventories of 

all plant communities within major habitats 

identified in chapter 3. Use initial inventories as 

baseline data to assess past and future changes 

in plant and animal community composition. 

—	 Use periodic surveys (for example, every 5 years) 

to assess vegetation composition and structure 

of high-priority refuge habitats. 

—	 Focus wildlife population research on 

assessments of species-habitat relationships. 

Develop models that predict wildlife response to 

habitat management or restoration. 
110 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

—	 Design and conduct issuedriven research unlikely to be 

reliably addressed using longterm monitoring. Develop 

predictive models of habitat 

management and restoration. 

—	 Promote refuge research and 

science priorities within the 

broader scientific community. 

Ensure that cooperative 

research focuses on meeting 

information needs identified in 

habitat management goals and 

objectives. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Habitat-based goals and objectives 

form the basis for setting research 

and monitoring priorities for 

J. Clark Salyer NWR. 

Investigations must be sufficiently 

designed, funded, and carried out 

to reliably address proposed 

hypotheses or questions. 

Partnerships are integral to 

meeting the research and science goal and 

objectives. Cooperative efforts are supported with 

shared funding, lodging, vehicles, 

equipment, knowledge, and expertise. 

Operations Goal 

Efficiently use funding and staffing for the benefit of 

all natural and cultural resources, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, and present and future 

generations. Effectively manage visitor service 

programs that complement habitat management. 

Operations Objective 1 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, hire six additional 

personnel to protect current resources, assist with 

administrative duties, and assist the rest of the staff 

to restore native prairie habitat and manage 

wetland resources on 100% of high-priority habitat 

units and 50% of moderate-priority habitat units. 

Strategies 

—	 Hire two full-time refuge managers with duties 

to plan and carry out intensive habitat 

restoration efforts on the highest priority 

habitats and units. 

—	 Hire a full-time wildlife biologist and resource
 

specialist to monitor wildlife and habitat 


responses to habitat protection, management, 


and restoration efforts. 


—	 Hire a full-time law enforcement officer to
 

protect resources and manage the visiting
 

public. 


—	 Hire an administrative clerk to assist with 


additional administrative duties.
 

—	 Maintain 40% of equipment and facilities to 


Service standards within 5 years of CCP 


approval. 


—	 Replace 25% of worn-out equipment within 


5 years of CCP approval, as needed. 


Rationale and Assumptions 

There are limited resources (funds and staff) 

allocated yearly to the refuge. The priority for these 

resources is to manage upland and wetland habitats. 

If the target (minimum) staffing level and funding 

are not reached or only partially reached, fewer 

accomplishments will be achieved. 

Operations Objective 2 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, secure additional 

funding necessary to complete habitat restoration on 

100% of high-priority habitat units and 50% of 

moderate-priority habitat units. Include restoration 

with (1) native prairie reseeding, and (2) intensive 

management of existing native prairie including 

woody plant reduction, invasive species control, and 

increased prescribed fire and grazing activities. 

Strategies 

—	 Use additional funding to purchase native grass 

and forb seeds for reseeding former cropland 

and planted cover. 

—	 Use additional funding to purchase herbicides to 

control invasive species and remove/control 

woody plant expansion. 
 

 

—	 Continue to use maintenance management
 

funding to maintain or replace equipment and 


facilities, as needed, to Service standards. 


—	 Secure additional funding to enhance streamflow 

monitoring and water management and develop 

new area-capacity data for refuge marshes. 

—	 Maintain existing facilities and equipment to
 

Service standards, including necessary roads,
 

dikes, water control structures, buildings, and 


fences (all of which are critical in habitat 


management and protection).
 

Rationale and Assumptions 

There are limited resources (funds and staff) 

allocated yearly to the refuge. The priority for these 

resources is to protect and manage upland and 

wetland habitats for wildlife. Operational funding 

will be targeted to work on the highest priority 

habitats and habitat units at the refuge. Management 

intensity will be increased on those habitats and 

units and will require additional personnel and 

funding to restore native prairie. 

UPPER SOURIS NWR 

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION 

The following goals, objectives, and strategies for 

Upper Souris NWR outline the actions needed to 

achieve the vision of the Souris River basin refuges. 

The Service intends to meet these objectives during 

the next 15 years. 

Upper Souris NWR. 

USFWS 

Drift Prairie Goal 

Restore and maintain extensive examples of plant 

communities dominated by native flora characteristic 

of the mid-1800s drift prairie. Create the temporally 

and spatially dynamic habitat conditions that will 

attract most breeding bird species and other 

vertebrate fauna characteristic of that era. 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, Upper Souris NWR 111 

Prairie Slope Goal 

Restore representative examples of prairie slopes to 

preserve some of the most pristine plant communities 

that remain in the Souris River basin and promote 

appreciation and stewardship of prairie resources. 

NOTE: For Upper Souris NWR, drift prairie and 

prairie slope habitats will be concurrently managed 

with similar vegetation objectives in units that 

include both habitats. This is mainly because the 

contemporary vegetation composition is fairly 

similar between the two habitats, except that drift 

prairie has less pristine, native herbaceous plant life 

(mean frequency 4% versus 15% and 13% for 

southwest-facing and northwest- to southeast-facing 

slopes). In addition, most management units to be 

delineated that include drift prairie will also 

include adjoining prairie slope habitat. 

Drift Prairie and Prairie Slope Objective 1 

By 1 year after CCP approval, delineate management 

units on uplands. 

Strategies 

—	 Divide refuge uplands into landscape units 


based on
 

R	 borders of native-sod prairie wherever 

clearly evident; 

R	 management history (for example, the 

area that consistently encompasses a 

general grazing rotation or a prescribed 

burn); 

R	 obvious boundaries such as permanent 

fence lines; 

R anticipated future management actions. 

—	 Assign a logical sequence of identifiers for units 

(for example, sequential numbering or north to 

south). 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Designation of individual management units is 

essential for establishing management objectives 

and priorities for planning habitat treatments and 

for basic communication including that of 

management history on a detailed, local level. 

Designation of management units needs to be done 

by Service management staff who have several 

years of on-the-ground experience at the refuge and 

who are familiar with its management history. 

Drift Prairie and Prairie Slope Objective 2 

Use current vegetation inventory data and area and 

landscape considerations to characterize each 

habitat management unit with native sod prairie as 

either high or low management priority, upland 

prairie units. Reevaluate prioritization of 15 years 

after CCP approval. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

112 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Strategy 

—	 Apply multiple selection criteria. 

CRITERIA FOR HIGH-PRIORITY UNITS 

Floristic composition. Vegetation is 

characterized by >20% mean frequency 

of pristine, native herbaceous types 

(plant groups 41–43 and 46–48 [Grant et al. 

2004b]; see appendix G), plus native 

herbaceous-dominated vegetation with 

Kentucky bluegrass as the main 

subdominant (plant group 53). 

Floristic potential. Vegetation is 

characterized by <20% mean frequency 

of smooth brome-dominated vegetation 

(plant groups 54, 61, and 62). 

Size and landscape context. The unit 

has >40 acres of prairie that is clearly 

native sod 

and 

is contiguous with other high-priority, 

native prairie units or with tracts of 

native prairie adjacent to the refuge 

under non-Service ownership. 

CRITERIA FOR LOW-PRIORITY UNITS 

Floristic composition. Vegetation is 

characterized by <20% mean frequency 

of pristine, native herbaceous types 

(plant groups 41–43 and 46–48 [Grant et al. 

2004b]), plus native herbaceousdominated vegetation with Kentucky 

bluegrass as the main subdominant 

(plant group 53). 

Floristic potential. Vegetation is 

characterized by >20% mean frequency 

of smooth brome-dominated vegetation 

(plant groups 54, 61, and 62). 

Size and landscape context. The unit 

has <40 acres of native sod prairie 

and 

is neither contiguous with highpriority, native prairie units nor 

adjacent to tracts of native prairie 

under non-Service ownership. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Drift prairie occurs as small, gently sloping, isolated 

patches at Upper Souris NWR. Vegetation 

dominated by Kentucky bluegrass occurs frequently 

(42%), but smooth brome-dominated vegetation 

occurs infrequently (13%). Of the two introduced 

grass species, smooth brome is a greater hindrance 

to restoration of both vegetation composition and 

vegetation structure in northern mixed-grass 

prairie. Brome generally seems more difficult to 

control and more significantly alters the quality and 

structure of northern prairie habitats. 

Drift prairie at Upper Souris NWR probably has the 

greatest restoration potential of any such prairie on 

publicly-owned lands in the Drift Plain physiographic 

region in North Dakota. Restoration management 

should focus on strategies to increase the competitive 

ability of native herbaceous plants, especially warmseason grasses, while reducing the vigor Kentucky 

bluegrass and keeping smooth brome in check. When 

managed by strategies that incorporate carefully 

timed fire and grazing disturbances, Kentucky 

bluegrass can occur as a codominant or subdominant 

species and emulate native grasses in structure. 

Prairie slope is three times more prevalent than 

drift prairie at the refuge (see figure 9 in chapter 3). 

Vegetation on the more potentially pristine, 

southwest-facing slopes is relatively degraded, 

however (mean frequency of vegetation dominated 

by Kentucky bluegrass and by smooth brome is 33% 

and 14%, respectively). 

Management of upland native prairie should 

simultaneously and equally target drift prairie and 

prairie slope because 

R	 drift prairie is relatively limited in area 

yet not significantly invaded by smooth 

brome; 

R	 Kentucky bluegrass is prevalent on both 

drift prairie and prairie slope; 

management to reduce this introduced 

grass and increase native herbaceous 

vegetation will logically target both site 

types simultaneously where both occur 

within a management unit. 

Drift Prairie and Prairie Slope Objective 3 

On high-priority units of prairie slope or highpriority units of prairie slope and drift prairie, apply 

frequent and precisely timed disturbance 

(principally fire and grazing) to restore vegetation 

and provide habitat for most wildlife species, 

especially burrowing owl, horned lark, Baird’s 

sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, chestnut-collared 

longspur, northern pintail, and Richardson’s ground 

squirrel. Vegetation should present the below 

characteristics within 15 years of CCP approval. 

Q	 Mean frequency composition on each unit includes 

(1) >40% pristine-native and native-dominated/ 

bluegrass subdominant vegetation (plant groups 

41–43, 46–48, and 53), (2) <10% smooth bromedominated vegetation (plant groups 54, 61, and 

62), and (3) <15% low shrub-dominated vegetation 

(plant groups 11–17); based on percentage 

frequency of occurrence on belt transects (Grant 

et al. 2004b). 

Q	 Native trees and tall shrubs are absent or nearly 

so, comprising <1% land cover on each unit and no 

nonnative or planted native woody vegetation 

exists. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, Upper Souris NWR 113 

Q	 Leafy spurge frequency is decreased by at least 

50% and is maintained at 1% frequency on each 

unit (frequencies per belt transects), absinth 

wormwood is actively controlled, and yellow 

toadflax and other newly appearing species of 

noxious weeds that pose a threat to the drift 

prairie are eliminated within 5 years of initial 

detection. 

Strategies 

—	 Disturb the vegetation, typically by livestock 

grazing or fire, at least 2 of every 3 years. An 

ideal management sequence over 5 years might 

be BGGGR (B=prescribe burn the first year; 

G=graze in each of years 2, 3, and 4; R=rest), and 

then reinitiate the sequence. The area covered 

by trees, tall shrubs, and low shrubs will be 

incrementally reduced with this burning 

frequency. 

—	 Primarily use prescribed fire when smooth 

brome plants are at least in the 4- to 5-leaf stage, 

but not yet showing an inflorescence; this 

generally occurs during a narrow mid-May 

through early June “window.” A less preferred 

option is to burn in fall in anticipation of a 

negative, winter drought impact on smooth 

brome and Kentucky bluegrass. 

—	 Graze mainly during late May through August 

or September, via a rotation approach with 

many (7–10) relatively small (40–60 acres) 

grazing cells per unit and short grazing periods 

(4–7 days) per cell. Adjust stocking rates to 

facilitate regrazing of individual smooth brome 

plants at least once within a grazing period, but 

move livestock to the next cell before native 

plants are regrazed (be sure to note grazing of 

native upland sedges, an important forage base 

in some management units). 

—	 Establish native vegetation dominated by 

warm-season grasses on adjoining, high-priority 

old cropland (see objectives for old cropland). 

Manage these intensively in concert with the 

high-priority prairie units they adjoin to sustain 

a native-dominated flora and to reduce sources 

of introduced cool-season grasses and noxious 

weeds. 

—	 Experiment on old cropland areas within lowpriority prairie units, with new or high-risk 

restoration methods that may have application 

for restoration of old cropland within highpriority prairie units. For example, attempt 

control of introduced cool-season grasses and 

release of native plants on a small, localized scale 

with selective herbicide treatment. 

—	 Remove local, human disturbances and artifacts 

of twentieth-century origin (including the refuge 

era). This includes prominent plow furrows, old 

road grades, rock piles, and impoundment dams 

on intermittent drainages (except on those 

essential as livestock water sources). Restore 

such sites as close as possible to their original 

condition. 

—	 Annually survey for noxious weeds. Continue 

widespread use of biological control by 

monitoring local areas for Apthona spp. beetles 

and redistributing beetles among leafy spurge 

patches as needed. Use herbicides as needed 

along boundaries with private lands. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Kentucky bluegrass is common among all 

topographic site types of upland native prairie at 

Upper Souris NWR. This grass tends to increase 

under prolonged rest or grazing, but decreases with 

fire especially when burning occurs during stem 

elongation or in dry years. Smooth brome, a less 

common introduced grass in drift prairie and prairie 

slope, also increases under rest. In contrast to 

Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome appears 

sensitive to repeated grazing. 

The upland native prairie has been treated regularly 

and extensively by livestock grazing, mostly via 

various rotation strategies. Conversely, little or no 

prescribed fire has been used to manage areas of 

upland native prairie, and most fire was applied only 

recently (2000–2005). Restoration management needs 

to focus on reduction of Kentucky bluegrass while 

keeping smooth brome in check. This is a challenging Deb Parker/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

114 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

task because a reduction of one of these grass 

species often accompanies an increase in the other. 

Increased use of fire to better match the types, 

timing, and frequencies of disturbances under which 

native herbaceous plants evolved will improve the 

competitive abilities of native herbaceous plants in 

high-priority, upland prairie units. Use of fire needs 

to be carefully executed to simultaneously decrease 

competitive abilities of both bluegrass and brome. 

Makeup of the contemporary breeding bird 

community on drift prairie and prairie slope at 

Upper Souris NWR is incompletely documented. 

However, bird species diversity may be greater than 

that on the drift prairie at Des Lacs NWR or at 

J. Clark Salyer NWR mainly because there is much 

less smooth brome and more topographic variation 

at Upper Souris NWR. The refuge’s high-priority 

upland prairie probably can be improved for birds 

and other wildlife species that historically were 

characteristic of northern mixed-grass prairie by 

incorporating more prescribed fire disturbance. 

Thus, there will be increased area in early 

successional stages. 

Trees and tall shrubs increased significantly in area 

at the refuge during the past century (see chapter 3). 

This tall woody cover can diminish the survival of 

nests of grassland birds by harboring nest predators. 

This cover also provides perches from which brownheaded cowbirds can find other species’ nests in 

which to lay eggs. 

Recent data from the Souris River basin refuges 

indicate that relatively small areas of tall woody 

vegetation can effectively fragment grassland 

habitats and cause many grassland bird species to 

avoid entire landscapes. Elimination of tall woody 

cover is a logical strategy for restoration of 

landscape structure and plant community makeup, 

and to improve the attractiveness and security of 

the habitat for a variety of grassland-breeding bird 

species. 

Drift Prairie and Prairie Slope Objective 4 

On low-priority units of prairie slope or prairie slope 

plus drift prairie, apply disturbance (principally fire) 

every 5–8 years to remove plant litter, restore plant 

vigor, and reverse or stall woody plant expansion. 

Provide a mix of structural types that include 

(1) relatively short/sparse vegetation for species 

such as killdeer, horned lark, and Brewer’s 

blackbird, (2) moderately short vegetation for 

species such as blue-winged teal and upland 

sandpiper, and (3) tall/dense vegetation for species 

such as mallard, short-eared owl, Le Conte’s 

sparrow, and bobolink. Vegetation should present 

the below characteristics within 15 years of CCP 

approval. 

NOTE: There likely will be no monitoring of 

vegetation on these units except for routine, cursory 

surveillance for noxious weeds. Tree and tall shrub 

cover can be coarsely monitored over decades via 

remote imagery. Knowledge of relationships between 

fire frequency and resulting, postfire, vegetation 

structure is adequate to predict habitat conditions 

described below. 

One-fourth of the area is 0–1 year postdisturbance, one-fourth is 2–3 years postdisturbance, and one-half is 4–6+ years 

post-disturbance (corresponding roughly to 

a structure of <2 inches VOR, 2–4 inches 

VOR, and >4 inches VOR, respectively 

[mean VORs in early spring, per Robel et al. 

1970]). 

Native trees and tall shrubs comprise <4% 

land cover on each unit, and all nonnative 

woody vegetation and planted native woody 

vegetation is eliminated from at least onehalf of the units. 

Leafy spurge is maintained at <2% 

frequency, absinth wormwood is actively 

controlled, and yellow toadflax and other 

newly appearing species of noxious weeds 

that pose a threat to the drift prairie are 

eliminated within 5 years of initial detection. 

Strategies 

—	 Apply prescribed fire on each unit at least every 

5–8 years, increasing burn frequency during dry 

years when possible to more effectively reduce 

tall shrubs and trees. Rotate burns among units. 

Burn opportunistically, at any time, mainly to 

remove litter and control tall shrubs and trees. 

—	 To increase structural diversity, occasionally 

introduce livestock grazing with wide latitude 

on timing, intensity, and duration, when doing so 

will not detract from management of highpriority units. 

—	 Periodically survey for noxious weeds. Continue 

widespread use of biological control by 

monitoring local areas for Apthona spp. beetles 

and redistributing beetles among leafy spurge 

patches as needed. Use herbicides as needed 

along boundaries with private lands. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Some upland prairie units at Upper Souris NWR 

have little intact, native herbaceous vegetation. 

From a practical standpoint, these areas probably 

cannot be restored to a state where such plants are a 

widely noticeable or an otherwise common 

vegetation component. However, with modest effort, 

the prevalent introduced cool-season grasses and 

scattered low shrubs can be managed to provide a 

mix of post-disturbance structural types attractive 

to a broad array of native grassland bird species. 

The most appropriate management of these units is 

to provide structural variety and to use the units as 
 

a basis to create extensive areas of grassland that 

include off-refuge lands, to satisfy needs of several 

area-sensitive, native, grassland bird species. This 

could reduce predation and nest (brood) parasitism 

incidence associated with edge-dominated, highly 

fragmented grassland. 

The rationale for reducing tall shrubs and trees is 

the same as that for high-priority prairie slope or 

prairie slope plus drift prairie (see objective 3). 

Drift Prairie and Prairie Slope Objective 5 

Help improve or maintain the habitat quality and 

economic sustainability of nonfederally owned, 

native prairie remnants adjacent to the refuge’s 

drift prairie and slope prairie units within 15 years 

after CCP approval. Extend protection and 

stewardship to most other grasslands that adjoin 

these units. Seek opportunities to expand the total 

grassland area and create broad, contiguous blocks 

of open grassland, principally as habitat for breeding 

grassland birds. 

Strategy 

—	 Use grassland easements and extension 

agreements (for example, specialized livestock 

grazing systems on native prairie) for native 

grass establishment and management, or to 

remove “hostile” cover such as trees and tall 

shrubs that could harbor nest (brood) parasites 

and nest predators. Certain grazing systems can 

improve livestock carrying capacity and the 

condition of annually grazed prairie to enhance 

the economic viability of native prairie and 

reduce chances of conversion to other land uses, 

especially cultivation. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

The quality of prairie as breeding habitat for 

grassland birds (in terms of average annual nest 

success and relative contribution to population 

recruitment) is directly related to its extent or, 

conversely, indirectly to the degree of its 

fragmentation. 

Native prairie on the Drift Plain could be considered 

an endangered resource and much of what remains 

of North Dakota’s Drift Plain prairie occurs in the 

Souris River valley. Conserving remnant tracts 

adjacent to the refuge by whatever means possible 

should be among the highest priorities for landscape 

conservation. 

Old Cropland Goal 

On high-priority old cropland areas, establish nativedominated, perennial herbaceous cover that, with 

modest management, resists invasion by introduced 

cool-season grasses and noxious weeds. This seeded 

cover will help form extensive, contiguous blocks of 

structurally diverse, open grassland for grasslanddependent, breeding bird species. 

Old Cropland Objective 1 

By 10 years after CCP approval, locate and 

determine boundaries of old cropland areas and 

record these in the refuge’s GIS database. 

Strategies 

—	 Identify old cropland (considered DNC) areas 

that were seeded to introduced grasses and 

forbs and/or native grasses since the mid-1970s. 

—	 Identify other old cropland areas, as evidenced
 

by 


R	 distinct field edges, especially deep 

furrows and linear piles of wind-borne 

topsoil that had been deposited along 

preexisting fence lines and subsequently 

vegetated; 

R	 rock piles or rocks strewn linearly along 

what appears to be a field edge (although 

rock sometimes was cleared for native 

hay harvests); 

R	 nearly monotypic stands of smooth 

brome, typically with some Kentucky 

bluegrass but with little native sedge in 

the understory (several native plant 

species such as western snowberry, 

Wood’s rose, white sage, western 

yarrow, several goldenrod species, and 

silver scurfpea often reinvade these 

stands); 

Mallard hen.

Donna Dewhurst/USFWS 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, Upper Souris NWR 115 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

116 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

R no partly buried rocks with profuse 


lichens; 


R no clubmoss or cryptogamic crust. 


—	 Use acquisition records, old refuge narratives, 


1938–39 aerial photographs, and U.S. Soil 


Conservation Service records for ancillary 


support.
 

—	 Flag the probable boundaries of areas verified 


as old cropland, record via GPS and attribute, 


and upload into the refuge’s GIS database. 


Rationale and Assumptions 

Furrows and other linear disturbances caused by 

implements (for example, plows, disks, and seed 

drills) are much more evident after an area is 

treated with prescribed fire or heavily grazed. They 

are also more readily detected from horseback. 

NRCS staff may determine evidence of A-horizon 

soil disturbance due to cultivation. Some areas with 

signs of farming disturbance (for example, furrows) 

may have been cropped only for a few years circa 

1900–30 or may have been “broken” during this 

period yet never cropped. Such areas often are 

successfully reinvaded by native plants and may 

currently support native vegetation at levels 

approaching the most pristine areas on similar site 

types at the refuge that are considered native sod. 

Old Cropland Objective 2 

Within 15 years after CCP approval, convert DNC 

on at least 10 old cropland units to vegetation 

dominated by several species of native warm-season 

grasses that vary in stature and growth form and 

that include several species of native forbs, 

wherever possible. Give priority to units with stands 

of vegetation that have become decadent and 

overrun by undesirable, introduced cool-season 

grasses, especially where such units are adjacent to 

or within high-priority drift prairie units or highpriority prairie slope units. 

Strategies 

—	 Following multiple applications of a broadspectrum herbicide, seed a native plant mixture 

that mainly consists of 80–90% warm-season 

grass species especially big bluestem, little 

bluestem, switchgrass, and sideoats grama. 

—	 During the first 3–4 years after seeding, 


annually mow the stand with a hay conditioner 


and harvest the hay. Substitute grazing or 


prescribed fire treatments in the subsequent 


3–4 years. Use herbicide spot spraying or
 

“interseeding” where necessary. 


Rationale and Assumptions 

Although initially expensive, native warm-season 

grasses are economically and ecologically superior to 

seeded stands of introduced plants in old croplands 

because 

R	 permanent, perennial cover eliminates 

regular (every 12–14 years) replacement 

of seeded, introduced species cover via a 

farming cycle and thus nearly eliminates 

potential for soil erosion; 

R	 native grasses reduce local habitat
 

fragmentation and eliminate “edge”
 

associated with the farming cycle; 


R	 a warm-season growth strategy for 

plants vastly improves the capacity for 

an assemblage of plants to outcompete 

smooth brome, mainly by affording 

broader and more effectively timed 

management opportunities; 

R	 there is improved opportunity for 

prescribed burning in late spring 

compared to high-priority drift prairie 

units because the warm season– 

dominated cover has relatively high fuel 

value through early June (versus mostly 

green vegetation on cool season– 

dominated cover on the drift prairie by 

late May); 

R	 there is a broader “window” (later in 

summer) for harvest of hay that still has 

forage value; 

R	 native grasses are in compliance with 

policy that discourages planting of 

introduced species on Service lands and 

encourages planting of native species 

(“National Wildlife Refuge System 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 

Environmental Health,” 601 FW 3, 2001); 

R	 native grasses reduce “source sites” from 

which introduced and weedy plants 

invade adjoining native prairie; 

R	 native grasses have improved and longer 

lasting structural diversity within 

stands. 

Old Cropland Objective 3 

By 10 years after CCP approval, identify other old 

cropland areas (those not known to have been seeded 

since the mid-1970s) that are high management 

priority (areas most important to convert to native 

warm-season grasses). Develop a detailed plan to 

convert these during the subsequent 10–15 years to 

vegetation dominated by several species of native 

warm-season grasses that vary in stature and 

growth form and that include several species of 

native forbs, wherever possible. 

NOTE: There are no goals and objectives for 

remaining old cropland areas in uplands. They are 

low priority and will be managed with adjoining 

habitats. 
 

Rainbow over Upper Souris NWR. 

SFWS U/eia Lesl Darl

Strategy 

—	 Apply multiple selection criteria. 

CRITERIA FOR HIGH MANAGEMENT PRIORITY 

OLD CROPLAND IN UPLANDS (excluding DNC 

and other old cropland known to have been 

seeded since the mid-1970s) 

Floristic Composition. Vegetation is 

characterized by <20% mean frequency 

of pristine, native herbaceous types 

(plant groups 41–43 and 46–48 [Grant et al. 

2004b]) plus native herbaceousdominated vegetation with Kentucky 

bluegrass as the main subdominant 

(plant group 53). 

Floristic Potential. Vegetation is 

characterized by >20% mean frequency 

of smooth brome-dominated types 

(plant groups 54, 61, and 62). 

Landscape Context. The unit has no 

size criterion 

and 

bears clear evidence of a farming 


history
 

and 

is contiguous with high-priority prairie 

units or tracts of native prairie 

adjacent to the refuge under nonService ownership. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Native grass and forb seed is very costly, as is the 

time and expense of materials needed to prepare 

seedbeds, plant seed, and annually manage newly 

seeded areas, per strategies and rationale listed 

under objective 2. 

Old cropland that adjoins high-priority drift prairie 

or prairie slope and supports little native herbaceous 

vegetation likely is a source of invasion by 

undesirable, introduced grasses and weedy forbs. 

Without attempts to establish native vegetation 

through seeding, such areas are unpromising 

candidates for restoration to grassland in which 

native herbaceous plants are evident much less an 

important codominant component. This includes 

areas that were farmed for 5–10 years before refuge 

establishment—presumably before smooth brome 

and Kentucky bluegrass were widely distributed— 

that may have been reinvaded by native plants. 

These areas may have restoration potential that at 

least equals that of adjoining, high-quality drift 

prairie or prairie slope. 

Old Cropland Objective 4 

After seeding and establishing native warm-season 


plants in an old cropland unit, maintain dominance 


by native plants as the most dominant vegetation
 

cover per qualitative estimation.
 

NOTE: There are no goals and objectives for other 

old cropland units (those not yet converted to warm 

season-dominated communities); they are low 

priority. 

Strategies 

—	 Disturb less frequently (every 2–3 years) the 

seeded warm-season stands, which should be 

well established 5–8 years after seeding. They 

probably can be disturbed more flexibly with 

regard to phenology, mainly to discourage 

smooth brome invasion. 

—	 Use grazing as an alternate management 

treatment and take advantage of the wide, 

spring-grazing “window” afforded by the warm 

season–dominated community. 

—	 Integrate management with that of surrounding 

prairie slope and drift prairie while focusing on 

treatment approaches that promote native 

warm-season plant species. 

—	 In the interim between prescribed burns, 

possibly harvest hay every 2–3 years from old 

cropland units, alternating among July, August, 

and September to favor warm-season grasses. 

—	 Where occasionally needed along unit boundaries, 

use herbicides to reduce encroaching, introduced 

cool-season grasses and release native warmseason plants. Use integrated pest management 

to treat local infestations of noxious weeds as 

needed. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

The warm-season growth strategy for plants vastly 

improves the capacity for an assemblage of 

grassland plants to outcompete smooth brome 

(which typically degrades seeded introduced stands), 

mainly by affording broader and more effectively 

timed management opportunities. 

Old Cropland Objective 5 

Within 25 years of CCP approval, eliminate planted 

tall shrubs and trees and any naturalized, nonnative, 

woody vegetation that occurs within or adjacent to 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, Upper Souris NWR 117 
 

 

118 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

high-priority old cropland areas as they are being 

restored to native-dominated vegetation. 

Strategy 

—	 Remove tree-shrub plantings by mechanical 

means (for example, cutting ash trees by hand; 

shearing caragana shrubs with a tractor blade or 

bucket during winter); follow by herbicide 

treatment of stumps or by herbicide treatment, 

rotary mowing, and/or prescribed burning of 

resprouting vegetation wherever necessary. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Trees and tall shrubs can diminish the survival of 

nests of grassland birds by harboring potential nest 

predators. They also provide perches from which 

brown-headed cowbirds can find other species’ nests 

in which to lay eggs. Recent data from the Souris 

River basin refuges indicate that relatively small 

areas of tall woody vegetation can effectively 

fragment grassland habitats and cause many 

grassland bird species to avoid entire landscapes. 

Elimination of tall woody cover is a logical strategy 

for restoration of landscape structure and plant 

community makeup and to improve the 

attractiveness and security of the habitat for a 

variety of grassland-breeding bird species. 

Old Cropland Objective 6 

By 2 years after CCP approval, develop and 

implement an effective, practical, comprehensive 

plan for integrated control of noxious weeds in DNC 

and other old cropland areas in the riparian zone. In 

these areas, continue to maintain perennial 

herbaceous cover comprised of introduced species 

and native plant species or both, and the vegetation 

should present the following characteristics. 

Q	 About one-half of the area in 0- to 1-year 

postdisturbance and one-half in 2–3 years 

postdisturbance; corresponds roughly to a 

structure of 0–3.9 inches VOR and >3.9 inches 

VOR, respectively (mean VORs in early spring, 

per Robel et al. 1970). 

Q	 Native trees and tall shrubs compose <0.2% land 

cover on each old cropland area. 

Q	 Leafy spurge frequency is maintained at <2% 

frequency, absinth wormwood is actively 

controlled, and yellow toadflax and other newly 

appearing species of noxious weed that pose a 

threat to the drift prairie are eliminated within 

5 years of initial detection. Canada thistle control 

is a low-priority weed control issue (mean 

frequency <25%). 

Strategies 

—	 Use hay harvest or fire at least every third year 

to maintain plant species vigor and vegetation 

structure and to control plant litter 

accumulation. 

—	 Annually survey for noxious weeds. Continue 

widespread use of biological control by 

monitoring local areas for Apthona spp. beetles 

and redistributing beetles among leafy spurge 

patches as needed. Use herbicides as needed, 

especially along boundaries with private lands. 

—	 Review and update the weed management plan, 

detailing specific methods and timetables for 

managing noxious weeds in old cropland areas of 

the riparian zone. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Smooth brome, quackgrass, and Kentucky bluegrass 

dominate old cropland in riparian areas. These areas 

have relatively moist, deep, silty loams that are 

particularly suitable for these introduced grass 

species and allow them to outcompete nearly all 

native herbaceous species. There currently are no 

practical, sustainable avenues for conversion of 

these areas to more desirable stands of native 

herbaceous vegetation. However, there are practical 

methods for simultaneously controlling most species 

of noxious weeds and providing vegetation structure 

that is attractive to grassland bird species native to 

the region. These birds prefer relatively dense, tall, 

grassland vegetation and include mallard, northern 

harrier, Le Conte’s sparrow, and bobolink. 

Bobolink. 

 Maslowski/USFWS S.

In addition to removing litter, periodic prescribed 

fire will slow or reverse invasion by woody 

vegetation such as western snowberry and willow. 

Canada thistle is a noxious weed that tends to 

pervade and persist in disturbed soils of the riparian 

zone at Upper Souris NWR. This thistle is variably 

common across the region’s cultivated lands, mainly 

due to its prolific production of highly mobile, windborne seed. This weed species cannot be controlled 

consistently by available means within most of the 

refuge’s riparian zone. This is mainly because the 

soils typically are too damp in late spring and early 

summer to support wheeled vehicles used to apply 

herbicides at an appropriate time for effective 

control. Aerial application is possible in some areas, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, Upper Souris NWR 119 

but tends to be more costly and controversial. Aerial 

application is more difficult to administer than 

ground spraying and adjacent areas of habitat or 

privately owned land may be subjected to overspray. 

Regular monitoring and control of other noxious 

weed species such as leafy spurge and wormwood 

are more crucial than control of Canada thistle and 

are far more gratifying (in terms of available methods 

of biological and other nonchemical controls and 

overall costs versus benefits). 

Coulee Woodland and 

Coulee Woodland Edge Goal 

Acknowledge a nearly irreversible, localized 

establishment of mature, contiguous woodland and 

minimally manage these areas as breeding and 

migration habitat principally for forest-interior, 

migratory bird species such as veery and ovenbird. 

Strive to eliminate remaining, noncontiguous, edgedominated tree and tall shrub cover, particularly 

near high-priority drift prairie and the largest, most 

contiguous grassland tracts. 

Coulee Woodland and Edge Objective 1 

By 2 years after CCP approval, use GIS vegetation 

data and topographic considerations to classify 

management units with significant (>20% cover) 

tree and tall shrub cover as either “coulee woodland 

units” or “coulee woodland edge units.” 

Strategies 

—	 Use these criteria for identifying units with 


significant tree and tall shrub cover as coulee
 

woodland units:
 

The uppermost vegetation strata of a unit 

comprises >50% tree cover with some tall shrub, 

forming woodland patches that generally are 

contiguous (minimum woodland width × length = 

330 × 660 feet, about 5 acres). 

—	 Use these criteria for identifying units with 


significant tree and tall shrub cover as coulee
 

woodland edge units: 


The uppermost vegetation strata of a unit 

comprise 5–50% tree and tall shrub cover, 

generally occurring in narrow bands and is not 

contiguous. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Distinguishing between management units with 

considerable woodland cover versus those with 

much woodland edge is critical to the refuge’s vision 

and to a prioritized management approach. Coulee 

woodland at Upper Souris NWR is difficult to 

restore back to prairie, mainly because understory 

and ground fuels are too few to carry fires of 

sufficient extent and intensity to kill overstory 

trees. 

Such areas probably do not have native prairie, 

grass-forb seed banks. However, coulee woodland 

could continue to provide modest habitat for forestinterior bird species, such as veery and ovenbird, 

without slowing widespread improvement in 

grassland bird habitat elsewhere at the refuge. 

In contrast, coulee woodland edge is a widespread 

habitat type that in the absence of fire will continue 

to fragment drift prairie and prairie slope. None of 

the breeding bird species that are common in this 

edge habitat is of management concern. However, 11 

grassland bird species that occur or used to occur at 

Upper Souris NWR are species of concern. 

Conversion of woodland edge habitat to open prairie 

at the refuge could be achieved through repeated 

use of prescribed fire. This conversion will 

insignificantly influence continental population 

trends of woodland bird species, while helping 

reverse population declines of grassland bird species. 

Reduction of woodland edge may also reduce 

cowbird parasitism rates on grassland bird nests. 

Coulee Woodland and Edge Objective 2 

Within 5 years after CCP approval, analyze and 

summarize data that were collected during 2001– 

2003 on the composition and structure of a sample of 

coulee woodland at Upper Souris NWR. 

Strategy 

—	 Rank the summary and reporting of coulee
 

woodland vegetation attributes among the 


highest priorities for a biologist who oversees
 

the refuge’s biological program.
 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Available inventory data will provide critical insight 

on the status of American elm recruitment and the 

occurrence of noxious weed species. These data will 

provide a base for quantifying habitat relationships 

of bird species that breed in the refuge’s woodland. 

Coulee Woodland and Edge Objective 3 

Minimally manage green ash–dominated, contiguous, 

coulee woodland that within 15 years of CCP 

approval covers a total of about 1,500 acres (slightly 

less than the current level of 1,600 acres) and in 

which noxious weeds are controlled as follows: 

(1) common buckthorn, leafy spurge, common 

burdock, and other noxious weed species are each 

reduced and maintained at <3% frequency; and 

(2) newly discovered species of noxious weeds are 

eliminated. 

Strategies 

—	 Apply prescribed fire to halt further expansion 

of coulee woodland within and adjacent to highpriority upland prairie areas. Use frequent (for 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

120 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

example, every 5 years) prescribed fire to 

reduce the area occupied by the smallest coulee 

woodlands that are adjacent to high-priority 

prairie areas. 

—	 In open areas around woodland, continue to 

reduce leafy spurge by occasional redistribution 

of Apthona spp. beetles, plus limited use of 

herbicides at refuge boundaries if necessary. 

—	 To assess the status of buckthorn and other 

noxious weeds in coulee woodland, complete the 

data summary and reporting in the previous 

objective 2 and, if necessary, seek ways to 

extend the sampling and help direct control 

efforts. Common buckthorn may be invading 

coulee woodland at Upper Souris NWR and, if 

so, will threaten habitat values for forestinterior bird species such as veery and ovenbird 

in addition to having other undesirable impacts. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

The area covered by coulee woodland at Upper 

Souris NWR has been increasing steadily during the 

past century (Grant and Murphy 2005). Coulee 

woodland continues to replace or indirectly diminish 

habitat values of the refuge’s native upland prairie. 

Most areas covered by coulee woodland at the 

refuge may be difficult to restore back to prairie, but 

probably could continue to provide modest habitat 

for forest-interior bird species without hindering 

widespread improvement in grassland bird habitat 

elsewhere at the refuge. 

Coulee Woodland and Edge Objective 4 

On each coulee woodland edge unit, apply 

disturbance (principally fire) every 5–6 years to 

restore the vegetation to the following standards 

within 15 years: 

Q	 Tree and tall shrub cover are reduced by >50% 

(measured via remote imagery). 

Q	 Plant litter is removed and herbaceous plant vigor 

and structural diversity are restored by 

management treatment applied every 5–6 years 

(these responses will be unmeasured and instead 

will be assumed to coincide with disturbance 

events). 

Q	 At any given time, about one-fourth of the area of 

all woodland edge units is in 0–1 year 

postdisturbance, one-fourth is in 2–3 years 

postdisturbance, and one-half is in 4–6+ years 

postdisturbance. This corresponds roughly to 

VOR height-density classes of 0–2.0 inches, 2.0– 

3.9 inches, and 3.9–5.9 inches, respectively, to 

contribute to the variety of grassland structural 

types across the landscape. 

NOTE: There likely will be no monitoring of 

vegetation on nearly all of these units except for 

routine, cursory surveillance for noxious weeds. 

Tree and tall shrub cover could be coarsely 

monitored over decades via remote imagery. 

Knowledge of relationships between fire frequency 

and resulting, postfire vegetation structure is 

adequate to predict habitat conditions under this 

objective. 

Q	 Noxious weeds are controlled as follows: 

(1) buckthorn, caragana, and other introduced 

species of tall shrubs or trees are nearly 

eliminated; (2) leafy spurge is reduced by >50%, to 

<5% frequency; (3) absinth wormwood and 

Canada thistle are actively controlled at the 

refuge boundary; and (4) infestations of yellow 

toadflax and any other, newly appearing species 

of noxious weed are detected and eliminated. 

Strategies 

—	 Apply prescribed fire every 5–6 years, varying 

the timing of burns within a given unit to halt or 

reduce invasion by introduced cool-season 

grasses. 

—	 So long as critical needs of priority management 

units (especially high-priority upland prairie) 

are not compromised, seek opportunities for 

occasional grazing by livestock during years 

between prescribed burns to improve structural 

heterogeneity and slow litter accumulation. 

Grazing prescriptions can be very flexible, even 

allowing occasional, relatively severe, 

defoliations, although such events may result in 

local increases in weeds such as Canada thistle 

and yellow sweetclover. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Coulee woodland edge appears to be a widespread 

habitat type at Upper Souris NWR that in the 

absence of fire probably fragments significant areas 

of drift prairie and prairie slope. None of the 

breeding bird species that are common in this edge 

habitat are of management concern, whereas 11 

grassland bird species that occur or used to occur at 

the refuge are considered species of concern. 

Conversion of woodland edge habitat to open prairie 

through repeated prescribed fire probably will 

negligibly influence continental population trends of 

woodland bird species while helping reverse 

population declines of grassland bird species. 

Riparian Woodland Goal 

Maintain the approximate presettlement extent of 

green ash–American elm riparian woodland within 

the floodplain of the Souris River to benefit a broad 

suite of woodland-associated, breeding bird species. 

Riparian Woodland Objective 1 

By 10 years after CCP approval, complete a baseline 

floristic inventory of riparian woodland. 
 

Strategy 

—	 Use a modified James and Shugart (1970)
 

method to inventory floristic composition and 


stand structure of all riparian woodland.
 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Vegetation composition and structure of some 

riparian woodland has been inventoried and 

breeding bird communities have also been 

inventoried. However, the data has not been 

analyzed and summarized. Qualitative observations 

suggest that most American elm has been lost to 

Dutch elm disease. 

Riparian Woodland Objective 2 

Maintain, in perpetuity, the riparian woodland 

present today. Explore methods that restore 

American elm as a codominant tree species of 

riparian woodland communities. 

Strategies 

—	 Use aerial photos and satellite imagery to
 

periodically assess changes in the extent of
 

riparian woodland.
 

—	 Assess methods to control Dutch elm disease 

including (1) biological control of the fungus or of 

native and introduced elm-bark beetles that 

spread the disease, and (2) development of 

disease-resistant cultivars (cultivated varieties 

of a plant) of American elm adapted to survive 

severe North Dakota winters. 

—	 Because ash-elm riparian woodland is fire 

intolerant, suppress and control fires. Since the 

potential long-term effects of alterations in the 

hydrology (especially hydroperiod) of the Souris 

River are unknown, carefully investigate even 

minor changes in woodland. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

The extent of riparian woodland has changed little 

since the presettlement period. However, some 

meadows have been invaded by aspen woodland and 

willow woodland, which may succeed to ash-elm 

woodland. 

Contemporary riparian woodland forms large, 

extensive patches of mature, closed-canopy woodland. 

These woodlands are important habitat for forestinterior migratory birds such as northern waterthrush, 

red-eyed vireo, and American redstart. Great blue 

heron and black-crowned night-heron colonies also 

are found in riparian woodland. 

Meadow Goal 

Restore and maintain extensive examples of plant 

communities dominated by native flora characteristic 

of seasonally flooded meadows within the Souris 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, Upper Souris NWR 121 

River floodplain to attract grassland- and wetland-


dependent bird species and other wildlife. 


Meadow Objective 1 

Manage meadows composed variously of nonnative 


and native plants to provide a mosaic of relatively
 

short-sparse and tall-dense herbaceous-dominated 


cover. By 15 years after CCP approval, reduce tall
 

shrub and tree cover to <10%.
 

Strategies 

—	 Use cooperators to periodically clip (hay) meadow 

vegetation to control trees, shrubs, and noxious 

weeds, especially Canada thistle. Meadows may 

be clipped every year (for several years) 

following extensive flooding. 

—	 Experiment with control of leafy spurge using 

Plateau® herbicide. Release flea beetles 

(Apthona spp.) in patches of leafy spurge 

growing on various microsites. Once flea beetles 

become locally adapted to meadow sites, begin 

wide-scale releases to control leafy spurge. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Meadow is a transitional habitat at the Souris River 

basin refuges, where it supports some hydrophilic 

(water-loving) plants and is sometimes temporarily 

flooded. Meadow also supports vegetation 

characteristic of mesic (relatively moist) uplands. 

Quackgrass, reed canarygrass, Canada thistle, and 

leafy spurge degrade native grass-sedgerush 

communities. Meadow vegetation evolved with 

periodic disturbances including flooding, grazing by 

elk and bison, and fire. 

Meadows at Upper Souris NWR are mostly invaded 

by cool-season introduced plants (especially 

quackgrass and reed canarygrass), such that full 

restoration of native plant assemblages is unlikely. 

This objective focuses on maintenance of open, 

treeless meadows. Reduction in tall woody plants 

should benefit grassland and wetland birds 

intolerant of woody plants. Meadows invaded by 

introduced grasses will benefit these species despite 

being floristically simple in composition. Such 

benefits have been noted for sites seeded to 

introduced grasses, most notably in the CRP 

(Johnson and Igl 1995). 

Wetland Goal 

Manage riverine wetlands, including marshes and 


lakes, to sustain the long-term capacity of riverine 


wetlands to support diverse plant and wildlife 


communities. Restore ecological processes that 


sustain long-term productivity of wetlands. 


Wetland Objective 1 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, synthesize 


available information on the effects of physical
 
122 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

alterations, altered hydrology and hydroperiod, 

increased sedimentation, and changes in water 

quality of the riverine system, past and present: 

(1) develop a report to describe consequences of 

these alterations on long-term viability of riverine 

marshes; (2) determine biological potentials and 

constraints for each wetland impoundment; and 

(3) develop criteria to prioritize impoundments with 

the greatest potential for sustained productivity. 

Strategies 

—	 Use past narratives, aerial photographs, 

unpublished refuge files, and scientific literature 

to evaluate the biological potential of wetland 

impoundments and prioritize units for 

management. 

—	 Map physical areas within each impoundment
 

that are expected to respond to management. 


—	 Develop and prioritize a list of knowledge gaps
 

and research needs. 


—	 In cooperation with USGS’s Northern Prairie 


Wildlife Research Center, complete sediment 


accretion study and contaminants studies. 


—	 Monitor groundwater and soil moisture levels in 

impoundments and within the adjacent meadow 

zone. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

This objective focuses on compilation of past and 

current data regarding development and 

management of the Souris River wetlands. Although 

riverine wetlands form one of the most extensive 

and important habitats at Upper Souris NWR, sitespecific information is limited regarding effects of 

habitat management (especially water level 

management) on vegetation structure and 

composition, density of aquatic invertebrates, and 

wetland-dependent bird species. Models for managing 

northern prairie wetlands exist, but their utility is 

limited for management of riverine marshes at the 

Souris River basin refuges, primarily because three 

impoundments include flow-through of the Souris 

River (which limits wetland management capabilities). 

This objective requires compilation of existing 

wetland management records along with a clear, 

succinct treatment of threats, management 

limitations, and management potentials for riverine 

wetlands. Laubhan and others (2003) recently 

completed a biological assessment of wetland 

conditions for the Souris River basin refuges; this 

report provides a start in meeting this objective and 

those that follow. 

Existing models may be applicable to seven smaller 

impoundments that are physically located next to 

the Souris River, but are not totally affected by 

fluctuations in river flows. These impoundments 

have water supplies taken from the Souris River 

that are independent of the fluctuations in river 

flows. However, most of the impoundments can only 

be drained when the in-stream riverine marshes are 

drawn down, which is readily accomplished most 

years. 

Wetland Objective 2 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, evaluate and 

comprehend crucial ecological processes that 

maintain long-term wetland productivity. Develop a 

range of biological indicators (for example, decline of 

important wetland plant or invertebrate species and 

shifts in extent and juxtaposition of emergent or 

submerged aquatic emergent vegetation) useful in 

the implementation of management strategies (for 

example, water level management, and prescribed 

fire) intended to maintain long-term wetland 

productivity. 

Strategies 

—	 Complete development of a USGS computer 

application that uses long-term flow data from 

gauging stations to assess effects associated 

with long-term alterations in river hydrology 

and hydroperiod on wetland plants, wildlife, and 

(ultimately) the potential to sustain long-term 

wetland productivity. Particularly important is 

monitoring flows that cross international 

boundaries. Additionally, monitor inflows at 

major tributaries as necessary. 

—	 Through USGS’s Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center, complete a study of sediment 

accretion and its implications for long-term 

management of riverine marshes. 

—	 In cooperation with USGS and others, assess 


available contour maps for wetlands; where 


inadequate; develop detailed contour maps of
 

marsh bottoms for all impoundments to help
 

construct models that predict vegetation 


response to water level management. 


—	 Develop a method to inventory contemporary
 

vegetation communities in managed wetlands. 


Develop methods for long-term monitoring of 


wetland vegetation.
 

—	 In cooperation with the USGS and others, use 

information derived above to develop predictive

Waterfowl congregate in a wetland at Upper Souris NWR. 

 USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Management Direction, Upper Souris NWR 123 

models that determine effects of water 

management (especially hydroperiod) on 

wetland plants, invertebrates, and migratory 

birds. 

—	 Since few on-site data are available, use relevant 

information from a broad spectrum of scientific 

publications and literature syntheses to address 

effects of Lake Darling water quality and water 

management. Reference documents may 

include, for example, a sediment accretion study 

completed through USGS’s Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center and an assessment of 

wetland conditions for the Souris River system 

by Laubhan et al. (2003). 

Rationale and Assumptions 

This objective focuses on synthesizing existing 

scientific research on wetland function and cycles in 

northern prairie wetlands and impounded riverine 

wetlands. It also prompts site-specific inventory, 

monitoring, and research to support management of 

riverine marshes. 

A biological assessment of wetland conditions for the 

Souris River basin refuges was recently completed 

(Laubhan et al. 2003). This report provides context 

for the original construction and subsequent physical 

and operational modifications to the managed 

wetland system at the Souris River basin refuges. 

Additionally, long-term threats to the system are 

discussed. However, riverine wetlands have been 

managed mainly through opportunity, flood control 

objectives, and politics rather than sound science. 

Site-specific data are lacking regarding effects of 

wetland management on vegetation structure and 

composition, aquatic invertebrate densities, and 

wetland-dependent wildlife species. 

Relative to upland habitats, managers have less 

effective control over wetland systems, due in part 

to the following: 

R	 misunderstandings about the biological 

significance of drought and of complete 

drawdown dating back to the original 

construction of wetland impoundments; 

R	 limited understanding of long-term 

impacts of low-head dams constructed in 

rivers in the northern Great Plains; 

R	 significant physical limitations of 

constructed impoundments, especially 

the lack of independence among adjacent 

wetland units when manipulating water 

levels; 

R	 inherent difficulties in conducting basic 

inventory, long-term monitoring, or 

applied research in wetlands relative to 

upland sites. 

Wetland Objective 3 

During the 15 years after CCP approval, develop 

and implement a new management philosophy that 

emphasizes long-term wetland productivity over 

older models based on (1) political management 

based on 5-year cycles, (2) “oasis” management, 

where wet acres are maximized especially during 

extreme drought, or (3) maximizing years of “hemimarsh” conditions. 

In high-priority impoundments, use periodic 

disturbance to provide the full spectrum of wetland 

conditions—for example, dry marsh, densely 

vegetated marsh (regenerative phase), hemi-marsh, 

open marsh (degenerative phase), and open water— 

to benefit wetland-dependent species of wildlife. 

Strategies 

—	 Re-create, where possible, the natural hydrology 

and hydroperiod of the Souris River. In most 

areas, physical disruptions and conflicts among 

water users compromise the degree to which 

this strategy can be carried out. Focus 

management on units that have the greatest 

potential for sustained productivity (from 

objective 1). 

—	 Use natural climatic fluctuations to increase 

wetland management opportunities. Periodic 

drought may hasten full or partial drawdowns in 

some units. Although such drawdowns maximize 

the long-term viability of wetlands, the 

availability of wetlands with water is reduced 

during drought. In contrast, previous 

management emphasized retaining as much 

water as possible to offset landscape-level 

drought effects on migratory birds at the 

expense of long-term capacity to sustain 

wetland productivity in refuge impoundments. 

—	 Use periodic, growing-season drawdown over 


multiple seasons if required to (1) stimulate 


production of seed-bearing annual plants, 


(2) increase invertebrate biomass, and 

(3) stimulate establishment and expansion of 

emergent and submergent plant species. 

—	 During the drawdown phase, use additional 

disturbance, especially prescribed fire, 

mechanical soil treatment (for example, disking 

and sheep-foot packer), and defoliation (haying 

or grazing) to increase vegetation and 

invertebrate response during the regenerative 

phase and to control robust emergent 

vegetation. 

—	 Use water level management and muskrat 

herbivory to reduce robust emergent 

vegetation, especially cattail and common reed. 

—	 Periodically use aerially applied herbicides to
 

reduce the extent of monotypic emergent
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

124 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

vegetation in portions of impoundments that, 

historically, do not respond to water level 

management (cannot hold >3 feet of water 

during the growing season). 

—	 Confine major releases from upstream 

reservoirs to September through May, reducing 

extended inundation during the growing season 

when most wetland birds are nesting. Ideally, 

spring releases from Canada to the United 

States will occur according to the natural 

hydroperiod as identified in the international 

agreement for the Souris River basin (United 

States and Canadian Negotiating Delegation 

1989). 

—	 Use water stored in Lake Darling to supplement 

spring and summer flows at J. Clark Salyer NWR 

during extended or extreme drought, or during 

the regenerative marsh phase following 

drawdown of priority impoundments. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

This objective focuses on implementation and 

management, using the best available science. Since 

establishment of the refuge, conflicts in uses of 

Souris River water and in objectives for wetland 

management have occurred among various water 

users. Past management goals and objectives rarely 

addressed or incorporated unforeseen impacts 

related to the physical disruptions of the Souris 

River (original construction of dikes and dams), or 

changes in habitat (biotic and abiotic) resulting from 

these events. Inevitable decreases in water quality 

and in marsh management capabilities—especially 

because of accretion of sediments—are assumed, 

based on current knowledge of this and similar 

impounded riverine marshes in the northern Great 

Plains. 

Productivity of northern prairie wetlands 

historically was maintained by periodic wet and dry 

cycles. Productivity is particularly enhanced during 

reflooding following natural drought or drawdown 

(in managed wetlands). Riverine marshes have an 

inherent reduced capacity to be dewatered during 

the growing season because the river flows through 

each impoundment. Departures from the normal 

hydroperiod, ill-timed upstream water releases, or 

significant summer rains can render prescriptive 

drawdowns ineffective because marsh sediments 

never dry sufficiently to (1) oxidize soils, (2) establish 

annual wetland plants (important waterfowl foods 

and a substrate for invertebrate production), or 

(3) establish perennial emergent and submergent 

vegetation (food cover and invertebrate substrate). 

Furthermore, control of robust emergent plants 

(cattail, common reed, and bulrush) becomes difficult 

because of continued anoxic (absence of oxygen) 

conditions that result in little reduction in organic 

material in marsh soils. Consequently, wetlands 

often cycle rapidly between open water and a densevegetated marsh phase, both of which are less 

productive than intervening stages. Because 

attainment of the periodic dry marsh phase is a 

significant factor that limits long-term wetland 

function, periodic drawdowns are emphasized under 

this objective. By necessity, wetland management 

will become more opportunistic, often working in 

conjunction with periodic wet-to-dry cycles to achieve 

management objectives. 

Wetland Objective 4 

Over the course of the CCP, introduce efforts on a 

watershed level that reduce sedimentation and 

nonpoint source pollution and/or their effects on 

riverine marshes. 

Strategies 

—	 Develop models similar to the “mallard model” 

developed by the HAPET that target areas 

within the watershed (for example, adjacent to 

major tributaries or drainage systems) that have 

the highest potential for sediment transport, 

especially during extreme rainfall or snowmelt 

events. 

—	 Use models to target areas for conversion from 

cropland to grassland via USDA’s Conservation 

Reserve Program, Wetland Reserve Program, 

or other USDA conservation initiatives. Identify 

drained wetlands within targeted areas for 

restoration. Initiate and develop additional 

conservation or legal measures, or both, that 

reduce or mitigate impacts from sedimentation 

and pollution. 

—	 Work with the NRCS to ensure compliance with 

“Sodbuster,” “Swampbuster,” and other 

provisions in the Farm Bill (current and future) 

that reduce soil erosion. 

—	 Explore construction of sediment traps to 

reduce the extent of sediment accumulations. 

Where management capability has already been 

reduced, explore the feasibility of dredging to 

reduce accumulated sediment in certain 

impoundments. 

—	 Protect native prairie and prairie wetlands 


within target areas or adjacent to the refuge,
 

using perpetual easements.
 

—	 In cooperation with the USGS, state of North 

Dakota, and USACE, monitor and document 

sediment loads and water quality associated 

with various flows. Consider passing flows that 

contain high sediment loads or that significantly 

reduce water quality. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Initial samples collected at the Souris River basin 

refuges document only slightly elevated levels of 

sediment accretion. However, over many decades, 

sedimentation is expected to continue to the point 

where storage capacity (water depth) of pools will 

decline. This will result in reduced capability to 
Chapter 4—Management Direction, Upper Souris NWR 125 

manage wetland vegetation, especially robust 

emergent plants, using water level manipulations. 

Results from an ongoing sedimentation study at the 

Souris River basin refuges are expected to confirm 

this assumption. 

Lake Darling from the fire lookout tower at Upper 

Souris NWR. 

WS F/USslie Lea rl Da

Sedimentation and pollution mainly originate within 

the watershed, but outside refuge boundaries. 

Sediment is transported via agricultural runoff 

carried in the Souris River and its tributaries. Flows 

that contain high sediment loads or that significantly 

reduce water quality above Lake Darling are 

associated with runoff originating from rapidly 

melting snow or significant rainfall events. 

Wetland Objective 5 

Annually review and adhere to refuge mandates and 

laws plus pertinent federal, state, and international 

legal obligations, agreements, and policies when 

managing or planning to manage water levels of the 

Lake Darling impoundment, or when attempting to 

prevent or reduce threats to the impoundment 

presented by water management practices elsewhere 

in the Souris River system. 

Strategies 

—	 By late summer each year, coordinate with the 

North Dakota State Water Commission, J. Clark 

Salyer NWR, and Saskatchewan Watershed 

Authority to determine a fall water release 

schedule for impoundments in the Souris River 

in Saskatchewan and Lake Darling. 

—	 Annually reduce the water level in Lake Darling 

to 1,595.85 feet by October 15 and release no 

water thereafter. 

—	 Annually reduce the water level in Lake Darling 

to 1,596.0 feet by February 1 for spring flood 

control purposes. 

—	 By June 1 each year, store water in Lake Darling 

up to the interim summer level of 1,596.0 feet for 

refuge management purposes. This strategy is a 

proposal to alter the summer storage elevation 

from 1,597.0 to 1596.0 feet; implementation 

would require modification of the international 

agreement. 

—	 During spring runoff or after unusually heavy 

summer rains, release water as needed to avoid 

exceeding an elevation of 1596.5 feet and to 

permit storage of an additional 5,000 acre-feet of 

water beyond that provided by the interim 

summer level. 

—	 Release no more than 500 cubic feet per second 

(cfs), measured at Minot, North Dakota, after 

June 1. 

—	 Communicate with the North Dakota State 

Water Commission when planning to release 

water from Lake Darling to benefit wildlife 

resources downstream at J. Clark Salyer NWR. 

—	 Pass water from Saskatchewan through Lake 

Darling to senior water right holders whenever 

possible. Coordinate with the North Dakota 

State Water Commission and J. Clark Salyer 

NWR when releasing such water. Reserve no 

water stored in Lake Darling for later use by 

senior or junior water permit holders. 

—	 Routinely scrutinize the USACE operation and 

maintenance of the Souris River Flood Control 

Project to verify that it is “operated and 

maintained in a manner compatible with the 

migratory waterfowl refuge purpose of the 

project,” per section 21 of the Flood Control Act 

of 1965. 

—	 Regularly communicate with the USACE, 

North Dakota State Water Commission, 

Saskatchewan Watershed Authority, and other 

agencies and downstream water users that have 

an interest in runoff releases. Coordination with 

the North Dakota State Water Commission and 

J. Clark Salyer NWR is prudent when 

discussing water management issues with the 

Saskatchewan Watershed Authority. 

—	 Work with the USACE and North Dakota State 

Water Commission to protect Minot from 10-year 

flood events, per the operating plan of the 

international agreement for the Souris River 

basin (United States and Canadian Negotiating 

Delegation 1989). Alert the North Dakota State 

Water Commission and other members of the 

U.S. International Souris River Board when 

10-year flood conditions do not occur: when runoff 

is less than a 10% event (1 in 10 years) and water 

allocated to the United States does not reach 

North Dakota to facilitate a natural hydrograph, 

as required in the international agreement. 

During such years, pass and/or store runoff water 

in Lake Darling according to the original intent 

of Upper Souris NWR as a refuge for migratory 

waterfowl. 

—	 Publicize releases to describe their purpose and 

to stop users from removing water not allocated 

to them. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

126 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Rationale and Assumptions 

This objective focuses on legal and policy mandates 

for management of Lake Darling. Lake Darling 

contributes to the long-term capacity of riverine 

wetlands to support diverse plant and wildlife 

communities within constraints of legal obligations. 

The main purpose of Lake Darling is to store a 2-year 

supply of water for managing downstream marshes 

at J. Clark Salyer NWR. This often has been 

incorrectly interpreted that Lake Darling should be 

kept as full as possible to maintain a lake-like 

character except during extreme drought periods. 

This interpretation drove a decision to raise the 

summer operating level from 1,596.0 feet to 1,597.0 

feet after the Souris River Flood Control Project 

was completed. This increased elevation and newly 

constructed dams in Saskatchewan have reduced the 

ability to appropriately manage wetland habitats at 

Upper Souris NWR and J. Clark Salyer NWR. 

There are two reasons to keep the water elevation 

below 1,596.0 feet: (1) shoreline erosion, the incidence 

of botulism, and upstream flooding of riparian 

woodland are reduced, and (2) water clarity, 

availability of shoreline for shorebirds and other 

wildlife, and the extent of wetland vegetation for 

waterfowl food and cover are improved. Additionally, 

this elevation limit provides better water level 

management capability for pool 41. 

Relatively low water levels can occur on the Lake 

Darling impoundment in late summer due to 

evaporation, low precipitation levels, or water 

releases to J. Clark Salyer NWR. Low water levels 

can be ecologically beneficial and, on Lake Darling, 

can provide storage for unusually heavy summer 

rains, reducing the untimely flooding of downstream 

marshes. At times, water that enters Lake Darling 

may contribute downstream flows that are greater 

than the legally permitted levels. The impoundment's 

elevation during such periods may exceed 1,596.5 

feet. Such runoff could be stored temporarily in the 

impoundment as long as the elevation does not 

exceed 1,598.0 feet. Beyond this level, water could 

be released at the rate of its flow into the reservoir. 

Water stored below 1,596.5 feet can either be 

released slowly over time or allowed to evaporate to 

an elevation of 1,596.0 feet by February 1. Releases 

are coordinated with the North Dakota State Water 

Commission to avoid negative downstream effects. 

The 1965 legislative act that authorizes the Souris 

River Flood Control Project states that flood control 

is to be “operated and maintained in a manner 

compatible with the migratory waterfowl refuge 

purpose of the project.” 

The act requires the government of Saskatchewan, 

the U.S. Army, and the Service to appoint a contact 

person with whom states, provinces, and agencies 

may consult about project operations. Representatives 

of the U.S. Army, Saskatchewan Water Corporation 

(now Saskatchewan Watershed Authority), Service, 

and North Dakota State Engineer's office must 

regularly monitor the project plan. 

For flood control purposes, each impoundment 

designated under the Souris River Flood Control 

Project must not exceed a stipulated water elevation 

by February 1. However, during some years, water 

still flows in the Souris River from Saskatchewan 

into North Dakota after October 15; water may still 

need to be released from Lake Darling to reach the 

impoundment's elevation goal for that date. When 

this occurs, much of the water may not reach 

Manitoba before freeze-up, making it difficult to 

manage downstream water at J. Clark Salyer NWR 

and in Manitoba. However, water releases up to 500 

cfs at Minot during September 1–October 15 should 

allow the extra water to enter Manitoba by November. 

Operating Lake Darling at a summer elevation of 

1,596.0 feet will, under normal evaporation rates, 

allow some water released from Saskatchewan to be 

stored in Lake Darling (up to 1,595.85 feet). This 

may result in less water being passed through Lake 

Darling—water that otherwise might negatively 

affect the management of downstream resources. 

Saskatchewan must end releases by October to 

allow the Souris River to regain flows. For about 

15 days after the flows end, excess water drains 

from river pools and bank storage until most water 

has passed into Lake Darling. This additional water 

must be passed through Lake Darling if the 

impoundment is to be staged at 1,595.85 feet for 

winter. 

Water stored in Lake Darling can be released to 

supplement spring and summer flows at J. Clark 

Salyer NWR during extended or extreme drought, 

or during a regenerative marsh phase that follows 

drawdown of high-priority wetland impoundments. 

Water released from Lake Darling is legally owned 

by the Service and cannot be withdrawn without the 

agency's written permission. If unauthorized 

withdrawals are not prevented by the North Dakota 

State Water Commission, less water arrives at 

J. Clark Salyer NWR. According to past experience, 

only 50% of the water that is released into a nearly 

dry riverbed eventually is delivered to J. Clark 

Salyer NWR; the remainder replenishes bank 

storage and fills deep river holes. 

The following excerpt from the international 

agreement describes when water should be released 

to North Dakota from reservoirs in Saskatchewan. 

“Flow releases to the United States should 

occur (except in flood years) in the pattern 

which would have occurred in a state of 

nature. To the extent possible and in 

consideration of potential channel losses 

and operating efficiencies, releases from the 

Canadian dams will be scheduled to 

coincide with periods of beneficial use in 
Chapter 4—Management Direction, Upper Souris NWR 127 

North Dakota. Normally, the period of 

beneficial use in North Dakota coincides 

with the timing of the natural hydrograph, 

and that timing should be a guide to 

releases of the United States portion of the 

natural flows. 

Water must be delivered in the spring 

according to the historical hydrograph to be 

beneficially used by water permit holders on 

the Souris River. Delaying the water release 

from Saskatchewan means that senior water 

right holders may not be able to benefit from 

the later release. Late releases can have 

detrimental effects on fish spawning, waterfowl 

marsh filling, fishing, and reproduction of 

over-water nesting migratory birds.” 

Island Goal 

Manage islands to attract waterfowl and increase 

nest survival, especially during drought years when 

wetland habitat outside of the Souris River basin 

refuges is limited. 

Island Objective 1 

By 10 years after CCP approval, prioritize nesting 

islands based on waterfowl nest densities, nest 

survival, and maintenance costs. 

Strategies 

—	 Use data from nest studies conducted at other 

sites in North Dakota to evaluate nesting islands 

for waterfowl production. 

—	 Identify islands that are high maintenance, 


especially those that are prone to extensive 


erosion. 


—	 Map island locations and evaluate vegetation
 

cover. 


Rationale and Assumptions 

Island management will be lower priority than 

restoration of other, more extensive, habitat types. 

Therefore, limited resources expended on island 

management should target islands with the greatest 

potential to produce waterfowl. Use of nesting 

islands by waterfowl has not been studied at Upper 

Souris NWR. Nesting islands have been sufficiently 

studied at other sites in North Dakota, particularly 

J. Clark Salyer NWR, to provide a basis for 

evaluations. 

Island Objective 2 

During drought conditions, maintain 70% apparent 

nest survival on priority islands. Within all pools 

below Lake Darling, island objectives remain 

secondary to marsh management objectives that 

enhance long-term wetland productivity. 

Strategies 

—	 Manage islands for the following characteristics: 

(1) large open-water barrier surrounding an 

island; (2) open shoreline without tall emergent 

vegetation; (3) far from the mainland; and 

(4) cover dominated by shrubs, grasses, or tall 

forbs. Achieve this with the following strategies: 

water level management, herbicide application 

to reduce emergent cover surrounding an island, 

and cover manipulation using plantings and 

prescribed fire. 

—	 Trap predators such as skunk, raccoon, and mink 

soon after ice-out in the spring during drought 

years or when funding and staff are available. 

The spring “window” for effectively capturing 

mink is narrow; capture is unlikely once nesting 

has begun. 

—	 Additionally, control mink populations by 

reducing muskrat populations (the major winter 

food source of mink). Use partial winter 

drawdowns to control muskrat populations. 

—	 Remove nesting islands with a history of low 

nest densities and/or low nest survival. Some 

islands with low nest survival can be burned in 

late April or May to discourage waterfowl 

nesting. 

Northern shoveler.

Donna Dewhurst/USFWS 

Muskrat.

WS 	FSU Dave Menke/

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

128 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Rationale and Assumptions 

The Upper Souris NWR has approximately 28 

nesting islands that probably vary in attractiveness 

to nesting waterfowl. The two largest islands are 

only 2 acres apiece; most of the islands are no more 

than 0.1 acre in size. These islands may be 

marginally attractive to nesting waterfowl. Many 

islands are in shallowly flooded pools, are spaced 

close together, are close to shore, or are surrounded 

by emergent vegetation. 

Island objectives remain secondary to marsh 

management objectives that maintain long-term 

wetland productivity. Periodic water management, 

for example, holding water level high to facilitate 

muskrat herbivory, may conflict with maintenance 

of predator-free nesting islands (mink numbers are 

mainly influenced by winter muskrat populations). 

Summer drawdowns limit the utility of nesting, 

especially during drought years. 

Cultural Resource Goal 

Discover and protect cultural resources and 

interpret sites when the interpretation does not 

adversely affect habitat management. 

Cultural Resource Objective 1 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, identify refuge 

cultural resources and protect them from 

degradation. 

Strategies 

—	 Conduct government-to-government 

consultation with Native American nations— 

who lived, hunted, or used other resources in the 

Souris River basin—to identify which cultural or 

spiritually significant archaeological sites and 

traditional cultural properties are associated 

with them. 

—	 Complete cultural resource surveys as needed
 

for management purposes.
 

—	 Identify known cultural resource sites on a 


secure GIS database layer that can be used
 

during management planning.
 

—	 Secure funding to survey the remainder of the
 

refuge for cultural resource sites.
 

—	 Protect sites by using law enforcement patrol, 


special use permits, signing, and placement of 


physical barriers.
 

Rationale and Assumptions 

There are limited resources (funding and staff) that 

will be allocated yearly to the refuge. The priority 

for these funding and staffing resources is to protect 

and manage upland and wetland habitats for wildlife. 

Protection of cultural resources is an integral part of 

the purpose. All cultural resource laws and policies 

will be complied with to prevent the destruction of 

known and unknown sites. 

Cultural Resource Objective 2 

Within 7 years of CCP approval, develop an 

interpretive program that will convey the cultural 

history of the Souris River valley to refuge visitors. 

Strategies 

—	 Develop an interpretive area within the 


headquarters building that gives a visitor an
 

appreciation of the development of the Souris
 

River valley and how it contributes to the 


visitor’s quality of life. 


—	 Develop an interpretive brochure depicting the 

cultural history of the Souris River valley. 

—	 Develop an interpretive program that can be
 

geared to several ages of visitors. 


Rationale and Assumptions 

The interpretation of cultural resources is encouraged 

if sufficient funding and staff are available (so that 

habitat management will not be negatively affected). 

Interpretation of the Souris River basin culture will 

enhance visitors’ appreciation and knowledge of the 

role of refuges to protect native habitats and wildlife. 

In addition, visitors will be taught to respect, value, 

and protect cultural resources. 

Visitor Service Goal 

Provide wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities 

to a diverse audience when the administration of 

these programs does not adversely affect wildlife 

and habitat management. 

Visitor Service Objective 1—Hunting 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, provide hunting 

opportunities for 2,500 visitors when resources 

needed to administer these programs do not 

adversely affect the refuge’s ability to implement 

habitat management. Continue to provide hunters 

with safe, reasonable harvest opportunities, 

uncrowded conditions, minimal conflicts with other 

users, and satisfaction with their overall experiences. 

Strategies 

—	 Annually determine whether resources (funding 

and staff) will be available to provide hunting 

opportunities at the current level. 

—	 Add turkey, moose, or other species to the 


hunted list if compatible. 


—	 Provide hunting opportunities and access for 


hunters with disabilities, on request, when 


determined to be compatible.
 

—	 Continue to work with the NDGF to provide 


quality hunting opportunities where possible. 

 

—	 Continue to provide the public with information 

on refuge hunting opportunities by regularly 

updating hunting brochures, signs, and the 

refuge website, on an as-needed basis. 

—	 Continue to provide visibility of refuge law 


enforcement officers to seek adherence to 


regulations. 


Rationale and Assumptions 

“Hunting is clearly an important activity with 

visitors making multiple trips to the refuge to do so. 

These visitors feel that hunting at the refuge 

provides a unique experience they cannot find 

elsewhere,” (Sexton et al. 2005). However, there are 

limited resources (funding and staff) that will be 

allocated yearly to the refuge. The priority for these 

resources is to manage upland and wetland habitat. 

Hunting programs will be allowed if resources 

needed to administer hunting will not materially 

detract from habitat management. The Service 

intends to keep the present level of programs, unless 

funding or staffing shortfalls increase. The greatest 

expenses for the hunting program are for law 

enforcement, sign development and maintenance, 

development and printing of hunting brochures, 

answering questions, and update of the refuge 

website. 

The compatibility determination for recreational 

hunting is in appendix S. 

Visitor Service Objective 2—Fishing 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, provide fishing 


opportunities for 50,000 to 75,000 anglers when 


resources needed to administer these programs do
 

not adversely affect the refuge’s ability to
 

implement habitat management. Continue to 


provide anglers with safe, reasonable harvest
 

opportunities, minimal conflicts with others, and 


satisfaction with their overall experiences. 


Strategies 

—	 Annually determine whether resources (funding 

and staffing) will be available and make 

adjustments as needed. 

—	 Provide at least the current level of fishing 


opportunities to anglers with disabilities and 


elderly anglers and explore ways to expand
 

access. 


—	 Discuss enhancement of fishing opportunities 


with the NDGF. 


—	 Continue to provide the public with information 

on refuge fishing opportunities by regularly 

updating fishing brochures, signs, and the 

refuge website, on an as-needed basis. 

—	 Continue to provide visibility of refuge law 

enforcement to seek adherence to regulations. 

—	 Develop cost-effective partnerships to increase 

and improve shore-angler access to the water. 

Fishing is popular at the refuge.

Chapter 4—Management Direction, Upper Souris NWR 129 USFWS 
Rationale and Assumptions 

The majority of visitors to the refuge are anglers. 

“Almost unanimously, fishing was identified as the 

most cited experience that would bring respondents 

back to the refuge. Angler visitors appear to be 

motivated to fish there simply for the enjoyment of 

the activity, being less concerned about catching 

large trophy fish. The majority of respondents who 

fish at the refuge would continue to do so even if 

they thought they would not catch any fish. This 

says much about the experience that the refuge 

provides for this activity, indicating they are likely 

gaining more from the experience than simple 

catching fish,” (Sexton et al. 2005). 

All boat ramps and fishing access piers were 

replaced with quality facilities in 2005 and should 

need only minimal maintenance during the next 

15 years. A request for “additional fishing access” 

areas such as piers and docks was the most frequent 

comment when asked, “What would enhance your 

experience at Upper Souris National Wildlife Refuge?” 

Included in this request was access that accommodated 

handicapped or elderly anglers (Sexton et al. 2005). 

Partnerships with local sporting groups could be 

explored to expand access for shore anglers. 

There are limited resources (funding and staff) 

allocated yearly to the refuge. The priority for these 

resources is to manage upland and wetland habitat. 

Fishing programs will be allowed if resources needed 

to administer them do not materially detract from 

habitat management. Program expenses include the 

following: (1) law enforcement; (2) brochure 

development and printing; (3) annual access and 

facility maintenance; (4) sign development and 

maintenance; (5) answering questions; and (6) website 

development and update. The Service does not 

intend to add additional areas for boat or shore 

fishing, or to increase the hours in a day that anglers 

can fish at the refuge. The Service intends to keep 

the present level of fishing access, unless funding 

and staffing shortfalls require fishing access to be 

reduced. 

The compatibility determination for recreational 

fishing is in appendix U. 

Visitor Service Objective 3—Wildlife 

Observation and Photography 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, provide wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities for no 

less than 6,000 visitors as a result of improved 

habitat and wildlife diversity. 

Strategies 

—	 Develop a short brochure describing 


opportunities. 


—	 Develop partnerships with wildlife groups and 


organizations to market available birding and 


wildlife opportunities at the refuge. 


—	 Update the refuge website on a regular basis to 

provide details of current wildlife sightings. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Nonconsumptive users most found wildlife 

observation, driving the Prairie-Marsh Scenic Drive, 

walking the interpretive trails, and photography to 

be important activities. Visitors ranked wildlife 

observation the third-largest use, behind fishing and 

hunting (Sexton et al. 2005). Visitors tend to observe 

and photograph wildlife collaterally at the same time 

they participate in other wildlife-dependent activities. 

There were 49–60% of the consumptive users that 

rated viewing waterbirds and other wildlife as 

important. Sixty-eight percent of nonconsumptive 

users rated photography important and approximately 

76–93% of nonconsumptive users rated wildlife 

observation as important (Sexton et al. 2005). 

 Entry point to the Prairie-Marsh Scenic Drive.

130 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

 Deb Parker/USFWS 

The Prairie-Marsh Scenic Drive, nature trails, and 

photo blinds to observe grouse dances are the only 

facilities developed for wildlife observation and 

photography. However, every place that visitors 

walk or drive there is wildlife to be seen. Wildlife 

observation and photography go hand-in-hand with 

interpretation and environmental education 

programs. Although the Service does not plan to 

expand these facilities, a greater diversity of wildlife 

will be available for observation and photography as 

the habitat improves. 

The compatibility determination for wildlife 

observation and photography is in appendix T. 

Visitor Service Objective 4—Environmental 

Education and Interpretation 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, provide 

environmental education programming to no less 

than 100 students per year. Provide interpretive 

exhibits that will be viewed by 15 % of visitors per 

year. Emphasize learning about natural plant and 

animal communities, ecological processes, refuge 

management, and restoration of upland and 

wetlands. 
Chapter 4—Management Direction, Upper Souris NWR 131 

Strategies 

—	 Build a learning center and hire an environmental 

education coordinator that will provide programs 

on and off the refuge to diverse citizens of all ages. 

—	 Build an interactive education and interpretive
 

website. 


—	 Write an education and interpretation plan that 

focuses on enhancing awareness of prairie and 

wetland ecology and management. Ensure the 

curriculum is fresh and dynamic and meets the 

needs of all students and adults. 

—	 Develop strong educational partnerships with 


schools and other government entities to
 

efficiently tell the refuge story. 


—	 Educate students and families of a transient Air 

Force workforce so they can advocate protection

of fish and wildlife habitat and support refuges 

after they move. 

—	 Complete two new kiosks and interpretive 


panels. 


—	 Complete reconstruction of the Prairie-Marsh 

Scenic Drive and development of interpretive 

panels in conjunction with the Federal Highway 

Administration. 

—	 Apply for Scenic Byway designation to attract
 

visitors. 


—	 Upgrade and replace interpretive and 


information panels that are consistent with the 


refuge theme. 


—	 Build an elevated platform overlooking pools B
 

and C to enhance the visitor’s experience of
 

marsh wildlife by interpreting the marsh 


ecosystem. 


—	 Upgrade the audiovisual equipment and the 


refuge orientation slide show. 


—	 In cooperation with partners, participate in at
 

least two special events annually to increase 


visitors’ knowledge and understanding of 


wildlife conservation and related issues.
 

—	 Construct additional interpreted hiking and 


walking trails or improve existing trails. 


Rationale and Assumptions 

Within commuting distance of Upper Souris NWR 

there is a population of at least 60,000 people, 

including Minot Air Force Base located 14 miles 

east. Survey results show that 93% of visitors reside 

within the state (Sexton et al. 2005). There are 

unlimited opportunities to educate youth about 

wildlife and habitat; most of these youth will leave 

the state when they graduate and take the message 

elsewhere. 

During the public scoping meeting process, most 

participants asked for more environmental education 

opportunities at the refuge. Refuge visitor survey 

results (Sexton et al. 2005) indicate the following: 

R	 kiosks or signs with information about 

the refuge and its wildlife and self-guided 

interpretive trails and auto tours are 

important or very important to 

approximately 64% of visitors 

R	 environmental education programs, 

interpretive exhibits, and interpretive 

trails are important to 46–75% of visitors 

drawn to the refuge for nonconsumptive 

activities 

R	 56% of visitors stated that special events 

(environmental education, open houses, 

Migratory Bird Day) at the refuge are 

important to their decision to visit the 

refuge 

R	 33% of respondents indicated that having 

more education and interpretive programs 

would maximize their experience while 

visiting the refuge 

R	 76% of nonconsumptive users stated they 

would like to see more hiking and walking 

trails 

Unfortunately, the Upper Souris NWR does not 

have educational facilities or staff to provide this 

valuable service. The refuge’s priority is to manage 

upland and wetland habitats to prevent degradation. 

As the habitat improves and more is learned about 

refuge biology, there will likely be more ability to 

create increased environmental education 

opportunities for visitors to learn about, appreciate, 

and become supporters of refuge management 

efforts. 

The compatibility determination for environmental 

education and interpretation is in appendix T. 

Non-wildlife-dependent Public Use 

Objectives and strategies are not developed for nonwildlife-dependent public use activities. Examples of 

these activities are canoeing, boating, berry picking, 

horseback riding, walking, hiking, bicycling, crosscountry skiing, snowshoeing, four wheeling, 

swimming, water skiing, sailing, and snowmobiling. 

These types of activities may be compatible when 

associated with wildlife-dependent public use. For 

example, berry picking along a trail might be 

allowed as a compatible activity incidental to the 

wildlife-dependent public use of wildlife observation. 

Compatibility of activities will be determined on an 

individual basis by the refuge manager, as needed in 

the future. 
 

 

 

 

132 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Research and Science Goal 

Conduct innovative natural resource management 

using sound science and applied research to advance 

the understanding of natural resource function and 

management within the northern Great Plains. 

Research and Science Objective 1 

During the 15 years following CCP approval, 

identify and prioritize research needs required to 

meet the refuge’s goals and objectives; promote 

investigations that reliably address these needs. 

Strategies 

—	 Conduct vegetation and wildlife inventories of 

all plant communities within major habitats 

identified in chapter 3. Use initial inventories as 

baseline data to assess past and future changes 

in plant and animal community composition. 

—	 Use periodic surveys (for example, every 5 years) 

to assess vegetation composition and structure 

of high-priority refuge habitats. 

—	 Focus wildlife population research on assessments 

of species-habitat relationships. Develop models 

that predict wildlife response to habitat 

management or restoration. 

—	 Design and conduct issue-driven research 


unlikely to be reliably addressed using long-


term monitoring. Develop predictive models of 


habitat management and restoration. 


—	 Promote refuge research and science priorities 

within the broader scientific community. Ensure 

that cooperative research focuses on meeting 

information needs identified in habitat 

management goals and objectives. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Habitat-based goals and objectives form the basis 

for setting research and monitoring priorities for 

Upper Souris NWR. Investigations must be 

sufficiently designed, funded, and carried out to 

reliably address proposed hypotheses or questions. 

Partnerships are integral to meeting the research 

and science goal and objectives. Cooperative efforts 

are supported with shared funding, lodging, vehicles, 

equipment, knowledge, and expertise. 

Operations Goal 

Efficiently use funding and staffing for the benefit of 

all natural and cultural resources, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, and present and future 

generations. Effectively manage visitor service 

programs that complement habitat management. 

Operations Objective 1 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, hire five additional 

personnel to protect current resources, assist with 

administrative duties, and assist the rest of the staff 

to properly handle public use and restore native 

prairie habitat and manage wetland resources on 100% 

of high-priority habitat units and 50% of moderatepriority habitat units. 

Strategies 

—	 Hire a public use specialist to plan and carry out 

an intensive public awareness program to 

educate the public about habitat restoration 

efforts. 

—	 Hire one full-time wildlife biologist and two 

permanent-seasonal technicians to monitor 

wildlife and habitat responses to habitat 

protection, management, and restoration efforts. 

—	 Hire a full-time fire management specialist to 


manage the fire program necessary for habitat
 

restoration. 


—	 Hire an administrative clerk to assist with 


additional administrative duties.
 

—	 Maintain 40% of equipment and facilities to 

Service standards within 5 years of CCP approval. 

—	 Replace 25% of worn-out equipment within 5 years 

of CCP approval, as needed. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

There are limited resources (funds and staff) 

allocated yearly to the refuge. The priority for these 

resources is to manage upland and wetland habitats. 

If the target (minimum) staffing level and funding 

are not reached or only partially reached, fewer 

accomplishments will be achieved. 

Operations Objective 2 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, secure additional 

funding necessary to complete habitat restoration on 

100% of high-priority habitat units and 50% of 

moderate-priority habitat units. Include restoration 

with (1) native prairie reseeding, and (2) intensive 

management of existing native prairie including 

woody plant reduction, invasive species control, and 

increased prescribed fire and grazing activities. 

Strategies 

—	 Use additional funding to purchase native grass 

and forb seeds for reseeding former cropland 

and planted cover. 

—	 Use additional funding to purchase herbicides to 

control invasive species and remove/control 

woody plant expansion. 

—	 Continue to use maintenance management
 

funding to maintain or replace equipment and 


facilities, as needed, to Service standards. 


—	 Secure additional funding to enhance streamflow 

monitoring and water management and develop 

new area-capacity data for refuge marshes. 
 

 

—	 Use additional funding to purchase facilities to 

increase the environmental education program 

and expand outreach activities. 

—	 Maintain existing facilities and equipment to
 

Service standards; includes necessary roads,
 

dikes, water control structures, buildings, and 


fences (all of which are critical in habitat 


management and protection).
 

Rationale and Assumptions 

There are limited resources (funds and staff) 

allocated yearly to the refuge. The priority for these 

resources is to protect and manage upland and 

wetland habitats for wildlife. Operational funding 

will be targeted to work on the highest priority 

habitats and habitat units at the refuge. Management 

intensity will be increased on those habitats and 

units and will require additional personnel and 

funding to restore native prairie. 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

The CCP for the Souris River basin refuges is 

intended to be a broad umbrella plan (1) that outlines 

general concepts and objectives for habitat, wildlife, 

visitor services, cultural resources, and partnerships, 

and (2) that guides refuge management for the next 

15 years. Step-down management plans provide 

greater detail for carrying out specific actions 

authorized by the CCP. Tables 5–7 list step-down 

management plans for each refuge that are 

anticipated to be needed, along with their current 

status and next revision date. 

Table 5. Step-down management plans for Des 

Lacs NWR, North Dakota. 

Step-down 

Management 

Plan 

Completed 

Plan, Year 

Approved 

New or 

Revised Plan, 

Completion 

Year 

Fire management 

plan 2003 2007 

Habitat 

management plan — 2010

Habitat management 

plan (annual) 2006 2007 

Hunting plan 1993 2010
 

Integrated pest 

management plan 2005 2010 

Law enforcement 

plan — 2010

Predator 

management plan 1985 2010 

Safety plan 1995 2007
 

Visitor service plan 1990 2010 

Water 

management plan 2006 2007

Chapter 4—Management Direction 133 

Bluet.

Shooting Star. Line art © Cindie Brunner

Pasqueflower. 
 

 

 

 

Table 6. Step-down management plans for J. Clark 

Salyer NWR, North Dakota. 

New or 

Step-down Completed Revised Plan, 

Management Plan, Year Completion 

Plan Approved Year 

Cropland 

management plan 1997 2008 

1985 Development plan 2009 (obsolete) 

Duck viral enteritis 

contingency plan 

1973 

(obsolete) 2012 

Fire management 2001 2006 plan 

Habitat management 

plan (annual) 2006 2006 

Hunting and fishing 1986 1993 plan 

Integrated pest 

management plan 2005 2010 

Law enforcement — 2011 plan 

Predator 

management plan 1985 2012 

Safety plan 1998 2008 

Trapping plan 1968 2010 

Visitor service — 2014 plan 

Water management 

plan (annual) 2006 2006 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7. Step-down management plans for Upper 

Souris NWR, North Dakota. 

New or 

Step-down Completed Revised Plan, 

Management Plan, Year Completion 

Plan Approved Year 

Fire management 

plan 1999 2007 

Grassland 1995 2008* management plan 

Habitat work plan 

(annual) 2006 2007 

Hunting plan 1993 2009 

Integrated pest 

management plan 2000 2006 

Law enforcement — 2006 plan 

Predator 

management plan 1985 2006 

Safety plan 2005 2006 

Sign plan 1986 2012* 

Visitor service plan — 2006
 

Water management 

plan (annual) 2006 2007 

Water management 1968 2010** plan (long-range) 

* Year is dependent on hiring a public use specialist. 

** Year is dependent on hiring a biologist. 

Canada goose. 

134 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

STAFFING AND FUNDING 

This section describes the human and monetary 

resources needed to carry out the CCP. 

Staffing 

Due to a reduced budget within the Service, a 

decision was made to change the administrative 

structure of the three refuges, two of which had 

been part of former refuge complexes (Des Lacs 

NWR Complex and J. Clark Salyer NWR Complex). 
 

 

 

 

One project leader will now administer a larger unit 

called the Souris River Basin NWR Complex, which 

places all three Souris River basin refuges under one 

manager. This will provide a consistent message at 

international meetings concerning the Souris River 

and will allow consistent application of management 

practices that the Service developed for this CCP. 

Tables 8–10 list current positions along with new 

positions that are needed for full implementation of 

this CCP. The proposed positions are also included 

in the database for the Refuge Operating Needs 

System (RONS) (see appendixes V–X). 

Funding 

Projects required to carry out the CCP are funded 

through two separate systems, as follows: 

Q	 The Service uses the RONS database to document 

requests to Congress for funding and staffing 

needed to carry out projects above the existing 

base budget. 

Q	 The Service uses the Service Asset Maintenance 

Management System (SAMMS) database to 

document the equipment, buildings, and other 

existing properties that require repair or 

replacement. 

Lists of the RONS and SAMMS projects required to 

carry out this CCP (including maintenance of 

structures and equipment to a safe and productive 

standard for the 15 years of the CCP) are in the 

following appendixes: appendix V (Des Lacs NWR), 

appendix W (J. Clark Salyer NWR), and appendix X 

(Upper Souris NWR). 

Table 8. Current and proposed staff for Des Lacs NWR, North Dakota. 

Staff Group 	 Current Positions Additional Proposed Positions (Unfunded) 

Management Wildlife refuge manager GS1-13 Wildlife refuge manager GS-11 

Wildlife refuge manager GS-5/7/9 

Biology 	 None Wildlife biologist GS-12 

Wildlife biologist GS-11 

Biological science technician GS-11 

Visitor services None 	None 

Administration Administrative support assistant GS-5 None 


Maintenance Engineering equipment operator WG2-10 None 


Maintenance worker WG-8 


Fire management* 	 Assistant fire management officer GS-11 Range technician GS-6 

Prescribed fire specialist GS-9 Fire operations and fuels specialist GS-9 

Range technician GS-5 

Dispatcher/range technician GS-6 

Law enforcement None 	None 

1

GS=general schedule position 

2

WG=wage grade position. 

*All fire positions are not exclusive to the Souris River Basin NWR Complex, but are shared within the larger Western North Dakota Fire 

 District that encompasses numerous refuges and wetland management districts in central and western North Dakota. 

Chapter 4—Management Direction 135 
Table 9. Current and proposed staff for J. Clark Salyer NWR, North Dakota. 

Staff Group 	 Current Positions Additional Proposed Positions (Unfunded) 

Management	 Wildlife refuge manager GS1-13 

Wildlife refuge manager2

 GS-12 

Wildlife refuge manager GS-5/7/9 

Wildlife refuge manager GS-9/11 

Wildlife refuge manager GS-9/11 

Biology Wildlife biologist GS-12 

Private lands biologist2

 GS-11 

Biological science technician2

 GS-8 

Wildlife biologist GS-11 

Resource specialist GS-11 

Visitor services None Outdoor recreation planner GS-9 

Administration Administrative officer GS-9 Clerk GS-5 

Maintenance Auto mechanic WG3-10 

Engineering equipment operator WG-8 

Engineering equipment operator2

 WG-8 

None 

Fire management* Prescribed fire specialist GS-9 

Fire program technician GS-7 

Range technician GS-5 

None 

Law enforcement None Law enforcement officer GS-9 

1

GS=general schedule position. 

2

Primary duties are at the J. Clark Salyer WMD. 

3

WG=wage grade position. 

*All fire positions are not exclusive to the Souris River Basin NWR Complex, but are shared within the larger Western North Dakota Fire 

 District that encompasses numerous refuges and wetland management districts in central and western North Dakota. 

Table 10. Current and proposed staff for Upper Souris NWR, North Dakota. 

Staff Group 	 Current Positions Additional Proposed Positions (Unfunded) 

Management Wildlife refuge manager GS1

-12 Wildlife refuge manager GS-11 

Biology Wildlife biologist GS-11 

Biological science technician GS-9 

Biological science technician GS-9 

 (permanent, career-seasonal; 0.5 FTE2

) 

Visitor services None 	 Outdoor recreation planner GS-11 


Administration Administrative support assistant GS-7 Clerk GS-5 (permanent, career-seasonal; 

 0.5 FTE) 

Maintenance Maintenance worker WG3

-8 None 

Fire management* Fire management officer GS-11 

Supervisory range technician GS-6/7 

None 

Law enforcement Park ranger GS-9 Park ranger GS-9 (permanent, career- 

 seasonal; 0.5 FTE) 

1

GS=general schedule position. 

 2

FTE=full-time equivalent; one or more job positions with tours of duty that, when combined, equate to one person employed for the

 standard government work-year. 

3

WG=wage grade position. 

*All fire positions are not exclusive to the Souris River Basin NWR Complex, but are shared within the larger Western North Dakota Fire 

 District that encompasses numerous refuges and wetland management districts in central and western North Dakota. 

136 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
 

PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES 

Opportunities exist near the Souris River basin 

refuges to establish partnerships with sporting 

clubs, elementary and secondary schools, and 

community organizations. A strong partnership 

already exists between the Service and the NDGF. 

At regional and state levels, partnerships might be 

established with organizations such as Ducks 

Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, National 

Audubon Society, National Wild Turkey 

Federation, North Dakota Wildlife Federation, 

wildlife societies, Delta Waterfowl, and many 

others. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The step-down management plans (tables 5–7) will 

describe specific monitoring and evaluation activities. 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to 

long-term management of biotic resources. 

Chapter 4—Management Direction 137 

Adaptive management is directed, over time, by the 

results of ongoing monitoring activities and other 

information. More specifically, adaptive 

management is a process by which projects are 

carried out within a framework of scientifically 

driven experiments to test the predictions and 

assumptions outlined within a CCP (figure 16). 

To apply adaptive management, specific survey, 

inventory, and monitoring protocols will be adopted 

for the Souris River basin refuges. The habitat 

management strategies will be systematically 

evaluated to determine management effects on 

wildlife populations. This information will be used 

to refine approaches and determine how effectively 

the objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations 

will include participation by the HAPET, the 

ecosystem team, and other appropriate partners. If 

monitoring and evaluation indicate undesirable 

effects for target and nontarget species or 

communities, alterations to the management 

projects will be made. Subsequently, the CCP will be 

revised. 

Figure 16. The adaptive management process.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glossary
 

abiotic—Pertaining to nonliving things. 

accessible—Pertaining to physical access to areas 

and activities for people of different abilities, especially 

those with physical impairments. 

adaptive management—Rigorous application of 

management, research, and monitoring to gain 

information and experience necessary to assess and 

modify management activities; a process that uses 

feedback from research, monitoring, and evaluation 

of management actions to support or modify objectives 

and strategies at all planning levels; a process in 

which policy decisions are implemented within a 

framework of scientifically driven experiments to 

test predictions and assumptions inherent in a 

management plan. Analysis of results helps managers 

determine whether current management should 

continue as is or whether it should be modified to 

achieve desired conditions. 

Administration Act—National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966. 

alternatives—Different sets of objectives and 

strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and 

goals, helping fulfill the Refuge System mission and 

resolving issues. 

amphibian—Class of cold-blooded vertebrates 

including frogs, toads or salamanders. 

animal unit month (AUM)—Measure of the quantity 

of livestock forage. Equivalent to the amount of 

forage needed to support a 1,000-pound animal (or 

one cow/calf pair) for one month. 

annual—A plant that flowers and dies within 1 year 

of germination. 

approved acquisition boundary—Project boundary 

that the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service approves on completion of the detailed 

planning and environmental compliance process. 

ATV—All-terrain vehicle. 

AUM—See animal unit month. 

baseline—Set of critical observations, data, or 

information used for comparison or a control. 

biological control, also biocontrol—Reduction in 

numbers or elimination of unwanted species by the 

introduction of natural predators, parasites, or 

diseases. 

biological diversity, also biodiversity—Variety of life 

and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and 

the communities and ecosystems in which they occur 

(“U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 052 FW 

1.12B). The National Wildlife Refuge System’s focus 

is on endemic species, biotic communities, and 

ecological processes. 

biological integrity—Composition, structure, and 

function at the genetic, organism, and community 

levels consistent with natural conditions and the 

biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, 

and communities. 

biomass—Total amount of living material, plants 

and animals, above and below the ground in a 

particular habitat or area. 

biota—Animals and plants of a given region. 

biotic—Pertaining to life or living organisms. 

breeding habitat—Habitat used by migratory birds 

or other animals during the breeding season. 

buffer zone or buffer strip—Protective land borders 

around critical habitats or water bodies that reduce 

runoff and nonpoint source pollution loading; areas 

created or sustained to lessen the negative effects of 

land development on animals and plants and their 

habitats. 

canopy—Layer of foliage, generally the uppermost 

layer, in a vegetative stand; midlevel or understory 

vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy closure 

(also canopy cover) is an estimate of the amount of 

overhead vegetative cover. 

CCC—See Civilian Conservation Corps. 

CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan. 

CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations. 

cfs—Cubic feet per second. 

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)—Peacetime civilian 

“army” established by President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt to perform conservation activities from 

1933–42. Activities included erosion control; 

firefighting; tree planting; habitat protection; stream 

improvement; and building of fire towers, roads, 

recreation facilities, and drainage systems. 

climax—Community that has reached a steady state 

under a particular set of environmental conditions; a 

relatively stable plant community; the final stage in 

ecological succession. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—Codification of the 

general and permanent rules published in the Federal 

Register by the executive departments and agencies 

of the federal government. Each volume of the CFR 

is updated once each calendar year. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

140 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

community—Area or locality in which a group of 

people resides and shares the same government. 

compatible use—Wildlife-dependent recreational 

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

professional judgment of the director of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the 

mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the 

refuge (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual” 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility determination 

supports the selection of compatible uses and 

identified stipulations or limits necessary to ensure 

compatibility. 

complex—See refuge complex. 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)—A document 

that describes the desired future conditions of the 

refuge and provides long-range guidance and 

management direction for the refuge manager to 

accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute to 

the mission of the Refuge System, and to meet other 

relevant mandates (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

concern—See issue. 

conservation—Management of natural resources to 

prevent loss or waste. Management actions may 

include preservation, restoration, and enhancement. 

conspecific—An individual belonging to the same 

species as another. 

cool-season grass—Grass that begins growth earlier 

in the season and often become dormant in the 

summer; will germinate at lower temperatures (65– 

85°F). Examples are western wheatgrass, needle 

and thread, and green needlegrass. 

cooperative agreement—Legal instrument used when 

the principal purpose of the transaction is the transfer 

of money, property, services or anything of value to 

a recipient in order to accomplish a public purpose 

authorized by federal statute and substantial 

involvement between the Service and the recipient 

is anticipated. 

coordination area—Wildlife management area made 

available to a state, by “(A) cooperative agreement 

between the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the state fish and game agency pursuant to 

Section 4 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

(16 U.S.C. 664); of (B) by long-term leases or 

agreements pursuant to the Bankhead-Jones Farm 

Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525; 7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.).” 

States manage coordination areas, but they are part 

of the Refuge System. CCPs are not required for 

coordination areas. 

coteau—A hilly upland including the divide between 

two valleys; a divide; the side of a valley. 

coulee—A deep ravine or gulch with sloping sides, 

often dry, that has been formed by running water. 

cover, also cover type, canopy cover—Present 

vegetation of an area. 

CRP—Conservation Reserve Program. 

cryptogamic crust—A thin, dry, somewhat flaky 

assemblage of algae, lichens, mosses, and fungi, plus 

byproducts of these organisms mixed with soil 

particles. Crusts influence processes at the soil-air 

interface. For example, they can prevent soil 

erosion, help facilitate nitrogen fixation, slow 

evaporation, and provide a hospitable environment 

for germinating plants. Although a somewhat 

inconspicuous component of the semiarid northern 

prairie, these crusts are absent in areas disturbed 

by cultivation in the region. 

cultivar—A plant variety that has been produced in 

cultivation by selective breeding. 

cultural resources—Remains of sites, structures, or 

objects used by people in the past. 

cultural resource inventory—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). 

database—Collection of data arranged for ease and 

speed of analysis and retrieval, usually computerized. 

deciduous—Pertaining to any plant organ or group 

of organs that is shed annually; perennial plants that 

are leafless for sometime during the year. 

defoliation—Removing of vegetative parts; to strip 

vegetation of leaves; removal can be caused by 

weather, mechanical, animals, and fire. 

demography—Quantitative analysis of population 

structure and trend. 

dense nesting cover (DNC)—Composition of grasses 

and forbs that allows for a dense stand of vegetation 

that protects nesting birds from the view of predators, 

usually consisting of one to two species of wheatgrass, 

alfalfa, and sweetclover. 

disturbance—Significant alteration of habitat 

structure or composition. May be natural (for example, 

fire) or human-caused events (for example, timber 

harvest). 

DNC—See dense nesting cover. 

drawdown—Manipulating water levels in an 

impoundment to allow for the natural drying-out cycle 

of a wetland. 

EA—See environmental assessment. 

early seral stage—Area that is in the primary stages 

of ecological succession. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glossary 141 

easement—Agreement by which a landowner gives 

up or sells one of the rights on his/her property. 

ecological succession—Orderly progression of an 

area through time from one vegetative community 

to another in the absence of disturbance. For 

example, an area may proceed from grass-forbs 

through aspen forest to mixed-conifer forest. 

ecosystem—Dynamic and interrelating complex of 

plant and animal communities and their associated 

nonliving environment; a biological community, 

together with its environment, functioning as a unit. 

For administrative purposes, the Service has 

designated 53 ecosystems covering the United States 

and its possessions. These ecosystems generally 

correspond with watershed boundaries and their 

sizes and ecological complexity vary. 

ecotourism—Tourism that maintains and preserves 

natural resources as a basis for promoting economic 

growth and development resulting from visitation 

to an area. 

emergent—Plant rooted in shallow water and having 

most of the vegetative growth above water such as 

cattail and hardstem bulrush. 

endangered species, federal—Plant or animal species 

listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, that is in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

endangered species, state—Plant or animal species 

in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in a 

particular state within the near future if factors 

contributing to its decline continue. Populations of 

these species are at critically low levels or their 

habitats have been degraded or depleted to a 

significant degree. 

endemic species—Plants or animals that occur 

naturally in a certain region and whose distribution 

is relatively limited to a particular locality. 

environmental assessment (EA)—Concise public 

document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the 

purpose and need for an action and alternatives to 

such action, and provides sufficient evidence and 

analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare 

an environmental impact statement or finding of no 

significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

environmental education—Education aimed at 

producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable 

concerning the biophysical environment and its 

associated problems, aware of how to help solve these 

problems, and motivated to work toward their 

solution. 

environmental health—Natural composition, structure, 

and functioning of the physical, chemical, and other 

abiotic elements, and the abiotic processes that shape 

the physical environment. 

EO—Executive order. 

EPA—Environmental Protection Agency. 

extinction—Complete disappearance of a species 

from the earth; no longer existing. 

extirpation—Extinction of a population; complete 

eradication of a species within a specified area. 

fauna—All the vertebrate and invertebrate animals 

of an area. 

federal land—Public land owned by the federal 

government, including lands such as national forests, 

national parks, and national wildlife refuges. 

federally listed species—Species listed under the 

federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 

either as endangered, threatened, or species at risk 

(formerly candidate species). 

fee title—Acquisition of most or all of the rights to a 

tract of land. 

fen, also alkaline bog—Wetland that is primarily 

organic soil material (peat or muck) that took 

thousands of years to develop. 

FERC—Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

finding of no significant impact (FONSI)—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). 

fire regime—Description of the frequency, severity, 

and extent of fire that typically occurs in an area or 

vegetative type. 

flora—All the plant species of an area. 

fluvial—Regarding flowing water, usually rivers and 

streams. Important fluvial processes include erosion, 

downcutting of channels, and suspension and 

transport of sediments. 

FMP—Fire management plan. 

FONSI—See finding of no significant impact. 

forb—A broad-leaved, herbaceous plant; a seedproducing annual, biennial, or perennial plant that 

does not develop persistent woody tissue but dies 

down at the end of the growing season. 

forest—Group of trees with their crown overlapping 

(generally forming 60–100% cover). 

fragmentation—The alteration of a large block of 

habitat that creates isolated patches of the original 

habitat that are interspersed with a variety of other 

habitat types; the process of reducing the size and 

connectivity of habitat patches, making movement 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

142 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

of individuals or genetic information between parcels 

difficult or impossible. 

FTE—Full-time equivalent; one or more job 

positions with tours of duty that, when combined, 

equate to one person employed for the standard 

government work-year. 

geographic information system (GIS)—Computer 

system capable of storing and manipulating spatial 

data; a set of computer hardware and software for 

analyzing and displaying spatially referenced 

features (points, lines and polygons) with 

nongeographic attributes such as species and age. 

geomorphology—The study of the physical features 

of the surface of the earth and their underlying 

geological structure. 

GIS—See geographic information system. 

global positioning system (GPS)—System that, by 

using satellite telemetry, can pinpoint exact locations 

of places on the ground. 

goal—Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad 

statement of desired future conditions that conveys 

a purpose but does not define measurable units 

(“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 620 

FW 1.5). 

“go-back” prairie—Previously cultivated cropland that 

has been allowed to revert to herbaceous cover. 

GPS—See global positioning system. 

GS—General schedule (pay rate schedule for certain 

federal positions). 

guild—A group of species that use a common resource 

base in a similar fashion within an ecological 

community. A guild can be generally defined (for 

example, grassland birds) or specifically defined (for 

example, seed-eating small mammals). 

habitat—Suite of existing environmental conditions 

required by an organism for survival and 

reproduction; the place where an organism typically 

lives and grows. 

habitat conservation—Protection of animal or plant 

habitat to ensure that the use of that habitat by the 

animal or plant is not altered or reduced. 

habitat disturbance—Significant alteration of habitat 

structure or composition; may be natural (for example, 

wildland fire) or human-caused events (for example, 

timber harvest and disking). 

habitat type, also vegetation type, cover type—Land 

classification system based on the concept of distinct 

plant associations. 

hemi-marsh—The emergent phase of a seasonal or 

semipermanent wetland where the ratio of open water 

area to emergent vegetation cover is about 50:50, and 

vegetation and open water areas are highly 

interspersed. 

herbivore—Animal feeding on plants. 

herbivory—The eating of plants, especially ones that 

are still living. 

herptile—A reptile or amphibian. 

hydrography—Graph of the water level or rate of 

flow of a body of water as a function of time, showing 

seasonal change. 

hydroperiod—The seasonal and cyclical pattern of 

water in a wetland or river. 

IBA—“Important Bird Area,” as designated by the 

American Bird Conservancy. 

impoundment—A body of water created by collection 

and confinement within a series of levees or dikes, 

creating separate management units although not 

always independent of one another. 

Improvement Act—National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. 

integrated pest management—Methods of managing 

undesirable species such as invasive plants; education, 

prevention, physical or mechanical methods of control, 

biological control, responsible chemical use, and 

cultural methods. 

“interseed”—Mechanical seeding of one or several 

plant species into existing stands of established 

vegetation. 

introduced species—A nonnative plant or animal 

species that is intentionally or accidentally released 

into an ecosystem where it was not previously 

adapted. 

introduction—Intentional or unintentional escape, 

release, dissemination, or placement of a species 

into an ecosystem as a result of human activity. 

invasive plant, also noxious weed—Species that is 

nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration and 

whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, economic 

or environmental harm or harm to human health. 

inviolate sanctuary—Place of refuge or protection 

where animals and birds may not be hunted. 

issue—Any unsettled matter that requires a 

management decision; for example, a Service 

initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, 

a threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, 

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable 

resource condition (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

lentic—Associated with standing fresh water. 

lacustrine—Relating to, formed in, living in, or 

growing in lakes. 

lek—A physical area where males of a certain animal 

species gather to demonstrate their prowess and 

compete for females before or during the mating 

season. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glossary 143 

local agencies—Municipal governments, regional 

planning commissions, or conservation groups. 

lotic—Relating to, or living in, flowing fresh water. 

low-head dam—A human-constructed, wall-like 

structure that is typically built to back up water in a 

reservoir. The dam pools water as it flows over the 

crest or through control structures and drops to the 

lower water level downstream of the dam. 

macrophyte—Plant, especially a marine plant, that 

is large enough to be visible to the naked eye. 

management alternatives—See alternatives. 

management plan—Plan that guides future land 

management practices on a tract of land. See 

cooperative agreement. 

mean sea level—The sea level halfway between 

average levels of high and low water. 

mechanical control—Reduction in numbers or 

elimination of unwanted species through the use of 

mechanical equipment such as mowers and clippers. 

mesic—Characterized by, relating to, or requiring a 

moderate amount of moisture; having a moderate 

rainfall. 

microhabitat—Habitat features at a fine scale; often 

identifies a unique set of local habitat features. 

migration—Regular extensive, seasonal movements 

of birds between their breeding regions and their 

wintering regions; to pass usually periodically from 

one region or climate to another for feeding or 

breeding. 

migratory bird—Bird species that follow a seasonal 

movement from their breeding grounds to their 

wintering grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, 

and songbirds are all migratory birds. 

migratory game bird—Bird species, regulated under 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and state laws 

(legally hunted, including ducks, geese, woodcock, 

and rails). 

mission—Succinct statement of purpose or reason 

for being. 

mitigation—Measure designed to counteract an 

environmental impact or to make an impact less 

severe. 

mixed-grass prairie—Transition zone between the 

tall-grass prairie and the short-grass prairie 

dominated by grasses of medium height that are 

approximately 2–4 feet tall. Soils are not as rich as 

the tall-grass prairie and moisture levels are less. 

monitoring—Process of collecting information to 

track changes of selected parameters over time. 

monotypic—Having only one type or representative. 

moraine—Mass of earth and rock debris carried by 

an advancing glacier and left at its front and side 

edges as it retreats. 

national wildlife refuge (NWR)—Designated area of 

land, water, or an interest in land or water within 

the Refuge System, but does not include coordination 

areas; a complete listing of all units of the Refuge 

System is in the current “Annual Report of Lands 

Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System)— 

Various categories of areas administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior for the conservation of fish 

and wildlife including species threatened with 

extinction, all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges, 

areas for the protection and conservation of fish and 

wildlife that are threatened with extinction, wildlife 

ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, 

and waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 (Improvement Act)—Sets the mission and the 

administrative policy for all refuges in the Refuge 

System; defines a unifying mission for the Refuge 

System; establishes the legitimacy and 

appropriateness of the six priority public uses 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation); 

establishes a formal process for determining 

appropriateness and compatibility; establish the 

responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior for 

managing and protecting the Refuge System; 

requires a comprehensive conservation plan for each 

refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended portions 

of the Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. 

native species—Species that, other than as a result 

of an introduction, historically occurred or currently 

occurs in that ecosystem. 

NAWMP—See North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan. 

Neotropical migrant, also Neotropical migratory bird — 

Bird species that breeds north of the United States– 

Mexico border and winters primarily south of this 

border. 

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act. 

nest success—Percentage of nests that successfully 

hatch one or more eggs of the total number of nests 

initiated in an area. 

NOI—See notice of intent. 

nongovernmental organization—Any group that does 

not include federal, state, tribal, county, city, town, 

local, or other governmental entities. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) 

—“North American Waterfowl Management Plan,” 

signed in 1986, recognizes that the recovery and 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

144 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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. The Souris River basin 

refuges are included in the Prairie Pothole Joint 

Venture. 

notice of intent (NOI)—Notice that an environmental 

impact statement will be prepared and considered 

(40 CFR 1508.22); published in the Federal Register. 

noxious weed, also invasive plant—Any living stage 

(including seeds and reproductive parts) of a parasitic 

or other plant of a kind that is of foreign origin (new 

to or not widely prevalent in the U.S.) and can directly 

or indirectly injure crops, other useful plants, 

livestock, poultry, other interests of agriculture, 

including irrigation, navigation, fish and wildlife 

resources, or public health. According to the Federal 

Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious weed 

(invasive plant) is one that causes disease or has 

adverse effects on humans or the human environment 

and, therefore, is detrimental to the agriculture and 

commerce of the United States and to public health. 

NRCS—Natural Resources Conservation Service of 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

NWI—National wetland inventory. 

NWR—See national wildlife refuge. 

NWRS—See National Wildlife Refuge System. 

objective—Concise statement of what is to be 

achieved, when and where it is to be achieved, and 

who is responsible for the work. Objectives are 

derived from goals and provide the basis for 

determining management strategies. Objectives 

should be attainable, time specific, and measurable. 

palustrine—Refers to a nontidal wetland dominated 

by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, and emergent 

mosses or lichens; or a wetland in tidal areas where 

salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 parts 

per thousand. 

paradigm—An example, view, or philosophy serving 

as a pattern or model. 

Partners in Flight—Western Hemisphere program 

designed to conserve Neotropical migratory birds 

and officially endorsed by numerous federal and 

state agencies and nongovernmental organizations; 

also known as the Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Program. 

partnership—Contract or agreement entered into by 

two or more individuals, groups of individuals, 

organizations or agencies in which each agrees to 

furnish a part of the capital or some inBkind service, 

such as labor, for a mutually beneficial enterprise. 

patch—Area distinct from that around it; an area 

distinguished from its surroundings by environmental 

conditions. 

perennial—Lasting or active through the year or 

through many years; a plant species that has a life 

span of more than 2 years. 

phenology—The relationship between plant or animal 

development and climatic conditions. 

PL—Public law. 

planning team—Team that prepares the 

comprehensive conservation plan. Planning teams 

are interdisciplinary in membership and function. A 

team generally consists of a planning team leader; 

refuge manager and staff biologist; staff specialists 

or other representatives of Service programs, 

ecosystems or regional offices; and state partnering 

wildlife agencies as appropriate. 

planning team leader—Typically a professional 

planner or natural resource specialist knowledgeable 

of the requirements of National Environmental 

Policy Act and who has planning experience. The 

planning team leader manages the refuge planning 

process and ensures compliance with applicable 

regulatory and policy requirements. 

planning unit—Single refuge, an ecologically or 

administratively related refuge complex, or distinct 

unit of a refuge. The planning unit also may include 

lands currently outside refuge boundaries. 

plant association—Classification of plant communities 

based on the similarity in dominants of all layers of 

vascular species in a climax community. 

plant community—Assemblage of plant species unique 

in its composition; occurs in particular locations 

under particular influences; a reflection or integration 

of the environmental influences on the site such as 

soil, temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, 

aspect, and rainfall; denotes a general kind of climax 

plant community (ponderosa pine or bunchgrass). 

population sink—A demographic deficit (deaths + 

immigration > births + emigration) that leads to 

local species extinction, without immigration from 

sources. 

PPJV—Prairie Pothole Joint Venture. 

predation—Mode of life in which food is primarily 

obtained by the killing or consuming of animals. 

prescribed fire—Skillful application of fire to natural 

fuels under conditions such as weather, fuel moisture, 

and soil moisture that allow confinement of the fire 

to a predetermined area and produces the intensity 

of heat and rate of spread to accomplish planned 

benefits to one or more objectives of habitat 

management, wildlife management, or hazard 

reduction. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glossary 145 

priority public use—See wildlife-dependent 

recreational use. 

pristine—Typical of original conditions. 

private land—Land that is owned by a private 

individual, a group of individuals, or a 

nongovernmental organization. 

private landowner—Any individual, group of 

individuals, or nongovernmental organization that 

owns land. 

private organization—Any nongovernmental 

organization. 

propagule—Any part of a plant (such as a bud, 

sucker, spore, or other offshoot) that aids in 

dispersal of the species and from which a new 

individual may develop. 

proposed action—Alternative proposed to best 

achieve the purpose, vision, and goals of a refuge 

(contributes to the Refuge System mission, addresses 

the significant issues, and is consistent with principles 

of sound fish and wildlife management); represents 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan. 

public—Individuals, organizations, and groups; 

officials of federal, state, and local government 

agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may 

include anyone outside the core planning team. It 

includes those who may or may not have indicated 

an interest in Service issues and those who do or do 

not realize that Service decisions may affect them. 

public involvement—Process that offers affected and 

interested individuals and organizations an 

opportunity to become informed about, and to express 

their opinions on, Service actions and policies. In the 

process, these views are studied thoroughly and 

thoughtful consideration of public views is given in 

shaping decisions for refuge management. 

public involvement plan—Broad long-term guidance 

for involving the public in the comprehensive planning 

process. 

public land—Land that is owned by the local, state, 

or federal government. 

purpose of the refuge—Purpose specified in or derived 

from the law, proclamation, executive order, 

agreement, public land order, donation document, or 

administrative memorandum establishing 

authorization or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or 

refuge subunit (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

refuge complex—A grouping of two or more Service 

units (for example, national wildlife refuge, wetland 

management district) that is administered by staff 

at one of the units. 

refuge lands—Lands in which the Service holds full 

interest in fee title, or partial interest such as limitedinterest refuges. 

Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS)—National 

database that contains the unfunded operational needs 

of each refuge. Projects included are those required to 

carry out approved plans and meet goals, objectives, 

and legal mandates. 

refuge purpose—See purpose of the refuge. 

Refuge System—See National Wildlife Refuge System. 

region 6—Mountain-Prairie Region of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, which administers Service 

programs in Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Utah. 

rest—Free from biological, mechanical, or chemical 

manipulation, in reference to refuge lands. 

restoration—Artificial manipulation of a habitat to 

restore it to something close to its natural state. 

Involves taking degraded grassland and 

reestablishing habitat for native plants and animals. 

Restoration usually involves the planting of native 

grasses and forbs, and may include shrub removal 

and prescribed burning. 

rhizomatous—A plant having rhizomes. 

rhizome—A continuously growing, horizontal, 

underground stem that produces roots and sends 

shoots upward at intervals (for example, many iris 

species). 

riparian area or riparian zone—Area or habitat that 

is transitional from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems 

including streams, lakes, wet areas, and adjacent 

plant communities and their associated soils that have 

free water at or near the surface; an area whose 

components are directly or indirectly attributed to 

the influence of water; of or relating to a river; 

specifically applied to ecology, “riparian” describes 

the land immediately adjoining and directly influenced 

by streams. For example, riparian vegetation includes 

all plant life growing on the land adjoining a stream 

and directly influenced by the stream. 

riprap—Loose rock used in water or on soft ground 

to form an embankment or foundation for a structure. 

RONS—See Refuge Operations Needs System. 

rootstock—A root or part of a root used as a stock 

for reproduction. 

runoff —Water from rain, melted snow, or agricultural 

or landscape irrigation that flows over the land 

surface into a water body. 

SAMMS—See Service Asset Maintenance 

Management System. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

146 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

sandhills—Sand dunes created by wind and wave 

action following the melting of large glaciers about 

8,000–10,000 years ago. Soils are sand and silt. Local 

relief exceeds 80 feet in some places. 

scarp—A line of low, steep-sloped cliffs or beaches 

caused by wind or wave erosion. 

scoping—Process of obtaining information from the 

public for input into the planning process. 

sediment—Material deposited by water, wind, and 

glaciers. 

seral stage—Any plant community whose plant 

composition is changing in a predictable way; 

characterized by a group of species or plant 

community that will eventually be replaced by a 

different group of species or plant community, for 

example, an aspen community changing to a 

coniferous forest community. 

Service—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Service Asset Maintenance Management System 

(SAMMS) —National database that contains the 

unfunded maintenance needs of each refuge; 

projects include those required to maintain existing 

equipment and buildings, correct safety deficiencies 

for the implementation of approved plans, and meet 

goals, objectives, and legal mandates. 

shelterbelt—Single to multiple rows of trees and 

shrubs planted around cropland or buildings to 

block or slow down the wind. 

shorebird—Any of a suborder (Charadrii) of birds 

such as a plover or a snipe that frequent the seashore 

or mud flat areas. 

snag—Standing dead tree from which the leaves or 

needles and most of the branches have fallen. Many 

species of wildlife and some plants rely on snags for 

food and cover. 

sound professional judgment—Finding, determination, 

or decision that is consistent with principles of 

sound fish and wildlife management and 

administration, available science and resources, and 

adherence to the requirements of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act and 

other applicable laws. 

spatial—Relating to, occupying, or having the 

character of space. 

special status species—Plants or animals that have 

been identified through federal law, state law, or 

agency policy as requiring special protection of 

monitoring. Examples include federally listed 

endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate 

species; state-listed endangered, threatened, 

candidate, or monitor species; the Service’s species 

of management concern; and species identified by 

the Partners in Flight program as being of extreme 

or moderately high conservation concern. 

special use permit—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 (“National Wildlife 

Refuge System Manual” 5 RM 17.6). 

species of concern—Those plant and animal species, 

while not falling under the definition of special status 

species, that are of management interest by virtue of 

being federal trust species such as migratory birds, 

important game species, or significant keystone 

species; species that have documented or apparent 

populations declines, small or restricted populations, 

or dependence on restricted or vulnerable habitats. 

Species that: (1) are documented or have apparent 

population declines; (2) are small or restricted 

populations; or (3) depend on restricted or vulnerable 

habitats. 

stand—Any homogenous area of vegetation with 

more or less uniform soils, landform, and vegetation. 

Typically used to refer to forested areas. 

step-down management plan—Plan that provides the 

details necessary to carry out management strategies 

identified in the comprehensive conservation plan 

(“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 602 

FW 1.5). 

strategy—Specific action, tool, or technique or 

combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

submergent—Vascular or nonvascular hydrophyte, 

either rooted or nonrooted, that lies entirely beneath 

the water surface, except for flowering parts in 

some species. 

SUP—Special use permit. 

surficial—Relating to or occurring on the surface. 

tansy ragwort—Senecio jacobaea is an Eurasian 

invasive plant in the sunflower family (Asteraceae). 

It spreads primarily by seed—a single tansy ragwort 

plant may produce up to 150,000 seeds, which may 

remain viable for up to 15 years. All parts of this 

plant are poisonous. It causes liver damage to cattle 

and horses, while sheep are affected to a lesser extent. 

(http://www.oneplan.org/index.htm) 

temporarily flooded—Surface water is present for 

brief periods during the growing season. 

threatened species, federal—Species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, that are 

likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant portion of their 

range. 

threatened species, state—Plant or animal species 

likely to become endangered in a particular state 

within the near future if factors contributing to 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glossary 147 

population decline or habitat degradation or loss 

continue. 

trust resource—Resource that, through law or 

administrative act, is held in trust for the people by 

the government. A federal trust resource is one for 

which trust responsibility is given in part to the 

federal government through federal legislation or 

administrative act. Generally, federal trust resources 

are those considered to be of national or international 

importance no matter where they occur, such as 

endangered species and species such as migratory 

birds and fish that regularly move across state lines. 

In addition to species, trust resources include cultural 

resources protected through federal historic 

preservation laws, nationally important and 

threatened habitats, notably wetlands, navigable 

waters, and public lands such as state parks and 

national wildlife refuges. 

trust species—See trust resource. 

understory—Any vegetation whose canopy (foliage) 

is below, or closer to the ground than canopies of 

other plants. 

upland—Dry ground; other than wetlands. 

USACE—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, USFWS)— 

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 composed of more 

than 530 national wildlife refuges and thousands of 

waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 

national fish hatcheries and 78 ecological service 

field stations, the agency enforces federal wildlife 

laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores 

national significant 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 that distributes 

millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and 

hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mission—The mission 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with 

others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, 

and plants and their habitats for the continuing 

benefit of the American people. 

USFWS—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—Federal agency 

whose mission is to provide reliable scientific 

information to describe and understand the earth; 

minimize loss of life and property from natural 

disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and 

mineral resources; and enhance and protect our 

quality of life. 

USGS—See U.S. Geological Survey. 

vision statement—Concise statement of what the 

planning unit should be, or what the Service hopes 

to do, based primarily on the Refuge System mission, 

specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. In 

addition, the vision statement is tied to the 

maintenance and restoration of biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of each refuge 

and the Refuge System. 

visual obstruction—Pertaining to the density of a 

plant community; the height of vegetation that blocks 

the view of predators and conspecifics to a nest. 

visual obstruction reading (VOR)—Measurement of the 

density of a plant community; the height of vegetation 

that blocks the view of predators to a nest. 

VOR—See visual obstruction reading. 

wading birds—Birds having long legs that enable 

them to wade in shallow water. Includes egrets, 

great blue herons, black-crowned night-herons, and 

bitterns. 

warm-season grass—Grass that begins growth later 

in the season (early June); require warmer soil 

temperatures to germinate and actively grow when 

temperatures are warmer (85–95°F). Examples are 

Indiangrass, switchgrass, and big bluestem. 

waterfowl—Category of birds that includes ducks, 

geese, and swans. 

watershed—Geographic area within which water 

drains into a particular river, stream or body of 

water. A watershed includes both the land and the 

body of water into which the land drains. 

wetland—Land transitional between terrestrial and 

aquatic systems where the water table is usually at 

or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow 

water. 

wetland easement—Perpetual agreement entered 

into by a landowner and the Service. The easement 

covers only the wetlands specified in the 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)—Land that the 

Refuge System acquires with federal Duck Stamp 

funds for restoration and management primarily as 

prairie wetland habitat critical to waterfowl and 

other wetland birds. 

WG—Wage grade schedule (pay rate schedule for 

certain federal positions). 

wilderness—“A wilderness, in contrast with those 

areas where man and his own works dominate the 

landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where 

the earth and its community of life are untrammeled 

by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not 

remain” (Wilderness Act of 1964 Section 2c [PL 88­
 

 

 

 

 

 

148 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

577)]). This legal definition places wilderness in the 

Auntrammeled@ or Aprimeval@ end of the environmental 

modification spectrum. Wilderness is roadless lands, 

legally classified as component areas of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System, and managed to 

protect its qualities of naturalness, solitude, and 

opportunity for primitive types of recreation. 

wilderness, recommended—Area studied and found 

suitable for wilderness designation by both the 

Director and Secretary, and recommended for 

designation by the President to Congress. These 

areas await only legislative action by Congress in 

order to become part of the Wilderness System. 

Such areas are also referred to as “pending in 

Congress” (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual” 610 FW 1.5). 

wilderness, study area—Lands and waters identified 

through inventory as meeting the definition of 

wilderness and undergoing evaluation for 

recommendation for inclusion in the Wilderness 

System. A study area must meet the following 

criteria: (1) generally appears to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint 

of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive 

and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least 

5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is sufficient in size 

as to make practicable its preservation and use in an 

unimpaired condition (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual” 610 FW 1.5). 

wildfire—Free-burning fire requiring a suppression 

response; all fire other than prescribed fire that 

occurs in wildlands (“U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual” 621 FW 1.7). 

wildland fire—Every wildland fire is either a wildfire 

or a prescribed fire (“U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual” 621 FW 1.3). 

wildlife-dependent recreational use—Use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, or environmental education and 

interpretation. These are the six priority public uses 

of the Refuge System as established in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as 

amended. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other 

than the six priority public uses, are those that 

depend on the presence of wildlife. 

wildlife management—Practice of manipulating 

wildlife populations either directly through 

regulating the numbers, ages, and sex ratios 

harvested, or indirectly by providing favorable 

habitat conditions and alleviating limiting factors. 

WMD—See wetland management district. 

woodland—Open stands of trees with crowns not 

usually touching, generally forming 25–60% cover. 

WUI—Wildland-urban interface. 

xerophytic—Pertaining to a plant that needs very 

little water (adapted to growing in dry habitat). 
Appendix A 

Environmental Compliance
 

Environmental Action Statement 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Within the spirit and intent of the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s regulations for 

implementing the National Environmental Policy 

act and other statutes, orders, and policies that 

protect fish and wildlife resources, I have 

established the following administrative record. 

I have determined that the action of implementing 

the “Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Des Lacs 

National Wildlife Refuge, J. Clark Salyer National 

Wildlife Refuge, Upper Souris National Wildlife 

Refuge” is found not to have significant 

environmental effects, as determined by the 

attached “finding of no significant impact” and the 

environmental assessment as found with the draft 

comprehensive conservation plan. 

J. Mitch King 

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, CO 

Richard A. Coleman, PhD 

Assistant Regional Director, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, CO 

 

Rod Krey 

Refuge Supervisor (KS, ND, NE, SD) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 

 

 

 

Project Leader 

Souris River Basin National Wildlife Refuge

 Complex 

Upham, ND 

 Date 

 Date 

 Date 

Theodore Gutzke Date 
150 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Four management alternatives for the Souris River 

basin national wildlife refuges (Des Lacs, J. Clark 

Salyer, and Upper Souris) were assessed as to their 

effectiveness in achieving the refuges’ purposes and 

their impacts on the human environment. 

Q	 Alternative A, the “no-action” alternative, would 

continue current management. 

Q	 Alternative B, prioritizes habitats with high 

probability of restoration for management. 

Priority order would be assigned to habitats or 

habitat types on the basis of where funds and 

resources can be best used, are most needed, or 

are most likely to achieve success in meeting 

stated goals and objectives. Other habitats may 

only be partially restored or minimally managed. 

Collaborative research and monitoring would 

increase and scientific knowledge required to 

restore upland and wetland plant and animal 

communities would be shared (with the public 

and other resource managers). Some visitor 

services would be expected to decrease as more 

staff and funding shifts to habitat restoration. 

Environmental education would be emphasized, 

but would rely on volunteers and other groups to 

contribute more time. 

Q	 Alternative C, would emphasize waterfowl 

habitat management and waterfowl production 

over other refuge programs. Research and 

monitoring would focus on actions that enhance 

waterfowl habitat, increase waterfowl nest 

densities, and increase nest and brood survival. 

Visitor service programs that use or enhance 

waterfowl-related activities such as hunting, 

wildlife viewing, or environmental education 

would be emphasized over other activities. 

Q	 Alternative D would restore, to the fullest 

extent, ecological processes, vegetation 

communities, and wildlife characteristic of the 

presettlement period. Research and monitoring 

efforts would focus on strategies that enhance 

native plant and animal communities. Public uses 

that are compatible with or that support 

restoration efforts would be emphasized. 

Interpretation and environmental education 


would be expanded, with an emphasis on natural 


plant and animal communities, ecological
 

processes, and restoration.
 

Based on this assessment and comments received, 

I have selected alternative B as the preferred 

alternative for implementation. The preferred 

alternative was selected because it best meets the 

purposes for which the Souris River basin national 

wildlife refuges were established and is preferable 

to the “no-action” alternative in light of physical, 

biological, economic, and social factors. The 

preferred alternative will continue to provide public 

access for wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation). 

I find that the preferred alternative is not a major 

federal action that would significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment within the 

meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, the 

preparation of an environmental impact statement 

on the proposed action is not required. 

The following is a summary of anticipated 

environmental effects from implementation of the 

preferred alternative: 

Q	 The preferred alternative will not adversely 

impact endangered or threatened species or their 

habitat. 

Q	 The preferred alternative will not adversely 

impact archaeological or historical resources. 

Q	 The preferred alternative will not adversely 

impact wetlands nor does the plan call for 

structures that could be damaged by or that 

would significantly influence the movement of 

floodwater. 

Q	 The preferred alternative will not have a 

disproportionately high or adverse human health 

or environmental effect on minority or lowincome populations. 

Q	 The state of North Dakota has been notified and 

given the opportunity to review the 

comprehensive conservation plan and associated 

environmental assessment. 

 Date 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, CO 

J. Mitch King

Regional Director, Region 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

Key Legislation and Policy
 

In alphabetical order of the name of the act, order, 

or regulation. 

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 (June 8, 1906 [16 USC 431–433, 

34 Stat. 225]): 

Authorizes the president to designate as national 

monuments objects or areas of historic or scientific 

interest on lands owned or controlled by the United 

States. Requires a permit be obtained for 

examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological 

sites, and the gathering of objects of antiquity on 

lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of 

Interior, Agriculture, and Army, and provided 

penalties for violations. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (public 

law [PL] 86-523, June 27, 1960, [16 USC 469–469c, 74 

Stat. 220], as amended, PL 93921, May 24, 1974 

[88 Stat. 174]): 

Carries out the policy established by the “Historic 

Sites Act” (see below), directed federal agencies to 

notify the Secretary of the Interior whenever they 

find a federal or federally assisted, licensed, or 

permitted project may cause loss or destruction of 

significant scientific, prehistoric, or archaeological 

data. Authorizes use of appropriated, donated, and 

transferred funds for the recovery, protection, and 

preservation of such data. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (PL 96-95, 

October 31, 1979 [16 USC 470aa–470ll, 93 Stat. 721]): 

Largely supplants the resource protection 

provisions of the Antiquities Act for archaeological 

items. Establishes detailed requirements for 

issuance of permits for any excavation for or 

removal of archaeological resources from federal or 

Indian lands. Establishes civil and criminal penalties 

for the unauthorized excavation, removal, or 

damage of any such resources; for any trafficking in 

such resources removed from federal or Indian land 

in violation of any provision of federal law; and for 

interstate and foreign commerce in such resources 

acquired, transported, or received in violation of any 

state or local law. Related legislation follows: 

PL 100-588, November 3, 1988 [102 Stat. 2983]: 

Lowers the threshold value of artifacts 

triggering the felony provisions of the 

act from $5,000 to $500; makes 

attempting to commit an action 

prohibited by the act a violation; and 

requires the land managing agencies to 

establish public awareness programs 

regarding the value of archaeological 

resources to the nation. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): 

Requires federally owned, leased, or funded 

buildings and facilities to be accessible to persons 

with disabilities. 

Clean Water Act (1977): 

Requires consultation with the USACE for major 

wetland modifications. 

Criminal Code of Provisions of 1940 (as amended 

[18 USC 41]): 

States the intent of Congress to protect all wildlife 

within federal sanctuaries, refuges, fish hatcheries, 

and breeding grounds. Provides that anyone (except 

in compliance with rules and regulations 

promulgated by authority of law) who hunts, traps, 

or willfully disturbs any such wildlife, or willfully 

injures, molests, or destroys any property of the 

United States on such land or water, shall be fined 

up to $500 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months 

or both. 

Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986: 

Authorizes the purchase of wetlands from Land and 

Water Conservation Fund monies, removing a prior 

prohibition on such acquisitions. Requires the 

Secretary to establish a national wetlands priority 

conservation plan, requires the states to include 

wetlands in their comprehensive outdoor recreation 

plans, and transfers to the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund amount equal to import duties 

on arms and ammunition. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (and recent 

amendments [16 USC 1531–1543; 87 Stat. 884], as 

amended [establishing legislation]): 

Provides for conservation of threatened and 

endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants by 

federal action and by encouraging state programs. 

Specific provisions include the following: 

The listing and determination of critical 

habitat for endangered and threatened 

species and consultation with the 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

152 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Service on any federally funded or 

licensed project that could affect any of 

these agencies. 

Prohibition of unauthorized taking, 

possession, sale, transport, etc., of 

endangered species. 

An expanded program of habitat 

acquisition. 

Establishment of cooperative 

agreements and grants-in-aid to states 

that establish and maintain an active, 

adequate program for endangered and 

threatened species. 

Assessment of civil and criminal 


penalties for violating the act or 


regulations. 


Environmental Education Act of 1990 (PL 101-619, 

November 16, 1990 [20 USC 5501–5510, 104 Stat. 3325]): 

Establishes the Office of Environmental Education 

within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to develop and administer a federal 

environmental education program. Responsibilities 

of the office include developing and supporting 

programs to improve understanding of the natural 

and developed environment, and the relationships 

between humans and their environment; supporting 

the dissemination of educational materials; 

developing and supporting training programs and 

environmental education seminars; managing a 

federal grant program; and administering an 

environmental internship and fellowship program. 

The office is required to develop and support 

environmental programs in consultation with other 

federal natural resource management agencies, 

including the Service. 

Executive Order 11644—Use of Off-road Vehicles on 

Public Lands (1972): 

Provides policy and procedures for regulating offroad vehicles. 

Executive Order 11988—Floodplain Management 

(1977): 

Prevents federal agencies from contributing to the 

“adverse impacts associated with occupancy and 

modification of floodplains” and the “direct or 

indirect support of floodplain development.” In the 

course of fulfilling their respective authorities, 

federal agencies Ashall take action to reduce the risk 

of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on 

human safety, health, and welfare, and to restore 

and preserve the natural and beneficial values 

served by floodplains.” 

Executive Order 12996—Management and General 

Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(1996): 

Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public 

uses of the 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. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): 

Requires the use of integrated management 

systems to control or contain undesirable plant 

species, and an interdisciplinary approach with the 

cooperation of other federal and state agencies. 

Federal Records Act (1950): 

Requires the preservation of evidence of the 

government’s organization, functions, policies, 

decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic 

historical and other information. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 

PL 92-500, section 401 [86 Stat. 816, 33 USC 1411]: 

Requires any applicant for a federal license or 

permit to conduct any activity that may result in a 

discharge into navigable waters to obtain a 

certification from the state in which the discharge 

originates or will originate or, if appropriate, from 

the interstate water pollution control agency having 

jurisdiction over navigable waters at the point 

where the discharge originates or will originate, 

that the discharge will comply with applicable 

effluent limitations and water quality standards. A 

certification obtained for construction of any facility 

must also pertain to subsequent operation of the 

facility. 

PL 92-500, section 404 [86 Stat. 816]: 

Authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting 

through the Chief of Engineers, to issue permits, 

after notice and opportunity for public hearing, for 

discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable 

waters of the United States, including wetlands, at 

specified disposal sites. Selection of disposal sites 

will be in accordance with guidelines developed by 

the Administrator of the EPA in conjunction with 

the Secretary of the Army. Furthermore, the 

Administrator can prohibit or restrict use of any 

defined area as a disposal site whenever she/he 

determines, after notice and opportunity for public 

hearings, that discharge of such materials into such 

areas will have an unacceptable adverse effect on 

municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, fishery 

areas, wildlife, or recreational areas. 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 ([70 Stat. 1119, 16 USC 

742a–742j], as amended): 

Establishes a comprehensive fish and wildlife policy 

and directs the Secretary of the Interior to provide 

continuing research and extension and conservation 

of fish and wildlife resources. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B—Key Legislation and Policy 153 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (PL 96­

366, September 29, 1980 [16 USC 2901–2911], as 

amended 1986, 1988, 1990, and 1992): 

Creates a mechanism for federal matching funding 

of the development of state conservation plans for 

nongame fish and wildlife. Subsequent amendments 

to this law require that the Secretary monitor and 

assess migratory nongame birds, determine the 

effects of environmental changes and human 

activities, identify birds likely to be candidates for 

endangered species listing, and identify 

conservation actions that would prevent this from 

being necessary. In 1989, Congress also directed the 

Secretary to identify lands and waters in the 

Western Hemisphere, the protection, management, 

or acquisition of which would foster conservation of 

migratory nongame birds. All of these activities are 

intended to assist the Secretary in fulfilling the 

Secretary=s responsibilities under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act and the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act, and provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act implementing the 

Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife 

Preservation in the Western Hemisphere. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958): 

Allows the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter 

into agreements with private landowners for 

wildlife management purposes. 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978: 

Improves the administration of fish and wildlife 

programs and amends several earlier laws including 

the Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act, and the Fish 

and Wildlife Act of 1956. Authorizes the Secretary 

to accept gifts and bequests of real and personal 

property on behalf of the United States. Authorizes 

the use of volunteers for Service projects and 

appropriations to carry out volunteer programs. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (August 

21, 1935 [16 USC 461–462, 464–467; 49 Stat. 666], as 

amended by PL 89-249, October 9, 1965 [79 Stat. 971]): 

Known as the “Historic Sites Act,” declares a 

national policy to preserve historic sites and objects 

of national significance, including those located at 

refuges. Provides procedures for designation, 

acquisition, administration, and protection of such 

sites. Designates national historic and natural 

landmarks under authority of this act. As of January 

1989, 31 national wildlife refuges contained such 

sites. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965: 

Provides funds from leasing bonuses, production 

royalties, and rental revenues for offshore oil, gas, 

and sulphur extraction to the Bureau of Land 

Management, USDA Forest Service, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and state and local agencies for 

purchase of lands for parks, open space, and outdoor 

recreation. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 

[16 USC 715–715d, 715e, 715f–715r]: 

Establishes the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission, which consists of the Secretaries of 

Interior (chair), Agriculture, and Transportation; 

two members from the House of Representatives; 

and an ex-officio member from the state in which a 

project is located. The commission approves 

acquisition of land and water, or interests therein, 

and sets the priorities for acquisition of lands by the 

Secretary of the Interior for sanctuaries or for other 

management purposes. Under this act, to acquire 

lands or interests therein, the state concerned must 

consent to such acquisition by legislation. Such 

legislation has been enacted by most states. 

[16 USC 715s, 45 Stat. 1222], as amended: 

Authorizes acquisition, development, and 

maintenance of migratory bird refuges; cooperation 

with other agencies in conservation; and 

investigations and publications on North American 

birds. Authorizes payment of 25% of net receipts 

from administration of national wildlife refuges to 

the country or counties in which such refuges are 

located. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act 

of 1934 ([16 USC 718–718h, 48 Stat. 51], as amended 

March 16, 1934): 

Known as the “Duck Stamp Act,” requires each 

waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older to possess 

a valid federal hunting stamp. Authorizes the 

requirement of an annual stamp for the hunting of 

waterfowl. Proceeds go towards the purchase of 

habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife. Duck 

stamps are also purchased (1) for entry into some 

refuges, (2) by conservationists, and (3) for stamp 

collections. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are 

deposited in a special Treasury account known as 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and are not 

subject to appropriations. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 ([16 USC 703–711, 

50 CFR subchapter B], as amended): 

Implements treaties with Great Britain (for 

Canada) and Mexico for protection of migratory 

birds whose welfare is a federal responsibility. 

Provides for regulations to control taking, 

possession, selling, transporting, and importing of 

migratory birds and provides penalties for 

violations. Enables the setting of seasons and other 

regulations (including the closing of areas, federal or 

nonfederal) related to the hunting of migratory 

birds. 

National and Community Service Act of 1990 (PL 101­

610, November 16, 1990 [42 USC 12401, 104 Stat. 3127]): 

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of 

the United States in full- and part-time projects 

designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, provide 

job skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill 

environmental needs. Make grants to states for the 

creation of programs for citizens over 17 years of 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

154 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

age. Programs must be designed to fill unmet 

educational, human, environmental, and public 

safety needs. Initially, participants will receive 

postemployment benefits of up to $1000 per year for 

part-time and $2,500 for full-time participants. 

Several provisions are of particular interest to the 

Service: 

American Conservation and Youth 

Service Corps: As a federal grant 

program established under subtitle C of 

the law, the corps offers an opportunity 

for young adults between the ages of 16 

and 25, or in the case of summer 

programs, between 15 and 21, to engage 

in approved human and natural 

resources projects that benefit the 

public or are carried out on federal or 

Indian lands. To be eligible for 

assistance, natural resources programs 

will focus on improvement of wildlife 

habitat and recreational areas, fish 

culture, fishery assistance, erosion, 

wetlands protection, pollution control, 

and similar projects. A stipend of not 

more than 100% of the poverty level 

will be paid to participants. A 

commission established to administer 

the Youth Service Corps will make 

grants to states, the Secretaries of 

Agriculture and Interior, and the 

Director of ACTION to carry out these 

responsibilities. 

Thousand Points of Light: Creates a 

nonprofit Points of Light Foundation to 

administer programs to encourage 

citizens and institutions to volunteer to 

solve critical social issues, discover new 

leaders, and develop institutions 

committed to serving others. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91­

190, January 1, 1970 [42 USC 4321–4347, 83 Stat. 852], 

as amended by PL 94-52, July 3, 1975 [89 Stat. 258] and 

by PL 94-83, August 9, 1975 [89 Stat. 424]): 

Requires all agencies including the Service to 

examine the environmental effects of their actions, 

incorporate environmental information, and use 

public participation in the planning and 

implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must 

integrate the act with other planning requirements 

and prepare appropriate documents to facilitate 

better environmental decision making (40 CFR 

1500). Declares national policy to encourage a 

productive and enjoyable harmony between humans 

and their environment. 

Section 102: 

“To the fullest extent possible the policies, 

regulations, and public laws of the United States 

shall be interpreted and administered in accordance 

with the policies set forth in this Act, and all 

agencies of the Federal Government shall...insure 

that presently unquantified environmental 

amenities and values may be given appropriate 

consideration in decision making along with 

economic technical considerations.” 

Section 102(2)c: 

Requires all federal agencies, with respect to major 

federal actions significantly affecting the quality the 

quality of the human environment, to submit to the 

Council on Environmental Quality a detailed 

statement of 

the environmental impact of the 

proposed action; 

any adverse environmental effect that 

cannot be avoided should the proposal 

be implemented; 

alternatives to the proposed action; 

the relationship between local shortterm uses of the environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity; 

any irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources that would 

be involved in the proposed action, 

should it be implemented. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (PL 89­

665, October 15, 1966 [16 USC 470–470b, 470c–470n; 80 

Stat. 915], and repeatedly amended): 

Provides for preservation of significant historical 

features (buildings, objects, and sites) through a 

grants-in-aid program to the states. Establishes the 

National Register of Historic Places and a program 

of matching grants under the existing National 

Trust for Historic Preservation (16 USC 468–468d). 

Establishes the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, which was made a permanent 

independent agency in PL 94-422, approved 

September 28, 1976 (90 Stat. 1319). Creates the 

Historic Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are 

directed to take into account the effects of their 

actions on items or sites listed or eligible for listing 

in the National Register. As of January 1989, 91 

historic sites at national wildlife refuges have been 

placed on the National Register. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

of 1966 (PL 89-669 [16 USC 668dd–668ee, 80 Stat. 929], 

as amended): 

Defines the Refuge System as including wildlife 

refuges, areas for protection and conservation of 

fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction, 

wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management 

areas, and waterfowl production areas. The 

Secretary is authorized to permit any use of an area 

provided such use is compatible with the major 

purposes for which such area was established. The 

purchase considerations for rights-of-way go into 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the 

acquisition of lands. By regulation, up to 40% of an 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B—Key Legislation and Policy 155 

area acquired for a migratory bird sanctuary may 

be opened to migratory bird hunting unless the 

Secretary finds that the taking of any species of 

migratory game birds in more than 40% of such area 

would be beneficial to the species. Requires an act 

of Congress for the divestiture of lands in the 

system, except for (1) lands acquired with 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission funds, (2) 

lands that can be removed from the system by land 

exchange, or (3) if brought into the system by a 

cooperative agreement, pursuant to the terms of the 

agreement. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 (PL 105-57, October 9, 1997, Amendment to the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 

1966): 

Sets the mission and the administrative policy for 

all refuges in the 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, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation). Establishes a formal process for 

determining appropriateness and compatibility. 

Establishes the responsibilities of the Secretary of 

the Interior for managing and protecting the 

Refuge System. Requires a CCP for each refuge by 

the year 2012. Amended portions of the Refuge 

Recreation Act and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966. 

Key provisions include the following: 

A requirement that the Secretary of the 

Interior ensures maintenance of the 

biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge 

System. 

The definition of compatible wildlifedependent recreation as “legitimate and 

appropriate general public use of the 

[National Wildlife Refuge] System.” 

The establishment of hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and 

interpretation as “priority public uses” 

where compatible with the mission and 

purpose of individual national wildlife 

refuges. 

The refuge managers’ authority to use 

sound professional judgment in 

determining which public uses are 

compatible at national wildlife refuges 

and whether or not they will be allowed 

(a formal process for determining 

“compatible use” is currently being 

developed). 

The requirement of open public 

involvement in decisions to allow new 

uses of national wildlife refuges and 

renew existing ones, as well as in the 

development of CCPs for national 

wildlife refuges. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Regulations 

(50 CFR 25–35, 43 CFR 3103.2 and 3120.3-3): 

Provide regulations for administration and 

management of national wildlife refuges including 

mineral leasing, exploration, and development. 

Rights-of-way General Regulations 

(December 19, 1969, 50 CFR 29.21, 34 FR 

19907): 

Provide for procedures for filing 

applications. Provide terms and 

conditions under which rights-of-way 

over, above, and across lands 

administered by the Service may be 

granted. 

Wilderness Preservation and Management 

(50 CFR 35, 16 USC 1131-1136, 43 USC 

1201, 78 Stat. 890,): 

Provides procedures for establishing 

wilderness units under the Wilderness 

Act of 1964 at units of the Refuge 

System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and 

Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998 

(PL 105-242 [112 Stat. 1575]): 

Encourages the use of volunteers to assist the 

Service in the management of refuges within the 

Refuge System. Facilitates partnerships between 

the Refuge System and nonfederal entities to 

promote public awareness of the resources of the 

Refuge System and public participation in the 

conservation of those resources. Encourages 

donations and other contributions by persons and 

organizations to the Refuge System. 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (1990): 

Requires federal agencies and museums to 

inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act (PL 101­

233, December 13, 1989 [16 USC 4401–4412, 103 Stat. 

1968]): 

Conserves North American wetland ecosystems, 

waterfowl and other migratory birds, fish, and 

wildlife that depend on such habitats. Establishes a 

council to review project proposals and provides 

funding for the projects. Provides funding and 

administrative direction for implementation of the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan and 

the Tripartite Agreement on Wetlands between 

Canada, United States, and Mexico. Converts the 

Pittman–Robertson account into a trust fund, with 

the interest available without appropriation through 

the year 2006 to carry out the programs authorized 

by the act, along with an authorization for annual 

appropriation of $15 million plus an amount equal to 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

156 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

the fines and forfeitures collected under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Available funds may be 

expended, upon approval of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission, for payment of not to 

exceed 50% of the United States share of the cost of 

wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, 

or the United States (or 100% of the cost of projects 

on federal lands). At least 50% and no more than 

70% of the funds received are to go to Canada and 

Mexico each year. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962: 

Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

administer refuges, hatcheries, and other 

conservation areas for recreational use, when such 

uses do not interfere with the areas’ primary 

purposes. Authorizes construction and maintenance 

of recreational facilities and the acquisition of land 

for incidental fish- and wildlife-oriented recreational 

development or protection of natural resources. 

Authorizes the charging of fees for public uses. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1966 (PL 87-714 [16 USC 

460k et seq., 76 Stat. 653–654]): 

Authorizes appropriate, incidental, or secondary 

recreational use at conservation areas administered 

by the Secretary of the Interior for fish and wildlife 

purposes. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (June 15, 1935, section 

401 [16 USC 715s, 49 Stat. 383]): 

Provides for payments to counties in lieu of taxes, 

using revenues derived from the sale of products 

from refuges. Related legislation follows: 

PL 88-523, August 30, 1964 (78 Stat. 701): 

Makes major revisions by requiring 

that all revenues received from refuge 

products such as animals, timber, and 

minerals or from leases or other 

privileges be deposited in a special 

Treasury account and net receipts 

distributed to counties for public 

schools and roads. 

PL 93-509, December 3, 1974 (88 Stat. 1603): 

Requires that moneys remaining in the 

fund after payments be transferred to 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 

for land acquisition under provisions of 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. 

PL 95-469, October 17, 1978 (92 Stat. 1319): 

Expands the revenue-sharing system to 

include national fish hatcheries and 

Service research stations. Includes in 

the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund 

receipts from the sale of salmonid 

carcasses. Authorizes appropriations to 

make up any difference between the 

amount in the fund and the amount 

scheduled for payment in any year. The 

stipulation that payments be used for 

schools and roads was removed, but 

counties were required to pass 

payments along to other units of local 

government within the county that 

suffer losses in revenues due to the 

establishment of Service areas. 

Payments to counties were established 

as follows: 

—	 On acquired land, the greatest amount 

calculated on the basis of 75 cents per acre, 

3⁄4 of 1% of the appraised value, or 25% of 

the net receipts produced from the land 

—	 On land withdrawn from the public domain, 

25% of net receipts and basic payments 

under PL 94-565 [31 USC 1601–1607, 90 

Stat. 2662], payment in lieu of taxes on 

public lands 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1978 (PL 95-469, 

October 17, 1978, amended [16 USC 715s; 50 CFR, 

part 34]): 

Changes the provisions for sharing revenues with 

counties in a number of ways. Makes revenue 

sharing applicable to all lands administered by the 

Service, whereas previously it was applicable only 

to areas in the Refuge System. Makes payments 

available for any governmental purpose, whereas 

the old law restricted the use of payments to roads 

and schools. For lands acquired in fee simple, 

provides a payment of 75 cents per acre, 3⁄4 of 1% of 

fair market value or 25% of net receipts, whichever 

is greatest, whereas the old law provided a payment 

of 3⁄4 of 1% adjustment cost or 25% of net receipts, 

whichever was greater. Makes reserve (public 

domain) lands entitlement lands under PL 94-565 

(16 USC 1601–1607), and provides for a payment of 

25% of net receipts. Authorizes appropriations to 

make up any shortfall in net receipts, to make 

payments in the full amount for which counties are 

eligible. The old law provided if net receipts were 

insufficient to make full payment, payment to each 

county would be reduced proportionally. 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 28, 1906 [18 USC 41, 43 

Stat. 98, 18 USC 145]: 

Provides the first federal protection for wildlife at 

national wildlife refuges. Makes it unlawful to hunt, 

trap, capture, willfully disturb, or kill any bird or 

wild animal or take or destroy the eggs of any such 

birds on any lands of the United States set apart or 

reserved as refuges or breeding grounds for such 

birds or animals by any law, proclamation, or 

executive order, except under rules and regulations 

of the Secretary. Protects government property on 

such lands. 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948 (section 41 of 

the Criminal Code, title 18 [18 USC 41, Stat. 686]): 

Consolidates the penalty provisions of various acts 

from January 24, 1905 [16 USC 684–687, 33 Stat. 

614] through March 10, 1934 [16 USC 694–694b, 48 

Stat. 400]. Restates the intent of Congress to 
 

 

 

Appendix B—Key Legislation and Policy 157 

protect all wildlife within federal sanctuaries, 

refuges, fish hatcheries, and breeding grounds. 

Provides that anyone (except in compliance with 

rules and regulations promulgated by authority of 

law) who hunts, traps, or willfully disturbs any 

wildlife on such areas or willfully injures, molests, or 

destroys any property of the United States on such 

lands or waters shall be fined, imprisoned, or both. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ([29 USC 794], as amended, 

title 5 of PL 93-112, October 1, 1973 [87 Stat. 355]): 

Prohibits discrimination based on handicap under 

any program or activity receiving federal financial 

assistance. 

Rivers and Harbors Act (1899, section 10): 

Requires the authorization of USACE prior to any 

work in, on, over, or under navigable waters of the 

United States. 

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife 

Conservation Purposes Act of 1948: 

Provides that, on determination by the 

administrator of the General Services 

Administration, real property no longer needed by a 

federal agency can be transferred without 

reimbursement to the Secretary of the Interior if 

the land has particular value for migratory birds, or 

to a state agency for other wildlife conservation 

purposes. 

Wilderness Act of 1964 (PL 88-577, September 3, 1964): 

Directs the Secretary of the Interior, within 10 

years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or 

more acres and every roadless island within the 

Refuge System and National Park Service for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. 

 Laws and Executive Orders that Regulate Recreational Use in the Refuge System 


Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 [16 USC 410 hh3233, 43 USC 1602–1784]
 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 USC 1601–1624] 

Antiques Act of 1906 [16 USC 431–433]
 

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1960 [16 USC 469–469c], as amended 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 [16 USC 470aa–470mm]
 

Comprehensive Environmental Responses, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 [16 USC 1531–1544], as amended 


Executive Order 11593—Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment; Protection of 

Historical, Archaeological, and Scientific Properties 

Executive Order 11644—Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands
 

Executive Order 11988—Floodplain Management 

Executive Order 11990—Protection of Wetlands 


Executive Order 12372—Intergovernmental Review of Federal Program 

Executive Order 12962—Recreational Fisheries 


Executive Order 12996—Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Executive Order 13006—Locating Federal Facilities on Historic Properties in Our Nation’s Central 

Cities 

Executive Order 13007—Indian Sacred Sites 

Executive Order 13287—Preserve America
 

The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 USC 742f (a) (4)], as amended 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act [16 USC 2901–2911], as amended 

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 USC 661(1)–662(c)] 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 [16 USC 7421]
 

Historic Sites, Building and Antiquities Act of 1935 [16 USC 461–462, 464–467] 

Land and Water Conservation Fund [16 USC 460(l–4)–(l–11)], as amended. 


Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 [16 USC 715–715d, 715e, 715f–715r], as amended 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 [16 USC 668dd–669ee], as amended 


National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

Natural Historic Preservation Act of 1966 [16 USC 470–470b, 470c–470n], as amended 
 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 [16 USC 460k–460k4], as amended 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1969 [16 USC 460k–460k4], as amended 


Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, as amended 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act [16 USC 1271–1287], as amended 


Wilderness Act of 1964 [16 USC 1131–1136] 

158 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
 

 

 

 

Appendix C 

Section 7 Biological Evaluation 


INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM 

Originating Person(s): 

Theodore Gutzke, Souris River Basin NWR Complex 

Toni Griffin, Region 6, Division of Planning 

Telephone Number(s): 

Souris River Basin NWR Complex 701/768-2548 

Planning 303/236-4378 

Date: August 7, 2007 

I. Region: 6 

II. Service Activity (Program): Refuges 

III. Pertinent Species and Habitat 

A. Federally Listed Species and/or their critical habitat within the action area 

1. Whooping Crane (Endangered) 

2. Gray Wolf (Endangered) 

3. Bald Eagle (Threatened) 

4. Piping Plover (Threatened) 

5. There is no federally designated critical habitat on the action area at Des Lacs NWR and J. Clark 

Salyer NWR 

6. Lake Darling in Renville County is designated critical habitat for piping plover on Upper Souris 

NWR. 

B. Proposed species and/or proposed critical habitat within the action area 

1. None 

C. Candidate species within the action area 

1. Dakota skipper 

IV. Geographic area, station name, and action 

Geographic area: Souris River basin 

Station(s): Des Lacs NWR, Upper Souris NWR, and J. Clark Salyer NWR 

Action: Issuance and implementation of Souris River Basin Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

V. Location (attach map) 

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: The Souris River basin refuges are located within the USFWS 

Mountain-Prairie Region 6, and specifically in the Hudson Bay ecosystem. 

B. Counties and State: Bottineau, Burke, McHenry, Renville, and Ward Counties, North Dakota. 
 

160 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude): 

Des Lacs NWR is located at 102° 6' 44" W, 48° 46' 19" N. 

Upper Souris NWR is located at 101° 37' 3" W, 48° 35' 48" N. 

J. Clark Salyer NWR is located at 100° 49' 14" W, 48° 43' 80" N. 

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: 

Des Lacs NWR headquarters is located 1 mile west of Kenmare, ND. 

Upper Souris NWR headquarters is located 8 miles east of Carpio, ND. 

J. Clark Salyer NWR headquarters is located 2 miles north of Upham, ND. 

E. Species/habitat occurrence: 

1. Whooping cranes migrate through the area in the spring and fall. Whooping cranes are observed 

annually in small numbers in the area on private land surrounding the refuges, but have not been 

documented using the Des Lacs or J. Clark Salyer NWR’s. One whooping crane was observed twice 

one fall morning flying low over the refuge and was thought to have spent the previous night on a 

refuge pool before continuing its flight south. 

2. Gray wolves have been observed in the vicinity of the refuge since 2000. Wolves are not known 

to be resident on the Des Lacs or J. Clark Salyer NWR’s, but have been observed moving through 

the area and may potentially use the refuges at any time. 

3. Bald eagles migrate through the area and utilize the Des Lacs and Upper Souris refuges annually 

in the spring and fall, and have been observed on J. Clark Salyer NWR during all seasons. Bald 

eagles do not breed on the refuges. Up to 20 bald eagles have been observed on the refuge in the fall 

at one time and an average of 10-14 are observed annually in October and November, though the 

total number of individual birds migrating through is likely much higher. Bald eagles using the Des 

Lacs and J. Clark Salyer NWR’s feed on migrating waterfowl and carrion, and typically roost in 

woodlands and on the frozen lakes and marshes. Fewer eagles are observed in the spring, and they 

follow the waterfowl migration north in March and April. 

4. Piping plovers have been observed on Upper Souris NWR. Recorded sightings have only 

occurred during the late 1980s and early 1990s when drought lowered Lake Darling water levels 

and exposed beach-like shoreline. At least one young plover has been observed indicating that 

nesting does occur. Suitable nesting habitat only occurs when low water levels on Lake Darling 

expose shorelines during the summer. Piping plovers have not been observed on the Des Lacs or J. 

Clark Salyer NWR’s, but are found within 20 miles of the refuge. Suitable habitat does not exist on 

the Des Lacs nor J. Clark Salyer NWR’s for piping plovers. 

5. Dakota skippers have not been observed on the Des Lacs or J. Clark Salyer NWR’s, though 

potential habitat may exist. Specific surveys for the occurrence of Dakota skippers have not been 

completed for the refuge at this time, though extensive collections of butterflies have been made 

throughout the refuge. 

VI. Description of proposed action: Issuance and implementation of Souris River Basin Refuges 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

VII. Determination of effects 

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in items III. A, B & C: 

1. There has been no use of the refuge by whooping cranes in the past. A change in water 

management to provide more shallow water marshes on the refuges and may influence whooping 

crane use during migration. 
 

2. Gray wolf use of the refuges is not expected to change with a change in management of the 

refuges upland habitats that will occur after the CCP is completed. Habitats are expected to be 

managed as more grassland habitat with fewer trees and this should not influence whether gray 

wolves use the refuges. 

3. Bald eagle use is not expected to change with implementation of the CCP. Eagles will still 

follow the waterfowl migrations in the spring and fall and overall concentrations of waterfowl on 

the refuges are not expected to change significantly. The amount of disturbance is not expected to 

differ from current uses and availability of food sources and roosting areas is not expected to 

change. 

4. Piping plovers do not currently use refuge marshes and suitable saline shorebird habitat is not 

going to be available on the refuges due to implementation of the CCP. Depending upon annual 

precipitation, evaporation, and amount of water inflows and releases, Lake Darling (Upper Souris 

NWR) water elevations will cycle, periodically creating exposed shorelines that may attract plovers. 

5. Dakota skippers may find suitable habitat on the refuges as a result of improving native prairie 

habitats through the implementation of the CCP and more targeted intensive management of those 

tracts of habitat most suitable for restoration. Intensive prescribed burning may impact Dakota 

skippers if they do occur on the refuges. 

6. Implementation of the preferred alternative will not affect the status of designated critical habitat 

for piping plover on Upper Souris NWR. Plovers and refuge habitat will continue to receive 

protection. There is no federally designated critical habitat on Des Lacs or J. Clark Salyer NWR’s, 

and the CCP does not find a need to propose designating critical habitat within the refuges at this 

time. 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects: 

1. The actions of the CCP implementation on Des Lacs, J. Clark Salyer, and Upper Souris NWR’s 

are not expected to create adverse effects on whooping cranes, gray wolves, bald eagles and piping 

plovers. The implementation of more intensive management may create more suitable and potential 

habitat for Dakota skippers, though the prescribed burning activities to improve native prairie 

habitat on the refuges may be detrimental to skipper productivity. Specific surveys during the 

skipper flight period will be initiated in potential habitat in the future, and prescribed burning 

actions may need to be modified if skippers are found using the refuges. 

 

VIII. Effect determination and response requested: 

[* = optional] 

A. Listed species/designated critical habitat 

Determination Response requested 

No effect/no adverse modification 

(species: piping plover) 

 _____

May affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect species/adversely modify critical habitat 

(species: whooping crane, gray wolf, bald eagle) 

____

 *Concurrence 

 _ 

May affect, and is likely to adversely 

affect species/modify critical habitat 

(species: none) 

 _____ Formal Consultation 

Appendix C—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 161 

 

 

Concurrence 
B. Proposed species/proposed critical habitat 

Determination Response requested 

No effect on proposed species/no adverse 

modification of proposed critical habitat 

(species: none) 

 _____ 

Is likely to jeopardize proposed species or 

adversely modify proposed critical habitat 

(species: none) 

 _____ Conference 

C. Candidate Species

Determination

No effect 

(species: None ) 

 Response requested

 _____ *Concurrence

May affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect species/adversely modify critical habitat 

(species: Dakota skipper) 

_____

 

 

 

 

 

Is likely to jeopardize candidate species 

(species: None ) 

 _____ Conference 

Theodore Gutzke, Project Leader 

Souris River Basin NWR Complex 

 

IX. Reviewing ESO Evaluation 

Concurrence __________ Nonconcurrence __________ 

Formal Consultation required _____ 

Conference required _____
 

Informal conference required _____ 

Remarks: 

 

___________________________________

Jeffrey Towner, Field Supervisor 

Ecological Services, Bismarck, ND 

 

162 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

 Concurrence 

 *Concurrence 

______________________________________________ 

Date 

____________ 

Date 
Appendix D 


Contributors 

This CCP is the result of extensive, collaborative, and enthusiastic efforts by the 18 members of the Souris 

River basin refuges planning team below. Many others contributed insight and support. 

Planning Team 

Name Title Agency

Lee Albright Former WMD manager, J. Clark Salyer NWR USFWS 

Duane Anderson Biological science technician, Upper Souris NWR USFWS 


Mark Ely GIS specialist USFWS 

Gary Erickson Refuge manager, J. Clark Salyer NWR USFWS 


Fred Giese Former project leader, Des Lacs NWR USFWS 

Todd Grant Wildlife biologist, Souris River Basin Complex USFWS 


Toni Griffin Planning team leader USFWS 

Tedd Gutzke Project leader, Souris River Basin Complex USFWS 


Robert Howard Former project leader, J. Clark Salyer NWR USFWS 

Dean Knauer Former project leader, Upper Souris NWR USFWS 


Randy Kreil Division chief, wildlife division NDGF 

Darla Leslie Administrative assistant, Upper Souris NWR USFWS 


Chase Marshall Fire management officer, J. Clark Salyer NWR USFWS 

Robert Murphy Former wildlife biologist, Des Lacs NWR USFWS 


Tom Pabian Refuge manager, Upper Souris NWR USFWS 

Scott Peterson Wildlife resource management supervisor NDGF 


Dan Severson Refuge manager, Des Lacs NWR USFWS 

Bob Murphy and Todd Grant (wildlife biologists for Des Lacs NWR Complex and J. Clark Salyer NWR Complex, 

respectively) were principle authors of the biological portions of this CCP, in addition to their overall team 

participation. 

Contributors 

The Service would like to acknowledge the efforts of the following individuals toward the completion of this 

CCP. The diversity, talents, and knowledge contributed by these individuals dramatically improved the 

vision and completeness of this document. 

Name Title Agency 

Bob Barrett 

Elgin Crows Breast 

Rick Coleman 

Former deputy refuge supervisor; North Dakota, 

South Dakota 

Cultural preservation officer 

Assistant regional director, NWRS 

USFWS 

Three Affiliated Tribes 


USFWS 
 

Name Title Agency

Megan Estep Former refuge hydrologist USFWS 

Larry Gamble Environmental contaminants coordinator USFWS 

Galen Green Fire ecologist, retired USFWS 

Lloyd Jones Regional compatibility coordinator USFWS 

Linda Kelly Former branch chief, comprehensive conservation 

planning USFWS 

Jim Kelton Regional fire management specialist USFWS 

Wayne King Regional biologist USFWS 

Lynne Koontz 

Rod Krey 

Murray Laubhan 

Economist 

Refuge supervisor for Kansas, Nebraska, North 

Dakota, and South Dakota 

Biologist 

USGS, Fort Collins 

Science Center 

USFWS 

USGS, Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center 

Rachael Laubhan Biologist USFWS 

Johnida Martin Former wildlife biologist, Upper Souris NWR USFWS 

Rich Meyer Tribal member Three Affiliated Tribes 

Bruce Nadeau Tribal member Turtle Mountain Band 

of Chippewa 

Steve Odegaard Resource manager USACE 

Deb Parker Writer-editor USFWS 

Davis Redhorse Native American liaison USFWS 

Cory Rubin Former wildlife biologist, Upper Souris NWR USFWS 

Natalie Sexton Wildlife biologist USGS, Fort Collins 

Science Center 

Michael Spratt Division chief, division of refuge planning USFWS 

Jeffery Towner Field supervisor, ecological services, North Dakota USFWS 

Connie Young-Dubovsky Regional NEPA coordinator USFWS 

164 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E 

Public Involvement 


Public scoping began January 17, 2003, with 

publication of an NOI in the Federal Register to 

prepare comprehensive conservation plans and 

associated environmental documents for the three 

Souris River basin refuges and announce 

opportunities for public input on refuge management. 

In March 2003, a planning update was sent to each 

individual, organization, and government 

representative on the CCP mailing list (see list 

below). The planning update provided information 

about the history of the Refuge System and the CCP 

process, along with an invitation and schedule to 

upcoming open houses. 

Open houses were announced in local newspapers 

and on radio and television stations. Flyers were 

posted at local businesses throughout the area and 

announcements were made at meetings of local 

organizations including Minot City Council, Bottineau 

County Wildlife Club, and Bottineau Rotary Club. 

Six public open houses were held in local 

communities throughout the Souris River basin 

area on March 24–27, 2003. At the start of each 

meeting, the CCP planner or refuge personnel gave 

a presentation about the history of the program, 

along with an overview of the CCP and NEPA 

processes. Attendees were encouraged to ask 

questions and offer comments. The turnout was 

mixed, from a few attendees to 18 individuals at a 

single-refuge meeting. In addition to scoping meetings, 

postage-paid comment forms were sent to everyone 

on the mailing list. 

A second planning update was distributed in 

November 2003. This update provided information 

about the ongoing public involvement effort and a 

summary of public comments that were received 

during the public open houses. 

During the scoping effort, 57 comments were 

received from open houses, letters, and comment 

forms. Comments identified biological, social, and 

economic concerns regarding refuge management. 

This input was used in the development of 

management alternatives considered in the draft 

CCP and EA, plus the goals, objectives, and 

strategies described for the proposed action. 

The draft CCP and EA was presented to the public 

February 2, 2007, for a 45-day comment period. An 

open house was held March 6, 2007, in Minot, North 

Dakota. Twenty-one people attended the open 

house and 18 people provided written comments 

during the comment period on the draft plan. 

PUBLIC COMMENTS 

The following issues, concerns, and comments are a 

compilation and summary of those expressed during 

the February–March 2007 comment period for the 

draft CCP and EA. Comments were provided by the 

public, federal and state agencies, local and county 

governments, private organizations, Service staff, 

and individuals concerned about the natural resources 

and public use of the Souris River basin refuges. 

Comments were received orally at meetings, via 

email, fax, and in writing. 

The issues, comments, and concerns are summarized, 

followed by responses from the Service. Where 

there were similar statements from more than one 

commenter, the statements were grouped into one 

summarized comment. 

Comments about editorial and presentation 

corrections were addressed in the production of this 

final CCP and are not detailed here. 

The refuge staffs recognize and appreciate all input 

received from the public review period. To address 

this input, several clarifications and some changes 

are reflected in this final CCP. 

Comments That Apply to All 

Souris River Basin Refuges 

COMMENT 1: There is an increasing problem in the 

northern plains with the invasion of wet meadows 

by cattails. This invasion degrades the meadows 

and makes them less attractive to species like 

yellow rail and Le Conte’s sparrow. Monitoring 

and management of this problem is important. 

RESPONSE 1: Cattail invasion is not a major problem in 

the managed meadow zones at J. Clark Salyer NWR 

and Upper Souris NWR. Robust emergents are 

common in oxbows, depressions, and meander scars 

in meadows (see in “Chapter 3, Refuge Resources 

and Descriptions—Meadow” of this final CCP). 

Elsewhere, cattail can increase during wet cycles but 

decreases during dry cycles when sedges and rushes 

become more common. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

166 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Unintended changes in wetland soils in the Benson 

Unit and Redhead Unit subimpoundments at Upper 

Souris NWR occurred because of dike and spillway 

modifications during the Souris River Flood Control 

Project. As mitigation, the dikes and spillways were 

elevated (structure 326 in particular) to allow a 

greater ability to manage water levels in the major 

impoundments. Soils in the Benson and Redhead 

units are likely more saturated than prior to spillway 

modifications. Because the Benson and Redhead 

units are wetland habitat (rather than meadow 

habitat), control of robust emergents such as cattail 

is adequately described and control measures 

addressed (see “Chapter 3, Refuge Resources and 

Descriptions” and “Chapter 4, Management 

Direction” of this final CCP). 

COMMENT 2: Ban hunting, snowmobiles, ATVs, 

prescribed burning, trapping, and development 

of new roads at the refuges. 

RESPONSE 2: Prescribed fire and trapping are 

management activities that are used by refuge staff 

to enhance habitats and wildlife populations and will 

continue. Hunting is an approved activity and is 

covered by a compatibility determination (appendix D). 

Most new road projects will be avoided but, if 

required in the future, will follow the process of an 

environmental analysis that mandates public input 

and review. ATVs and snowmobiles are not allowed 

at the refuges for recreational purposes. 

COMMENT 3: What is the purpose of the refuges? It 

appears the Service is interested in birds more 

than the concerns of the people. 

RESPONSE 3: The purposes of the refuges can be found 

in “Chapter 2, The Refuges” of this final CCP. These 

refuges were dedicated to the migratory bird resource 

and are, therefore, managed to enhance wildlife 

populations. These are lands where wildlife comes 

first. 

COMMENT 4: What is the role of the Army Corps of 

Engineers at the refuges? 

RESPONSE 4: The USACE role is one of coordination 

and support. They designed and built several of the 

water control structures at Upper Souris NWR and 

J. Clark Salyer NWR to (1) assist the people in this 

area with floodwater protection, and (2) mitigate 

wildlife value loss due to the construction. The USACE 

has responsibility for a portion of the maintenance 

and replacement of the structures, and has oversight 

during flood events on the water discharge from 

Lake Darling. 

COMMENT 5: If returning to natural conditions is 

desired, why doesn’t the Service stop grazing, 

burning, and mechanical treatments and let the 

habitats evolve naturally (without interference)? 

RESPONSE 5: Grazing, fire, and periodic drought are 

the three main processes that shaped the evolution 

of habitats in the northern Great Plains. The natural 

condition requires these processes to be maintained. 

Settlement of the region has altered the frequency, 

intensity, and duration of fire and herbivory. The 

refuges seek to re-create these events with prescribed 

fire, prescribed grazing, and prescriptive water 

level management. The rationales for these strategies 

are in “Chapter 4, Management Direction” of this 

final CCP, following objectives and strategies for 

the major habitat types. 

COMMENT 6: What is the purpose of drawing down 

a lake or marsh to dry conditions? Is drawdown 

possible during a wet cycle? 

RESPONSE 6: The purpose and rationale for drawdown 

(and other water level management) is found in 

“Chapter 3, Refuge Resources and Descriptions— 

Wetland Cycle” of this final CCP. For each refuge, 

supporting rationale for water level management 

can be found in “Chapter 4 Management Direction” 

of this final CCP under goals and objectives for 

wetlands. 

COMMENT 7: What is the purpose of removing trees 

at the refuges through burning and bulldozing? 

Trees are scarce in the region and provide needed 

cover for deer and other wildlife during winter. 

RESPONSE 7: Trees and tall shrubs occur more 

frequently than during the historical condition prior 

to settlement of the area. Trees adversely affect 

wildlife dependent on grasslands. A detailed 

discussion of the adverse effect of trees in grasslands 

is in “Chapter 3, Refuge Resources and 

Descriptions—Drift Prairie, Prairie Parkland, 

Coulee Woodland, Meadow, and Wetland” of this 

final CCP. Rationales for these strategies are in 

“Chapter 4, Management Direction” of this final 

CCP, following goals and objectives for drift prairie, 

prairie slope, prairie parkland, sandhills, and meadow 

habitats. 

COMMENT 8: What is the purpose of prescribed 

burning at the refuges? When invasive grass is 

burned, does it return? Repeated burning of the 

same area is opposed. Burning too much causes 

the deer population to decline, which has a 

negative impact on the public’s ability to observe 

and hunt deer. Loss of chokecherry during 

prescribed burning has negatively affected 

opportunities for berry picking. 

RESPONSE 8: Fire is the most important process that 

maintained the treeless character of grasslands. 

Settlement of the area has altered the frequency, 

intensity, and duration of fire. Refuges seek to recreate natural fires using prescribed fire. Control of 

woody plant species and introduced plant species is 

a never-ending task. In habitats and habitat units 

managed using fire, refuge mangers seek to mimic 

the natural frequency of fire. Fires naturally occurred 

about every 5–6 years in the area (for example, see 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E—Public Involvement 167 

strategies in “Chapter 4, Management Direction— 

Prairie Slope Goal” of this final CCP). 

Area deer populations are unlikely to be affected by 

prescribed burning to reduce tall woody plants; 

however, local shifts or reductions in deer herd size 

are possible. 

Different species of grasses are affected differently 

by fire. Kentucky bluegrass is reduced through 

repeated fire; smooth brome grass is not harmed as 

much by fire and may increase with infrequent fire. 

See the rationale for discussions on fire effects in 

“Chapter 4, Management Direction—Drift Prairie 

Goal” of this final CCP. 

The rationale and justification to support prescribed 

fire strategies are in “Chapter 4, Management 

Direction” of this final CCP, following objectives 

and strategies for the major habitat types. 

Berry picking is allowed at the refuge but is not a 

priority public use. Berry picking is allowed to 

continue when and where available and compatible, 

but is not a use that is managed for, and does not 

outweigh the goals and objectives to improve native 

prairie habitat at the refuge. 

COMMENT 9: What is the purpose of grazing at the 

refuge? Sometimes the cows trespass on private 

land adjacent to the refuges. 

RESPONSE 9: Grazing is an important process that 

shaped the evolution of habitats in the northern 

Great Plains. Historically, vast herds of grazing 

animals (such as bison, elk, deer, pronghorn, prairie 

dogs, and geese) periodically clipped or defoliated 

prairie grasses and forbs. These plants and the 

wildlife they support are well adapted to periodic 

grazing. Refuges seek to mimic natural grazing with 

prescribed grazing using domestic livestock. Periodic 

grazing is particularly useful to reduce smooth brome 

grass and residual plant litter. The supporting 

rationale and justification to support grazing 

strategies is in “Chapter 4, Management Direction” 

of this final CCP, following objectives and strategies 

for the major habitat types. 

Occasionally cattle get out of the refuges and onto 

private lands, and sometimes cattle get off private 

land and onto the refuges. Livestock owners are 

responsible for keeping their livestock in the proper 

area, but sometimes livestock get out by breaking 

through fences. In all cases, owners are notified as 

soon as possible and livestock moved back to their 

proper location. Fences around the refuges are 

owned by the Service and maintained by the Service 

and the cooperating livestock owners. Fences are 

periodically repaired and some are replaced. 

Livestock owners carry insurance to reimburse 

landowners for damages. 

COMMENT 10: What is the approved acquisition 

boundary? 

RESPONSE 10: The approved acquisition boundary 

delineates the area that has been approved (for 

example, by executive order, decision document, or 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approval) 

to be included in the national wildlife refuge. 

Approval does not necessarily indicate that the 

entire area inside this boundary has been (or ever 

will be) acquired by the Service. 

COMMENT 11: Nest surveying by humans has the 

potential to lead predators to nests. 

RESPONSE 11: Biologists who locate and find nests 

follow strict protocols to reduce the potential for 

predators to use human activity to locate the nest. 

Research has demonstrated that adherence to these 

protocols vastly reduces or eliminates additional 

predation risk. 

COMMENT 12: Was the public meeting announced 

in the Mohall and Bottineau newspapers? They 

should have an opportunity to comment. 

RESPONSE 12: The Service attempts to provide 

adequate notice and wide distribution of public 

meeting announcements. The public meeting 

announcement for the Souris River basin draft CCP 

and EA was distributed to more than 73 media 

contacts in the state of North Dakota nearly 2 weeks 

prior to the public meeting. Individual media set 

publication deadlines and determine whether to 

release public meeting announcements. It is possible 

the public meeting announcement may not have 

been received by the publication deadline for the 

Mohall and Bottineau newspapers. 

There are a number of ways the public was able to 

provide comments on the draft CCP and EA. In 

addition to the public meeting, public comments 

were provided by phone, email, fax, and in writing. 

Comments That Apply to 

Des Lacs NWR 

COMMENT 13: There is disagreement with the tone 

of resignation regarding outreach opportunities. 

With the Des Lacs NWR location next to Kenmare 

and terrific accessibility to many parts of the 

refuge, outreach opportunities would be well 

attended and not affected by declining rural 

populations. 

RESPONSE 13: The rural population in North Dakota is 

declining and the average resident age is getting 

older. Environmental education is part of the Service’s 

mission, but the Des Lacs NWR cannot reach many 

people in its sparsely populated area. Some refuges 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

168 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

in North Dakota—where they are situated closer to 

population centers—have more opportunities to reach 

the public such as at Upper Souris NWR, Audubon 

NWR, Long Lake NWR, and Tewaukon NWR. 

COMMENT 14: The new headquarters building 

offers a fine facility for environmental 

education, which should be continued and 

expanded. This refuge is one of few that offer 

easy accessibility to upland and wetland 

habitats. Partnerships could be formed with soil 

conservation districts, natural resource 

conservation boards, Ducks Unlimited, NDGF, 

Minot State University, and others. Education 

and public programs are two keys to the 

sustainability of the Refuge System and support 

for its mission. 

RESPONSE 14: With limited staff, it is not feasible to 

increase environmental education and public 

programs at the expense of habitat management. 

The refuge has worked with other partners to hold 

environmental education events to educate young 

people, but staff reductions have required the 

refuge to give up some activities. Public use is a 

lower priority than habitat management at Des 

Lacs NWR. It is unfortunate that refuge cannot 

fully utilize the headquarters facility that was built 

with the intention of increasing public programs. 

COMMENT 15: The non-wildlife-dependent public 

use objective needs broad strategies developed. 

As written, the decisions about such uses are left 

to the refuge manager. Notice or publication of 

expected dates for such activities as berry picking, 

cross-country skiing, and hiking (similar to 

publication of the opening of the Canada Goose 

Trail at the Des Lacs NWR to vehicles for 2 weeks 

each fall) is much appreciated by the public. 

RESPONSE 15: The Service cannot develop objectives 

and strategies for activities, depending on timing 

and volume of use, that may or may not be 

compatible with refuge purposes. These uses must 

be evaluated over time and may change depending 

on use and disturbance and location. The uses will 

be allowed when possible, when compatible, and 

when they do not conflict with Refuge System policy. 

The refuge will attempt to better inform the public 

of potential public use opportunities throughout the 

year. 

COMMENT 16: Can the islands be maintained or 

built higher? Can a partnership with Ducks 

Unlimited be formed to repair and maintain the 

islands? 

RESPONSE 16: It is difficult to maintain islands during 

wet conditions. In the early 1990s, the islands in the 

lower lake (unit 7) were built too low and are subject 

to frequent inundation. The islands do not meet 

current recommended guidelines for new island 

construction by Ducks Unlimited and the Service. 

Islands are expensive to maintain and unvegetated 

islands serve as roost areas for gulls, which increases 

predation on shorebirds and other species. Ducks 

Unlimited has no interest in repairing or maintaining 

the islands at the refuge. 

The refuge’s best course of action is to allow the two 

southernmost islands in unit 7 to continue to erode 

and provide a diversity of elevation within the lake 

and provide use and occasional roost areas for 

shorebirds. If the lake dries in the future, the refuge 

would evaluate potential work on the three 

northernmost islands in unit 7 for grass and shrub 

planting and riprap maintenance. 

COMMENT 17: There is opposition to asphalt paving 

of the road at the south end of the refuge. 

RESPONSE 17: There have been many comments 

received over the issue of paving the lower lake road 

after the roadway is improved and culverts replaced. 

Kenmare City Council, Kenmare Association of 

Commerce, and Kenmare Community Development 

Corporation have passed resolutions in favor of 

paving the road to increase public use and tourism 

at the refuge and in the community. Many private 

citizens have opposed paving with most objections 

being increased speed on the road and reduced rural 

atmosphere of the area. A final decision on the 

project has not been made. The Federal Highways 

Administration will be completing engineering and 

planning of the project in 2007, with general 

construction to begin in 2008. The final surfacing 

decision will not be made until later; there may be 

additional opportunities to express opinions as to 

the final surface in the future. 

COMMENT 18: Can the refuge ditches be dug deeper 

to facilitate movement of water between the lakes? 

Can water be drained from the upper to the lower 

lakes? 

RESPONSE 18: This is briefly described as a strategy in 

“Chapter 4, Management Direction—Wetland Goal, 

Objective 2” of this final CCP. The current water 

management problems are described in “Chapter 3, 

Refuge Resources and Descriptions—Wetland” of 

this final CCP. The refuge, working with the Ward 

County Water Resources Board, has developed a 

proposal entitled “Des Lacs NWR Drawdown 

Channel, February 2003.” This proposed work would 

allow the refuge to move water from the upper lake 

to the lower lake by creating a bypass channel. It 

would also allow the refuge to potentially store 

floodwater for a short time in the spring and still 

allow the refuge lakes and marshes to be managed 

for waterbird production. The proposed ditch would 

require an environmental assessment and funding. 

COMMENT 19: How many acres are planned to be 

burned at Des Lacs NWR over the life of the plan? 

RESPONSE 19: At Des Lacs NWR, all upland acres are 

potentially available for a prescribed burn over the 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E—Public Involvement 169 

next 15 years. However, the majority of prescribed 

burning will be done in the areas with the highest 

priority for restoration of native grasslands. Of the 

14,000 acres of uplands, about 8,500 acres may be 

burned at some point in the future but only 7,300 

acres are in priority areas. The average acres burned 

annually over the past 22 years at the refuge is 

1,200 acres. As shrubs and trees have been reduced 

through repeated use of prescribed fire on many 

areas, those areas have been put into rotation grazing; 

this will likely continue to increase in the future. 

COMMENT 20: Why was the staff reduced after 

spending nearly $1 million to build the new 

headquarters building at Des Lacs NWR? 

RESPONSE 20: Reduced budgets, a mandate to reduce 

the number of staff positions, and a reevaluation of 

priorities within this administrative region required 

a refocus of staff to priority areas. The Service 

decided to change the administrative structure of 

the Refuge System units in the Souris River basin. 

This occurred due to an emphasis on wetland 

management districts, which are the highest priority 

areas for this administrative region—specifically, 

the management of easement contracts within the 

Lostwood WMD and Crosby WMD. 

The Service decided to move Des Lacs NWR into 

the newly established Souris River Basin NWR 

Complex, which now comprises all three refuges in 

this CCP. This places all the refuges in the Souris 

River basin under one manager, which provides a 

consistent message at international meetings about 

the Souris River and other topics. This also provides 

consistent application of management practices in 

this CCP. 

It became apparent that Lostwood WMD and 

Crosby WMD (formerly part of the Des Lacs NWR 

Complex) had significant increases in management 

operation needs over the past few years, and that 

inadequate attention had been provided to address 

these management operation needs. The project 

leader of the Des Lacs NWR Complex had been 

stationed at the Des Lacs NWR, with a focus on 

refuge issues that were lower priority than district 

issues. 

The Service established the new Lostwood NWR 

Complex (with a new project leader position), 

headquartered approximately 18 miles from Kenmare. 

Additional staff positions, which had been vacant for 

several months, were filled at the Lostwood NWR 

Complex. This demonstrates the high priority the 

administration has placed on the Lostwood NWR 

Complex. 

Comments That Apply to

Upper Souris NWR 

COMMENT 21: The plan is weak in recognizing the 

importance of riparian woodland habitat; the 

Service needs to take a serious look at managing 

this habitat, which lies mostly north of Lake 

Darling reservoir. At least 1,000 acres of riparian 

woodlands were destroyed during the establishment 

of the Lake Darling Reservoir. Nearly all 

American elm has been lost. Preferred browse 

species such as chokecherry, serviceberry, and 

redosier dogwood are in various stages of 

decadence. In addition, there is a threat from the 

emerald ash borer. Linden, hackberry, bur oak, 

butternut, hazelnut, black walnut, aspen, 

cottonwood, and paper/river birch are species 

that could add to the diversity of riparian habitat. 

There are groups that would assist with 

reforestation projects. 

RESPONSE 21: Many elm trees have been lost, as 

identified in “Chapter 3, Refuge Resources and 

Descriptions—Riparian Woodland” of this final CCP. 

Measures to mitigate for this loss are contained in 

“Chapter 4, Management Direction—Riparian 

Woodland Goal” of this final CCP. Emerald ash 

borer is not present in North Dakota or adjacent 

states at this time, but may pose a future threat to 

green ash in riparian woodlands. There is no evidence 

that understory shrub species are in decline within 

riparian woodlands at Upper Souris NWR. 

This area was originally, for the most part, void of 

woody vegetation prior to settlement. Many of the 

species suggested for reforestation projects are not 

native to the local area. 

COMMENT 22: Aquatic weed growth increases in 

Lake Darling each year and chokes the river 

channel north of Lake Darling Reservoir. More 

imagination is needed to generate strategies that 

would reduce fertility and siltation. There is a 

market for bagged topsoil, which could be dredged 

from the lake bottom. Aquatic weed harvesting 

could be done privately to manufacture compost. 

RESPONSE 22: Water quality and sedimentation are 

important issues. The Service is working with the 

North Dakota Department of Health–Division of 

Water Quality to assess nutrient loading and means 

to reduce the effects. This may include reducing the 

total maximum daily loads for the Lake Darling 

stretch of the Souris River (personal communication 

with Kevin Johnson, Endangered Species Office). 

However, based on preliminary USGS data, 

sedimentation is not a significant problem in Lake 

Darling (see “Chapter 4, Management Direction— 

Wetland Goal”). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

170 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Ironically, significant weed growth during the past 

several years is the result of increased water clarity 

and quality. Increased light penetration in clear 

waters has resulted in an explosion of submerged 

aquatic plants in Lake Darling and in other lakes and 

impoundments in North Dakota. White water crowfoot 

in particular has responded to these conditions—it 

is not influenced by increased fertility (increased 

phosphorous and nitrogen inputs) as the commenter 

suggests, but rather responds to an increase in 

water clarity. Although inconvenient to boaters and 

anglers, submerged aquatic plants are significant 

wildlife foods and provide habitat for aquatic 

invertebrates, which are a major wildlife food 

source. 

COMMENT 23: The post office site (landing 3, Lake 

Darling) at Questad, North Dakota, should have 

a plaque to describe the early settlers (late 1800s 

to about 1909) and the post office. 

RESPONSE 23: A plaque describing that era and the 

importance of post offices and towns like Questad 

would be a nice interpretive feature. This may be a 

possibility if improvements are made to the landing 3 

road that ends where Questad once stood and where 

many refuge users visit. 

COMMENT 24: The CCP maintains that leafy spurge 

is a serious long-term threat of prairie parkland. 

The CCP states the use of flea beetles is ineffective 

for control of leafy spurge, but plans to release 

flea beetles to control leafy spurge. The CCP also 

states leafy spurge will be controlled with 

Plateau® herbicide. Are these conflicting 

statements? 

RESPONSE 24: These statements do not conflict. The 

commenter is mixing the relative threat of leafy 

spurge and strategies for its control that are 

presented in different sections for multiple habitat 

types (prairie parkland, meadow). Control measures 

are unique at these two sites that differ in soil 

characteristics. Management of leafy spurge requires 

multiple tools (such as biological control, chemical 

control, and defoliation) in an integrated approach. 

On sandy soils of the prairie parkland, flea beetles 

have been ineffective for control of leafy spurge. 

Strategies and rationale in “Chapter 4, Management 

Direction—Prairie Parkland Goal” of this final CCP 

outline a beetle release approach intended to foster 

site adaptation to sandy soils over time. A similar 

approach is suggested in “Chapter 4, Management 

Direction—Meadow Goal” of this final CCP for 

spurge growing on meadow sites, although the 

efficacy of this approach is not yet known. 

COMMENT 25: Fishing visits of 53,000 is equal to 

approximately one-fifth of North Dakota’s state 

population (this is 145 people visits per day for 

365 days). Thirty to forty percent of that figure is 

more realistic: only a small portion of Lake 

Darling is open to fishing in the summer, and 

there are a lot of days in winter that nobody goes 

fishing. 

RESPONSE 25: To interpret the visits correctly, note 

that the 53,000 figure refers to fishing visits, not 

necessarily 53,000 people. During the 1990s when 

fishing was good to excellent on Lake Darling, 

estimates were as high as 4,000–6,000 people ice 

fishing on a given weekend day; thus, the 53,000 

figure would actually be low. On years when fishing 

is poor, the 53,000 figure may be high. 

For summer fishing, the refuge has 13 designated 

areas open to shore fishing and 3 areas open to boat 

fishing. The two boat-fishing areas on Lake Darling 

compose approximately 43% of the surface acres of 

the lake (4,175 acres of the 9,655 acres of normal 

summer pool level). The remainder is closed to boats 

to reduce the disturbance to migratory birds. 

COMMENT 26: Big game hunting of 2,200 visits for 

161⁄2 days of gun season and a few bow and arrow 

hunters is equal to about 130 hunters per day. 

Again, 30–40% of that figure would be maybe too 

high. 

RESPONSE 26: The 2,200 visits represent the total 

number of big game hunting visits during the entire 

season, which generally runs 4 months (September– 

December), and includes archery, gun, and 

muzzleloader visits. 

COMMENT 27: Leafy spurge is a problem at the 

refuge. Is it possible to spray during the months 

of September or October? 

RESPONSE 27: The refuge staff sprays in the fall up to 

the date of the first killing frost, but is limited at 

times by available staff and budget. 

COMMENT 28: Is it possible to open more of Lake 

Darling to fishing? Can more be done to improve 

the fish population (mainly northern pike) of Lake 

Darling and the waterway north of the dam? 

RESPONSE 28: Approximately 43% of Lake Darling is 

open to fishing from a boat; the remainder is closed 

to limit the disturbance to migratory birds. The 

refuge’s fishery biologist is continually looking at 

ways to improve the fishery throughout the entire 

system. Stocking of fish, including northern pike, 

generally occurs on an annual basis. This effort is in 

concert with NDGF priorities. 

COMMENT 29: Can the water in Lake Darling be 

held at a lower elevation to reduce road erosion 

at the south end of the refuge? Can the refuge 

contribute funds toward road improvements at 

the south end of the refuge? 

RESPONSE 29: Lake Darling elevations are controlled 

by an international agreement between Canada and 

the United States. The Service is looking into 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E—Public Involvement 171 

modification of the agreement to manage Lake 

Darling at a lower elevation; however, the last 

change in the agreement took 8 years to complete. 

The refuge is currently looking into the landing 1 

road issue. Once ownership of the road is determined, 

a plan will be put together to perform road 

improvement work. 

COMMENT 30: Can additional hunting tags for 

white-tailed deer) be offered at the north end of 

the refuge? 

RESPONSE 30: Assuming this is in reference to deer gun 

tags, all refuge deer gun tags issued are valid for the 

entire refuge and unit. If additional deer gun tags 

were issued they would have the same boundaries. 

The refuge manages deer hunting to provide for a 

high-quality and safe experience. Anyone possessing 

a valid state archery or muzzleloader tag can hunt 

the refuge. 

COMMENT 31: The city of Mohall was not included 

in the socioeconomic environment section. 

RESPONSE 31: The socioeconomic information was 

prepared by USGS through an interagency contract. 

The planning team reviewed the draft report and 

felt the analysis reasonably describes local economic 

impacts associated with refuge management 

activities. Due to the large geographic area of the 

Souris River basin refuges, it was not feasible to 

include every community near the refuges in the 

analysis. 

COMMENT 32: The Renville County Farmer did not 

receive the notice for the public meeting for the 

draft CCP and EA. 

RESPONSE 32: The Renville County Farmer has been 

added to the distribution list for media announcements. 

COMMENT 33: The refuge should consider subscribing 

to the local paper to keep up on local events and 

be more involved in area activities. 

Response 33: The refuge will consider subscribing to 

the local paper as funding permits. 

MAILING LIST 

The following mailing list was developed for this CCP. 

Federal Officials 

U.S. Representative Earl Pomeroy, Washington DC 

Rep. Pomeroy’s Area Director, Bismarck, ND 

U.S. Senator Kent Conrad, Washington DC 

Sen. Conrad’s Area Director, Minot, ND 

U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan, Washington DC 

Sen. Dorgan’s Area Director, Minot, ND 

Federal Agencies 

USACE, Fargo, ND 

USFWS, Bismarck, ND 

USFWS, Ecological Services, Bismarck, ND 

USFWS, Region 6 Missouri River Fish and Wildlife 

 Management Office, Bismarck, ND 

USGS, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, 

 Jamestown, ND 

USGS, Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, CO 

Tribal Officials 

Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board, Popular, MT 

Sisseton–Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, Agency Village, SD 

Spirit Lake Tribal Council, Fort Totten, ND 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Fort Yates, ND 

Three Affiliated Tribes, New Town, ND 

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Belcourt, ND 

State Officials 

Governor John Hoeven, Bismarck, ND 

Representative Glen Froseth, Kenmare, ND 

Representative Bob Hunskor, Newburg, ND 

Senator David O’Connell, Lansford, ND 

State Agencies 

NDGF, Bismarck, ND 

NDGF, Kenmare, ND 

NDGF, Minot, ND 

NDGF, Riverdale, ND 

North Dakota State Water Commission, Bismarck, ND 

North Dakota State Water Commission, State

 Engineer, Bismarck, ND 

Local Government 

Callahan Township Chairman, Carpio, ND 

Council Chair, Carpio, ND 

Grassland Township Chairman, Lansford, ND 

Grover Township Chairman, Tolley, ND 

Hamlet Township Chairman, Mohall, ND 

Lockwood Township Chairman, Lansford, ND 

Mayland Township Chairman, Carpio, ND 

Mayor of Berthold, ND 

Mayor of Burlington, ND 

Mayor of Carpio, ND 

Mayor of Des Lacs, ND 

Mayor of Donnybrook, ND 

Mayor of Glenburn, ND 

Mayor of Grano, ND 

Mayor of Kenmare, ND 

Mayor of Lansford, ND 

Mayor of Minot, ND 

Mayor of Mohall, ND 

Mayor of Tolley, ND 

Mayor of Sherwood, ND 

McKinney Township Chairman, Tolley, ND 

Mouse River Park Board, Sherwood and Tolley, ND 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

172 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Muskego Township Chairman, Lansford, ND 

Plain Township Chairman, Carpio, ND 

Renville County Agent, Mohall, ND 

Renville County Auditor, Mohall, ND 

Renville County Commissioners, Mohall, ND 

Renville County District Conservationist, Mohall, ND 

Renville County Historical Society, Sherwood, ND 

Renville County Sheriff’s Office, Mohall, ND 

Renville County Soil Conservation Technician, 

 Mohall, ND 

Renville County Water Board Chairman, Mohall, ND 

Renville County Water Board, Glenburn and 

 Kenmare, ND 

Renville County Weed Board Chairman, Kenmare, ND 

Roosevelt Township Chairman, Sherwood, ND 

St. Mary’s Township Chairman, Berthold, ND 

Ward County Commissioners, Minot, ND 

Ward County Engineer, Minot, ND 

Ward County Historical Society, Minot, ND 

Ward County Sheriff’s Office, Minot, ND 

Ward County Water Resource Board, Minot, ND 

Ward County Weed Control Officer, Minot, ND 

Local Fire Departments 

Carpio Rural Fire District, Carpio, ND 

Kenmare Fire Department, Kenmare, ND 

Lansford Rural Fire District, Lansford, ND 

Mohall Rural Fire District, Mohall, ND 

Tolley Fire Department, Kenmare, ND 

Schools 

Glenburn School Board President, Glenburn, ND 

Kenmare School Board President, Kenmare, ND 

Mohall, Lansford, and Sherwood (MLS) School 

 District #1, Mohall, ND 

United School District Board President, Des Lacs, ND 

Organizations 

Berthold Sportsman Club, Berthold, ND 

Hooterville Flying Lions, Minot, ND 

The Humane Society of the United States, 

 Washington, DC 

Kenmare Chamber of Commerce, Kenmare, ND 

Kenmare Goosefest, Kenmare, ND 

Minot Area Chamber of Commerce, Minot, ND 

Minot Convention and Visitors Bureau, Minot, ND 

Minot Pheasants for the Future, Minot, ND 

Mouse River Basin Longbeards, Granville, ND 

Mouse River Pheasants, Mohall, ND 

North Dakota Wildlife Federation, Minot, ND 

Rolling Plains Sportsman Club, Stanley, ND 

Roosevelt Park Zoo, Minot, ND 

Souris Valley Bird Club, Minot, ND 

Theodore Roosevelt Nature and History

 Association, Medora, ND 

Vets Gaming Board, Kenmare, ND 

The Wilderness Society, Washington DC 

Newspapers 

The Kenmare News, Kenmare, ND 

Minot Daily News, Minot, ND 

Renville County Farmer, Mohall, ND 

Radio and Television Stations 

KCJB Radio, Minot, ND 

KMOT TV, Minot, ND 

KXMC TV, Minot, ND 

North Dakota Public Radio, Bismarck, ND 

Individuals 

(141 people) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F 

Plants of the Souris River Basin Refuges
 

This list includes 410 plant species for which specimens 

were collected from the Souris River basin refuges 

during 1998–2005. For each, at least one specimen 

was mounted, expert botanists verified its taxonomy, 

and specimen(s) were permanently stored in a 

herbarium at one or more of the three refuges. This 

is not an exhaustive list of plant species found in the 

Souris River basin refuges and some omissions are likely. 

Nomenclature follows that of the Great Plains Flora 

Association (1986). 

Polypodiacaeae (True Fern Family) 

Cystopteris fragilis—fragile fern 

Equisetaceae (Horsetail Family) 

Equisetum arvense—common horsetail 

Equisetum laevigatum—smooth scouring rush 

Selaginellaceae (Spikemoss Family) 

Selaginella densa—clubmoss 

Cupressaceae (Cypress Family) 

Juniperus scopulorum—Rocky Mountain 

juniper 

Alismataceae (Waterplantain Family) 

Alisma gramineum—grass water plantain 

Alisma plantago-aquatica—water plantain 

Sagittaria cuneata—arrowhead 

Juncaginaceae (Arrowgrass Family) 

Triglochin maritima—arrowgrass 


Triglochin palustris—arrowgrass 


Potamogetonaceae (Pondweed Family) 

Potamogeton pectinatus—sago pondweed 

Potamogeton richardsonii—claspingleaf 

 pondweed 

Zannichelliaceae (Horned Pondweed Family) 

Zannichellia palustris—horned pondweed 

Juncaceae (Rush Family) 

Juncus balticus—Baltic rush 


Juncus interior—inland rush 


Juncus torreyi—Torrey’s rush 


Cyperaceae (Sedge Family) 

Carex atherodes—slough sedge 

Carex brevior—fescue sedge 

Carex douglassii—Douglas’s sedge 

Carex duriuscula (+Carex eleocharis)— 

needleleaf sedge 

Carex emoryi—Emory’s sedge 

Carex filifolia—threadleaf sedge 

Carex gravida—heavy sedge 

Carex hallii—Hall’s sedge 

Carex inops subsp. heliophila (+Carex 

heliophilia)—sun sedge 

Carex lacustris—unnamed sedge 

Carex laeviconica—glabrous sedge 

Carex lanuginosa—woolly sedge 

Carex obtusata—unnamed sedge

 Carex pellita—woolly sedge 

Carex praegracilis—clustered field sedge 

Carex rosea—unnamed sedge 

Carex sartwellii—Sartwell’s sedge 

Carex sprengelii—long-beaked sedge 

Carex sychnocephala—dense long-beaked 

 sedge 

Carex tetanica—unnamed sedge 

Cyperus schweinitzii—Schweinitz’s flatsedge 

Eleocharis acicularis—needle spikesedge 

Eleocharis erythropoda—spikesedge 

Eleocharis obtusata—blunt spikesedge 

Elocharis palustris—common spikerush 

Schoenoplectus acutus (+Scirpus acutus)— 

hardstem bulrush 

Scirpus americanus—three-square 

Scirpus fluviatilis—river bulrush 

Scirpus heterochaetus—slender bulrush 

Scirpus maritimus var. paludosus—prairie 

bulrush 

Scirpus nevadensis—Nevada bulrush 

Scirpus tabernaemontani—softstem bulrush 

Poaceae (Grass Family) 

Agropyron caninum—slender wheatgrass 

Agropyron caninum subsp. majus var. 

unilaterale—bearded wheatgrass 

Agropyron cristatum—crested wheatgrass 

Agropyron repens—quackgrass 

Agropyron smithii—western wheatgrass 

Agrostis scabra—ticklegrass 

Alopecurus aequalis—short-awn foxtail 

Alopecurus arundinaceus—creeping foxtail 

Andropogon gerardii—big bluestem 

Andropogon hallii—sand bluestem 

Andropogon scoparius—little bluestem 

Aristida purpurea—three-awn 

Beckmannia syzigachne—American

 sloughgrass 

Bouteloua curtipendula—sideoats grama 

Bouteloua gracilis—blue gramma 

Bromus inermis—smooth brome 

Buchloe dactyloides—buffalo grass 

Calamovilfa longifolia—prairie sandreed 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

174 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Dichanthelium wilcoxianum—Wilcox 

dichanthelium 

Distichlis spicata var. stricta—inland saltgrass 

Echinochloa muricata—barnyard grass 

Elymus canadensis—Canada wild rye 

Eragrostis cilianensis—stinkgrass 

Festuca ovina—sheep’s fescue 

Glyceria grandis—American mannagrass 

 Glyceria striata—fowl mannagrass 

Helictotrichon hookeri—spike oat 

Hierochloe odorata—sweetgrass, vanilla grass 

Hordeu jubatum—foxtail barley 

Koeleria pyramidata—Junegrass 

Muhlenbergia asperifolia—scratchgrass 

Muhlenbergia cuspidate—plains muhly 

Panicum capillare—witchgrass 

Panicum virgatum—switchgrass 

Phalaris arundinacea—canarygrass 

Phleum pratense—timothy 

Phragmites australis—common reed 

Poa arida—plains bluegrass 

Poa cusickii—early bluegrass 

Poa juncifolia—bluegrass 

Poa pratensis—Kentucky bluegrass 

Poa sandbergii—Sandberg bluegrass 

Puccinellia nuttalliana—Nuttall’s 

alkaligrass 

Schizachne purpurascens—false melic 

Scholochloa festucacea—whitetop 

Setaria viridis—green foxtail 

Spartina gracilis—alkali cordgrass 

Spartina pectinata—prairie cordgrass 

Sporobolus cryptandrus—sand dropseed 

Sporobolus heterolepis—prairie dropseed 

Stipa comata—needle and thread 

Stipa spartea—porcupine grass 

Stipa viridula—green needlegrass 

Sparganiaceae (Bur-reed Family) 

Sparganium eurycarpum—giant bur-reed 

Typhaceae (Cattail Family) 

Typha angustifolia—narrowleaf cattail 

 Typha anqustifolia  ̄ latifolia—hybrid cattail 

Typha latifolia—common cattail 

Lemnaceae (Duckweed Family) 

Lemna trisulca—star duckweed 


Lemna turionifera—duckweed 


Commelinaceae (Spiderwort Family) 

Tradescantia bracteata—spiderwort 

Liliaceae (Lily Family) 

Allium stellatum—pink wild onion 

Allium textile—white wild onion, textile onion 

Asparagus officinalis—asparagus 

Hypoxis hirsuta—yellow stargrass 

Lilium philadelphicum—wild lily 

Maianthemum canadense—lily-of-the-valley 

Smilacina stellata—spikenard 

Zigadenus elegans—white camas 

Smilacaceae (Catbrier Family) 

Smilax herbacea—carrion flower 

Iridaceae (Iris Family) 

Sisyrinchium montanum—blue-eyed grass 

Orchidaceae (Orchid Family) 

Cypripedium calceolus—yellow ladyslipper 

Salicaceae (Willow Family) 

Populus balsamifera—balsam poplar 

Populus deltoides—cottonwood 

Populus tremuloides—aspen 

Salix amygaloides—peachleaf willow 

Salix bebbiana—beaked willow 

Salix discolor—pussy willow 

Salix eriocephala—diamond willow 

Salixexigua subsp. interior—sandbar willow 

Salix humilis var. microphylla—prairie willow 

Salix lutea—yellow willow 

Salix petiolaris—meadow willow 

Fagaceae (Beech/Oak Family) 

Quercus macrocarpa—bur oak 

Ulmaceae (Elm Family) 

Ulmus americana—American elm 

Cannabaceae (Hemp Family) 

Humulus lupulus—common hops 

Urticaceae (Nettle Family) 

Laportea canadensis—wood nettle 


Urtica dioica—stinging nettle 


Santalaceae (Sandalwood Family) 

Commandra umbellata—bastard toadflax 

Polygonaceae (Buckwheat Family) 

Eriogonum flavum—yellow wild buckwheat 

Polygala alba—white milkwort 

Polygonum amphibium var. emursum— 

marsh smartweed 

Polygonum amphibium var. stipulaceum— 

water smartweed 

Polygonum coccineum—marsh smartweed 

Polygonum lapathifolium—pale smartweed 

Polygonum ramosissimum—knotweed 

Rumex crispus—curled dock 

Rumex maritimus—golden dock

 Rumex stenophyllus—dock 

Chenopodiaceae (Goosefoot Family) 

Atriplex nuttallii—moundscale 

Atriplex subspicata—spearscale 

Chenopodium album—lamb’s quarters 

Chenopodium leptophyllum—narrow-leaved 

goosefoot 


Kochia scoparia—kochia, fireweed 


Salsola iberica—Russian thistle 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F—Plants of the Souris River Basin Refuges 175 

Amaranthaceae (Amaranth Family) 

Amaranthus retroflexus—pigweed 

Nyctaginaceae (Four O’clock Family) 

Mirabilis nyctaginea—wild four o’clock 

Portulacaceae (Purslane Family) 

Portulaca oleracea—common purslane 

Caryophyllaceae (Pink Family) 

Cerastium arvense—prairie chickweed 

Cerastium nutans—nodding chickweed 

Gypsophila paniculata—baby’s breath 

Silene pratensis—white campion 

Stellaria crassifolia—fleshy stichwort 

Ceratophyllaceae (Hornwort Family) 

Ceratophyllum demersum—coontail 

Ranunculaceae (Buttercup Family) 

Actea rubra—baneberry 


Anemone canadensis—Canada anemone, 


meadow anemone 

Anemone cylindrica—candle anemone 

Anemone patens—pasqueflower 

Ranunculus abortivus—early wood buttercup 

Ranunculus cymbalaria—shore buttercup 

Ranunculus flabellaris—yellow water-crowfoot 

Ranunculus longirostris—white water-crowfoot 

Ranunculus macounii—Macoun’s buttercup 

Ranunculus pensylvanicus—bristly crowfoot 

Ranunculus sceleratus—cursed crowfoot

 Ranunculus subrigidus—white water-crowfoot

 Thalictrum venulosum—early meadowrue 

Menispermaceae (Moonseed Family) 

Menispermum canadense—moonseed 

Brassicaceae (Mustard Family) 

Arabis divaricarpa—rock cress 

Arabis holboellii—rock cress 

Berteroa incana—hoary false alyssum 

Brassica kaber—charlock 

Capsella bursa-pastoris—shepherd’s purse 

Descurainia sophia—flixweed 

Draba nemorosa—yellow whitlowort 

Erysimum asperum—western wallflower 

Lepidium densiflorum—peppergrass 

Lesquerella ludoviciana—bladderpod 

Rorripa plaustris—bog yellow cress 

Sisymbrium altissimum—tumble mustard 

Sisymbrium loeselli—tall hedge mustard 

Thlaspi arvense—field pennycress 

Capparidaceae (Caper Family) 

Cleome serrulata—Rocky Mountain bee plant 

Saxifragaceae (Saxifrage Family) 

Heuchera richardsonii—alumroot 

Ribes americanum—wild black current 

Rosaceae (Rose Family) 

Agrimonia striata—striate agrimony 

Amelanchier alnifolia—Saskatoon serviceberry 

Chamaerhodos erecta—little ground rose 

Crataegus rotundifolia—northern hawthorn 

Frageria virginiana—wild strawberry 

Geum triflorum—torch flower 

Potentilla anserina—silverweed 

Potentilla arguta—tall cinquefoil 

Potentilla norvegica—Norwegian cinquefoil 

Potentilla paradoxa—bushy cinquefoil 

Potentilla pensylvanica—cinquefoil 

Prunus americana—wild plum 

Prunus pensylvanica—pin cherry 

Prunus virginiana—chokecherry 

Rosa arkansana—prairie wild rose 

Rosa woodsii—western wild rose, Woods’ 

 rose
 

Rubus idaeus—red raspberry 


Spirea alba—meadow-sweet 


Fabaceae (Bean Family) 

Amorpha canescens—leadplant 

Amorpha nana—dwarf wild indigo 

Astragalus adsurgens var. robustior— 

 standing milk-vetch 

Astragalus agrestis—field milkvetch 

Astragalus bisulcatus—two-grooved vetch 

Astragalus canadensis—Canada milkvetch 

Astragalus crassicarpus—ground-plum 

Astragalus flexuosus—pliant mildvetch 

Astragalus missouriensis—Missouri 

milkvetch 

Astragalus pectinatus—narrow-leaved 

poinsonvetch 

Astragalus tenellus—pulse milkvetch 

Caragana araborescens—Siberian pea-shrub 

Dalea candida—white prairie clover 

Dalea purpurea—purple prairie clover 

Dalea villosa—silky prairie clover 

Glycyrrhiza lepidota—wild licorice 

Lathyrus ochroleucus—yellow vetchling 

Lathyrus venosus—bushy vetchling 

Medicago lupulina—black medic 

Medicago sativa—alfalfa 

Melilotus alba—white sweetclover 

Melilotus officianalis—yellow sweetclover 

Oxytropis campestris—plains loco 

Oxytropis campestris var. gracilis—slender

 locoweed 

Oxytropis lambertii—purple locoweed 

Oxytropis splendens—showy locoweed 

Psoralea argophylla—silver-leaf scurf pea 

Psoralea esculenta—breadroot scurf-pea 

Thermopsis rhombifolia—prairie buckbean 

Vicia americana minor—American vetch 

Oxalidaceae (Woodsorrel Family) 

Oxalis stricta—yellow wood sorrel 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

176 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Linaceae (Flax Family) 

Linum perenne—blue flax 

Linum rigidum var. compactum—compact

 stiffstem flax 

Linum rigidum var. rigidum—stiffstem flax 

Linum sulcatum—grooved flax 

Euphorbiaceae (Spurge Family) 

Euphorbia esula—leafy spurge 

Euphorbia glyptosperma—ridge-seeded spurge 

Rhamnaceae (Buckthorn Family) 

Rhamnus cathartica—common buckthorn 

Callitrichaceae (Water Starwort Family) 

Callitriche hermaphroditica—water starwort 

Anacardiaceae (Sumac Family) 

Rhus glabra—smooth sumac 

Toxicodendron radicans—poison ivy 

Aceraceae (Maple Family) 

Acer negundo—boxelder 

Balsaminaceae (Balsam Family) 

Impatiens capensis—spotted touch-me-not 

Vitaceae (Grape Family) 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia—Virginia creeper 

Vitis riparia—river-bank grape 

Malvaceae (Mallow Family) 

Sphaeralcea coccinea—red false mallow 

Violaceae (Violet Family) 

Viola adunca—hook-spurred violet 


Viola canadensis—tall white violet 


Viola nuttallii—Nuttall’s violet 


Viola pedatifida—prairie violet
 

Viola rugulosa—tall white violet
 

Cactaceae (Cactus Family) 

Coryphantha vivipara—pincushion cactus 

Opuntia fragilis—little prickly pear 

Opuntia polycantha—plains prickly pear 

Elaeagnaceae (Oleaster Family) 

Elaeagnus angustifolia—Russian olive 

Elaeagnus commutata—silverberry 

Shepherdia argentea—buffaloberry 

Onagraceae (Evening Primrose Family) 

Calylophus serrulatus—plains yellow 

primrose 

Epilobium angustifolium—fireweed 

Epilobium ciliatum subsp. glandulosum— 

willow herb 

Gaura coccinea—scarlet gaura 

Oenothera biennis—common evening primrose 

Oenothera nuttallii—white-stemmed evening 

primrose 

Haloragaceae (Water Milfoil Family) 

Myriophyllum exalbescens—water milfoil 

Araliaceae (Ginseng Family) 

Aralia nudicaulis—wild sarsaparilla 

Apiaceae (Parsley Family) 

Cicuta maculata—common water hemlock 

Heracleum sphondylium—cow parsnip 

Musineon divaricatum—wild parsley 

Osmorhiza longistylis—anise root 

Sanicula marilandica—black snakeroot 

Sium suave—water parsnip 

Zizia aptera—meadow parsnip 

Cornaceae (Dogwood Family) 

Cornus stolonifera—redosier dogwood 

Ericaceae (Heath Family) 

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi—bearberry 

Primulaceae (Primrose Family) 

Androsace occidentalis—western rock 

jasmine 

Dodecatheon pulchellum—shooting star 

Lysimachia ciliata—fringed loosestrife 

Lysimachia hybrida—loosestrife 

Lysimachia thyrsiflora—tufted loosestrife 

Oleaceae (Olive Family) 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica—green ash 

Syringa vulgarus—lilac 

Gentianaceae (Gentian Family) 

Gentiana affinis—northern gentian 

Apocynaceae (Dogbane Family) 

Apocynum androsaemifolium—spreading 

dogbane 

Asclepiadaceae (Milkweed Family) 

Asclepias incarnata—swamp milkweed 

Asclepias involucrate—dwarf milkweed 

Asclepias ovalifolia—ovalleaf milkweed 

Asclepias syriaca—common milkweed 

Asclepias verticillata—whorled milkweed 

Asclepias viridiflora—green milkweed 

Convolvulaceae (Morning-glory Family) 

Convolvulus arvensis—field bindweed 

Calystegia sepium subsp. angulata—hedge 

bindweed 

Cuscutaceae (Dodder Family) 

Cuscuta gronovii—Gronovius’ dodder 

Polemoniaceae (Phlox Family) 

Collomia linearis—collomia 

Phlox hoodii—Hood’s phlox 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F—Plants of the Souris River Basin Refuges 177 

Boraginaceae (Borage Family) 

Hackelia deflexa—stickseed 

Lithospermum canescens—hoary puccoon 

Lithospermum incisum—narrow leaved 

puccoon 

Mertensia lanceolata—lungwort, wild forgetme-not 

Onosmodium molle var. occidentale—false 

gromwell 

Verbenaceae (Verbena Family) 

Verbena bracteata—prostrate vervain 

Verbena hastate—swamp vervain 

Lamiaceae (Mint Family) 

Agastache foeniculum—lavender hyssop 

Hedeoma hispida—rough false pennyroyal 

Lycopus americanus—American bugleweed 

Lycopus asper—rough bugleweed 

Mentha arvensis—field mint 

Monarda fistulosa—wild bergamot 

Nepeta cataria—catnip 

Physostegia parviflora—obedient plant 

Scutellaria galericulata—marsh skullcap 

Scutellaria lateriflora—blue skullcap 

Stachys palustris—hedge nettle 

Teucrium canadense—American germander 

Hippuridaceae (Mare’s-tail Family) 

Hippuris vulgaris—common mare’s-tail 

Solanaceae (Nightshade Family) 

Physalis virginiana—Virginia ground cherry 


Solanum triflorum—cut-leaved nightshade 


Scrophulariaceae (Figwort Family) 

Castilleja sessiliflora—downy paintbrush 

Limmosella aquatica—mudwort 

Linaria vulgaris—butter and eggs 

Orthocarpus luteus—owl clover 

Penstemnon albidus—white beardtongue 

Penstemon angustifolius—narrow beardtongue 

Penstemon gracilis—slender beardtongue 

Lentibulariaceae (Bladderwort Family) 

Utricularia vulgaris—common bladderwort 

Plantaginaceae (Plantain Family) 

Plantago major—common plantain 


 Plantago rugelii—Rugel’s plantain 


Rubiaceae (Madder Family) 

Galium boreale—northern bedstraw 

Hedyotis longifolia—slender-leaved bluet 

Caprifoliaceae (Honeysuckle Family) 

Lonicera dioica—limber honeysuckle 

Lonicera tatarica—tartarian honeysuckle 

Symphoricarpos occidentalis—western

 snowberry 


Viburnum lentago—nannyberry 


Cucurbitaceae (Gourd Family) 

Echinocystis lobata—wild cucumber 

Campanulaceae (Bluebell Family) 

 Campanula rotundifolia—harebell
 

Lobelia kalmii—Kalm’s lobelia
 

Asteraceae (Aster Family) 

Achillea millefolium—yarrow 

Agoseris glauca—false dandelion 

Ambrosia psilostachya—western ragweed 

Antennaria microphylla—pink pussy-toes 

Antennaria neglecta—field pussytoes 

Antennaria parvifolia—pussy-toes 

Arctium minus—common burdock 

Artemisia absinthium—wormwood 

Artemisia cana—dwarf sagebrush 

Artemisia dracunculus—silky wormwood 

Artemisia frigida—fringed sage 

Artemisia longifolia—long-leaved sage 

Artemisia ludoviciana—white sage 

Aster ericoides—white aster 

Aster falcatus—smallflower aster 

Aster hesperius—marsh aster 

Aster laevis—smooth blue aster 

Aster oblongifolia—aromatic aster 

Aster simplex—panicled aster 

Bidens comosa—beggar-ticks 

Bidens frondosa—beggar-ticks 

Bidens vulgate—beggar-ticks 

Centaurea maculosa—spotted knapweed 

Chrysopsis villosa—golden aster 

Chrysothamnus nauseosus—rabbit brush 

Cirsium arvense—Canada thistle 

Cirsium flodmanii—Floodman’s thistle 

Cirsium undulatum—wavy-leaf thistle 

Cirsium vulgare—bull thistle 

Conyza Canadensis—horse-weed 

Crepis runcinata—hawksbeard 

Echinacea angustifolia—purple coneflower 

Erigeron strigosus—daisy fleabane 

Euthamia graminifolia—narrow-leaved 

goldenrod 

Gaillardia aristata—blanket flower 

Grindelia squarrosa—curly-top gumweed 

Gutierrezia sarothrae—snakeweed 

Haplopappus spinulosus—ironplant 

Helianthus annus—common sunflower 

Helianthus maximilianii—Maximilian sunflower 

Helianthus nuttallii subsp. rydbergii— 

Nuttall’s sunflower 

Helianthus petiolaris—plains sunflower 

Helianthus rigidus—stiff sunflower 

Iva xanthifolia—marsh elder 

Lactuca oblongifolia—blue lettuce 

Liatris ligulistylis—gay-feather 

Liatris punctata—blazing star 

Lygodsmia juncea—skeletonweed 

Matricaria chamomile—false chamomile 

Matricaria maritime—wild chamomile 

Matricaria matricarioides—pineapple weed 

Ratibida columnifera—prairie coneflower 
 

 

178 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Rudbeckia hirta—black-eyed susan 

Senecio canus—gray ragwort 

Senecio integerrimus—lambstongue groundsel 

Senecio platensis—prairie ragwort 

Solidago canadensis—Canada goldenrod 

Solidago gigantea—late goldenrod 

Solidago missouriensis—prairie goldenrod 

Solidago mollis—soft goldenrod 

Solidago nemoralis—gray goldenrod 

Solidago ptarmicoides—sneezewort aster 

Solidago rigida—rigid goldenrod 

Sonchus arvensis—field sow thistle 

Tanacetum vulgare—common tansy 

Taraxacum officinale—dandelion 

Tragopogon dubius—goat’s beard, western 

 salsify 

Vernonia fasciculate—ironweed 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G 

Plant Group Types of Upland Vegetation 

at the Souris River Basin Refuges 

This appendix describes the hierarchical listing of 

plant group types (modified from Grant et al. 2004b) 

used for belt transect surveys of upland vegetation 

that occurs at the Souris River basin refuges and 

surrounding areas in North Dakota. One of the below 

types is recorded for each 0.3 x 1.5-foot segment along 

an outstretched measuring tape, based on >50% 

dominance by canopy cover unless otherwise indicated. 

Scientific names are in appendix D. 

Shrub and Tree Types 

Low Shrub (generally <5 feet tall except in 

one to few postdisturbance years) 

11	 snowberry dense (other low shrub 

 species total 0–25%); other plants few 

or none 

12 	 snowberry (and other low shrub 


 species); remainder mostly native
 

grass-forb types 


13 	 snowberry (and other low shrub 

 species); remainder mostly Kentucky 

bluegrass 

14 	 snowberry (and other low shrub 


 species); remainder mostly smooth 


brome (or quackgrass)
 

15	 silverberry prominent, remainder 


mostly native or invaded native
 

grass-forb types 


16	 silverberry prominent; remainder 


mostly Kentucky bluegrass 


17	 silverberry prominent; remainder 

mostly smooth brome (or quackgrass) 

Tall Shrub (generally 5–16 feet tall) or tree 

(>16 feet tall) 

21	 chokecherry, Juneberry, hawthorn, 


willow, dogwood 


22 shrub-stage aspen 

23	 exotic shrub (for example, caragana, 

honeysuckle, Russian olive) 

31	 aspen tree 

32	 burned-over aspen tree (dead or 


dying postfire snags) 


33	 shade-tolerant woodland tree (green 

ash, boxelder, elm) 

Native Grass-Forb and Forb Types 

(>95% dominance by native herbaceous 

plants*) 

41 	 dry cool-season plants (sedges, green 

needlegrass, needle and thread, 

 wheatgrass species, prairie Junegrass, 

forbs; often blue grama and some other 

warm-season plant species) 

42	 dry warm-season plants (little 

bluestem, prairie sandreed, plains 

muhly, fescue species, blue grama, 

forbs) 

43 	 mesic warm–cool mix (big bluestem, 

switchgrass, little bluestem, porcupine 

grass; mat muhly, prairie dropseed, 

forbs) 

46 subirrigated wet meadow microsite 

within upland (fowl bluegrass, foxtail 

barley, northern reedgrass, coarse 

sedge species, Baltic rush, dock, prairie 

cordgrass) 

47 cactus 

48 clubmoss 

*Prairie rose is a native forb in this 

 classification. 

Exotic and Invaded Native 

Grass-Forb Types 

51	 Kentucky bluegrass >95% 

52	 Kentucky bluegrass and native grassforbs, bluegrass 50–95% 

53 	 native grass-forbs and Kentucky
 

bluegrass, bluegrass 5–50% 


61	 smooth brome (or quackgrass) >95% 

62 	 smooth brome (or quackgrass) and 

native grass-forbs, brome 50–95% 

63 	 native grass-forbs and smooth brome 

(or quackgrass), brome 5–50% 

71 crested wheatgrass >95% 

72 crested wheatgrass and native grassforbs, crested wheatgrass 50–95% 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

180 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

73	 native grass-forbs and crested 

wheatgrass, crested wheatgrass 

5–50% 

78	 tall, intermediate, or pubescent 

wheatgrass 

Noxious Weed Types 

81 leafy spurge 

85 Canada thistle 

88 other noxious weeds (user defined) 

Other 

91 	 barren, unvegetated (for example, rock, 

anthill, bare soil) 

98	 tall exotic legume (sweetclover or 

alfalfa) 

00	 wetland basin (temporary, seasonal, 

or semipermanent wetland [Stewart 

and Kantrud 1971]) 
Appendix H 

Birds of the Souris River Basin Refuges
 

Bird species found at the three Souris River basin 

refuges since 1935 total 308, of which 30 are 

“accidentals” and 1 is extirpated. About 170 species 

are known to have nested at the refuges, and 150 of 

these nest regularly. The following list is adapted 

from that produced for the refuges by G. Berkey and 

R. Martin, updated January 2001, as published in the 

Service publication “National Wildlife Refuges, Along 

the Souris River Loop, Bird List.” 

Seasons of Occurrence 

Sp spring (March–May) 

 S summer (June–July)

F fall (August–November) 

 W winter (December–February) 

Abundance Categories 

The following abundance categories indicate the 

peak daily and seasonal totals of birds that may be 

seen by an active, experienced observer spending at 

least 8 hours per week sampling all types of habitat 

at a refuge. 

 a abundant = >125 per day, >600 per season 

 c common = 25–125 per day, 125–600 per 

 season 

 f fairly common = 5–25 per day, 25–125 per season 

 u uncommon = 1–5 per day, 5–25 per season 

 r rare = 1–5 per season 

 o occasional = small numbers seen at intervals 

 of 2–10 years 

 • nested = species that have nested 

 (i) irregular = indicates a species that is 

 irregular; the abundance 

 category indicates the numbers 

 expected in peak years 

 (1) extirpated as a 

 breeding species

 (2) last observed 

 1956 

Loons Sp S F W

common loon r o r —

Grebes Sp S F W

pied-billed grebe• f f f —

horned grebe• f r u —

red-necked grebe• o o o —

eared grebe• a a a —

western grebe• c c c —

Clark's grebe r r r —

Pelicans and Cormorants Sp S F W 

American white pelican c c c — 

double-crested 

cormorant c c c —

Bitterns, Herons, and 

Egrets Sp S F W

American bittern• u u u —

least bittern o o o —

great blue heron• f f f —

great egret o o o —

snowy egret• o o o —

little blue heron• o o o —

cattle egret•(i) f f f —

black-crowned 

 night-heron• f f f —

Ibises and Spoonbills Sp S F W 

white-faced ibis o o o —

New World Vultures Sp S F W

turkey vulture r — r —

Swans, Geese, and Ducks Sp S F W

greater white-fronted 

goose f — f —

snow goose a o a o

Ross' goose u — u —

Canada goose• a c a o

trumpeter swan(1) — o o — 

tundra swan c o a —

wood duck• f f f —

gadwall• a c a —

American wigeon• c u c —

American black duck• o o r —

mallard• a c a o

blue-winged teal• a c a —

cinnamon teal o o — —

northern shoveler• a c a —

northern pintail• a c c o
 

Swans, Geese, and Ducks 

(continued) Sp S F W

green-winged teal• f u c o

canvasback• c f c —

redhead• c f a —

ring-necked duck• f r f —

greater scaup r — r —

lesser scaup• a u a o

surf scoter — — r —

white-winged scoter — — r —

black scoter — — o —

long-tailed duck — — r —

bufflehead• c r c —

common goldeneye c — c —

hooded merganser• f f f —

common merganser c — f —

red-breasted merganser o — o —

ruddy duck• a c a —

Osprey, Kites, Hawks, and 

Eagles Sp S F W

osprey r — r —

bald eagle f o f r

northern harrier• c f c o

sharp-shinned hawk• f f f r

Cooper's hawk• u u u —

northern goshawk o — r r

broad-winged hawk• u o u —

Swainson's hawk• f u f —

red-tailed hawk• c f c o

ferruginous hawk• r o r —

rough-legged hawk u — u r

golden eagle r — r r

Falcons and Caracaras Sp S F W

American kestrel• f u f —

merlin r — u u

gyrfalcon — — o o

peregrine falcon r o r o

prairie falcon o — r r

Gallinaceous Birds Sp S F W

gray partridge• u u u u

ring-necked pheasant• f f f f

ruffed grouse• u u u u

sharp-tailed grouse• f f f f

greater prairiechicken(1)(2) — — — —

wild turkey• u u u u

Rails Sp S F W

yellow rail• r o r —

Virginia rail• u u u —

sora• c c c —

American coot• a a a —

Cranes Sp S F W

sandhill crane• a r a —

whooping crane o — o —

Plovers Sp S F W

black-bellied plover f — f —

American golden-plover f — f —

semipalmated plover u u u —

piping plover• o o o —

killdeer• c c c —

Stilts and Avocets Sp S F W

American avocet• c f c —

Sandpipers and 

Phalaropes Sp S F W

greater yellowlegs f f f —

lesser yellowlegs c c c —

solitary sandpiper u u u —

willet• f f f —

spotted sandpiper• f f f —

upland sandpiper• f f u —

Hudsonian godwit u o o —

marbled godwit• f f f —

ruddy turnstone r o o —

red knot o o o —

sanderling u u u —

semipalmated sandpiper a c a —

western sandpiper o o o —

least sandpiper c f c —

white-rumped sandpiper a f o —

Baird's sandpiper c f c —

pectoral sandpiper c f c —

dunlin u — o —

stilt sandpiper f c c —

buff-breasted sandpiper o — o —

short-billed dowitcher f f f —

long-billed dowitcher c c a —

common snipe• f u c —

Wilson's phalarope• c a a —

red-necked phalarope a a a —

Skuas, Jaegers, Gulls, 

and Terns Sp S F W

Franklin's gull• a a a —

Bonaparte's gull r r u —

ring-billed gull• a c a —

California gull• u r u —

herring gull u — u —

common tern• f r f —

Forster's tern• f f f —

black tern• a c a —

Pigeons and Doves Sp S F W

rock dove• u u u u

mourning dove• c c a o

Cuckoos and Anis Sp S F W

black-billed cuckoo• u u r —

yellow-billed cuckoo o — — —

182 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
 

Typical Owls 

eastern screech-owl• 

great horned owl• 

snowy owl 

burrowing owl• 

long-eared owl•(i) 

short-eared owl•(i) 

boreal owl 

northern saw-whet owl 

Sp 

r 

f 

r 

o 

u 

u 

— 

o 

S 

r 

f 

— 

o 

u 

u 

— 

— 

F 

r 

f 

r 

o 

r 

u 

— 

o 

W

r

f

r

—

o

r

o

o

Goatsuckers 

common nighthawk• 

common poorwill• 

whip-poor-will 

Sp 

u 

o 

o 

S 

r 

o 

o 

F 

u 

o 

— 

W

—

—

—

Swifts 

chimney swift 

Sp 

o 

S 

— 

F 

o 

W

—

Hummingbirds 

ruby-throated 

 hummingbird• 

Sp 

r 

S 

r 

F 

r 

W

—

Kingfishers 

belted kingfisher• 

Sp 

u 

S 

u 

F 

u 

W

o

Woodpeckers 

red-headed 

 woodpecker• 

yellow-bellied 

 sapsucker• 

downy woodpecker• 

hairy woodpecker• 

northern flicker• 

Sp 

r 

u 

u 

u 

f 

S 

o 

u 

u 

u 

f 

F 

r 

u 

u 

u 

f 

W

—

—

u

u

o

Tyrant Flycatchers Sp 

olive-sided flycatcher r 

western wood-pewee o 

eastern wood-pewee• f 

yellow-bellied flycatcher o 

alder flycatcher• u 

willow flycatcher• f 

least flycatcher• c 

eastern phoebe• r 

Say's phoebe• r 

great crested 

 flycatcher• f 

western kingbird• c 

eastern kingbird• c 

S 

r 

o 

f 

— 

r 

f 

c 

r 

r 

f 

c 

c 

F 

r 

o 

f 

o 

r 

f 

c 

r 

r 

u 

c 

c 

W

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Shrikes 

loggerhead shrike• 

northern shrike 

Sp 

r 

u 

S 

r 

— 

F 

r 

u 

W

o 

u

Vireos 

yellow-throated vireo• 

blue-headed vireo 

warbling vireo• 

Philadelphia vireo 

red-eyed vireo• 

Sp 

u 

u 

f 

r 

c 

S 

u 

— 

f 

o 

c 

F 

u 

u 

f 

r 

c 

W

—

—

—

—

—

Crows, Jays, and Magpies Sp S F W 

blue jay• f u f u 

black-billed magpie• f f f f 

American crow• a f a u 

common raven• r r o o 

Larks Sp S F W 

horned lark• a f a f 

Swallows Sp S F W 

purple martin• f f f —

tree swallow• c f u —

northern rough-winged 

 swallow• f f r —

bank swallow• a c a — 

cliff swallow• a a a —

barn swallow• a c a — 

Titmice and Chickadees Sp S F W 

black-capped chickadee• f f f f 

Nuthatches Sp S F W 

red-breasted nuthatch•(i) u r u r 

white-breasted nuthatch• u u u u 

Creepers Sp S F W 

brown creeper u — u r 

Wrens Sp S F W 

rock wren• r r r —

house wren• c c c —

winter wren — — o — 

sedge wren•(i) c c c —

marsh wren• c c c —

Kinglets Sp S F W 

golden-crowned kinglet f — f r 

ruby-crowned kinglet f — f —

Thrushes Sp S F W 

eastern bluebird• u u u — 

mountain bluebird• u u u — 

Townsend's solitaire o — o o 

veery• f f u —

gray-cheeked thrush f — r —

Swainson's thrush c — f —

hermit thrush u — u — 

American robin• a c a r 

Mimic Thrushes Sp S F W 

gray catbird• f f f —

northern mockingbird o o o —

brown thrasher• f f f —

Starlings Sp S F W 

European starling• c f a u 

Appendix H—Birds of the Souris River Basin Refuges 183 
 

Wagtails and Pipits Sp S F W

American pipit u — f —

Sprague's pipit• f f u —

Waxwings Sp S F W

Bohemian waxwing(i) c — c c

cedar waxwing• f c c u

Wood Warblers Sp S F W

Tennessee warbler c r f —

orange-crowned warbler• f r c —

Nashville warbler u — u —

northern parula o — o —

yellow warbler• c c c —

chestnut-sided warbler o — r —

magnolia warbler u — u —

Cape May warbler o — o —

black-throated blue 

 warbler o — o —

yellow-rumped warbler a o a —

black-throated green 

 warbler o — r —

Blackburnian warbler o — r —

palm warbler u — u —

bay-breasted warbler o — r —

blackpoll warbler c — f —

black-and-white warbler• f u f —

American redstart• f u f —

ovenbird• f f u —

northern waterthrush• f r u —

Connecticut warbler r o o —

mourning warbler u o r —

MacGillivray's warbler o — o —

common yellowthroat• c c c —

Wilson's warbler u — f —

Canada warbler r — r —

yellow-breasted chat• r r o —

Tanagers Sp S F W

scarlet tanager• o o — —

western tanager — — o —

Towhees and Sparrows Sp S F W

spotted towhee• f f f —

eastern towhee o — o —

American tree sparrow a — a u

chipping sparrow• c u c —

clay-colored sparrow• a a a —

field sparrow• r r r —

vesper sparrow• c c c —

lark sparrow• u u r —

lark bunting•(i) u u u —

Savannah sparrow• a c a —

grasshopper 

 sparrow•(i) c c c —

Baird's sparrow•(i) f f f —

Le Conte's sparrow•(i) f f f —

Towhees and Sparrows 

(continued) Sp S F W

song sparrow• c f c o

Lincoln's sparrow f — f —

swamp sparrow• f r f —

white-throated sparrow c — c o

Harris' sparrow c — c o

white-crowned sparrow f — f —

dark-eyed junco a o a r

McCown's longspur• o o o —

Lapland longspur a — a u

Smith's longspur r — r —

chestnut-collared 

 longspur• u u u —

snow bunting c — a c

Nelson's sharp-tailed 

 sparrow• f f f —

fox sparrow r — u —

Cardinals, Grosbeaks, and 

Allies Sp S F W

rose-breasted grosbeak• f f f —

black-headed grosbeak• r r o —

lazuli bunting• r r r —

indigo bunting• r r r —

dickcissel• o o o —

Blackbirds and Orioles Sp S F W

bobolink• c c f —

red-winged blackbird• a a a o

western meadowlark• a a a o

yellow-headed 

 blackbird• a a a o

rusty blackbird r — f o

Brewer's blackbird• c f a o

common grackle• a c a o

brown-headed cowbird• a a u —

orchard oriole• f f o —

northern oriole• f f f —

Finches Sp S F W

pine grosbeak(i) u — u f

purple finch u — u r

house finch• u u u f

red crossbill•(i) u o u f

white-winged 

 crossbill(i) o — o o

common redpoll(i) a — c a

hoary redpoll o — — o

pine siskin•(i) c o c f

American goldfinch• c c c u

evening grosbeak o — o o

Old World Sparrows Sp S F W

house sparrow• f f f f

184 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
 

The following birds are rarely seen at the refuges 

and are out of their normal ranges: 

 Pacific loon 

 brown pelican 

 tricolored heron 

 green heron 

 yellow-crowned night-heron

 white ibis 

 fulvous whistling-duck

 Eurasian wigeon 

 harlequin duck 

 red-shouldered hawk

 black-necked stilt 

 whimbrel 

 long-billed curlew 

 American woodcock 

Appendix H—Birds of the Souris River Basin Refuges 185 

glaucous gull 

black-legged kittiwake 

barn owl 

barred owl 

scissor-tailed flycatcher 

violet-green swallow 

sage thrasher 

Townsend's warbler 

prothonotary warbler 

hooded warbler 

Henslow's sparrow 

golden-crowned sparrow 

Bullock's oriole 

lesser goldfinch 

Appendix I 

Birds of Conservation Concern in the 


United States Prairie Pothole Region
 

The following bird species occur in “Bird Conservation An asterisk (*) denotes species that currently breed 


Region Number 11” (prairie potholes–U.S. portion in the Souris River basin in North Dakota. Others
 

only), as listed in “Birds of Conservation Concern: migrate through the area.
 

the 2002 List” (USFWS 2002). 


American bittern* Wilson's phalarope* 

northern harrier* black-billed cuckoo* 

Swainson's hawk* burrowing owl* 

ferruginous hawk* short-eared owl* 

peregrine falcon red-headed woodpecker* 

yellow rail* loggerhead shrike* 

solitary sandpiper Sprague's pipit* 

willet* grasshopper sparrow* 

upland sandpiper* Baird's sparrow* 

long-billed curlew Henslow's sparrow 

Hudsonian godwit Le Conte's sparrow* 

marbled godwit* Nelson's Sharp-tailed sparrow* 

sanderling McCown's longspur 

white-rumped sandpiper chestnut-collared longspur* 

buff-breasted sandpiper 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J 

Mammals of the Souris River Basin Refuges
 

Mammal species that have been documented at the 

Souris River basin refuges, before and after 

establishment of the refuges, total 62 species including 

6 that have been largely extirpated from the area 

(Jones et al. 1983, Kadrmas 2005). Some species 

likely have been overlooked, especially secretive, 

rare, or nocturnal species such as some species of 

bats. Voucher specimens of most small mammal 

species are stored at the University of North Dakota’s 

biology department. 

ORDER INSECTIVORA 

Family Soricidae 

 Sorex cinereus—masked shrew 

Sorex arcticus—Arctic shrew 

Microsorex hoyi—pigmy shrew 

Blarina brevicauda—short-tailed shrew 

ORDER CHIROPTERA 

Family Vespertilionidae 

Myotis lucifugus—little brown myotis 

Myotis septentrionalis—northern myotis 

Myotis evotis—long-eared myotis 

Lasionycteris noctivagans—silver-haired bat 

Eptesicus fuscus—big brown bat 

Lasiurus borealis—red bat 

Lasiurus cinereus—hoary bat 

ORDER LAGOMORPHA 

Family Leporidae 

Sylvilagus floridanus—eastern cottontail 

Sylvilagus audubonii—desert cottontail 

Lepus americanus—snowshoe hare 

Lepus townsendii—white-tailed jackrabbit 

ORDER RODENTIA 

Family Sciuridae 

Eutamius minimus—least chipmunk 

Marmota monax—woodchuck 

Spermophilus richardsonii—Richardson's 

 ground squirrel 

Spermophilus tridecemlineatus—thirteen­

 lined ground squirrel 

Spermophilus franklinii—Franklin's ground

 squirrel 

Sciurus carolinensis—gray squirrel 

Sciurus niger—fox squirrel 

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus—red squirrel 

Family Geomyidae 

Thomomys talpoides—northern pocket gopher 

Family Heteromyidae 

Perognathus fasciatus—olived-backed pocket

 mouse 

Perognathus flavescens—plains pocket mouse 

Family Heteromyidae 

Castor canadensis—beaver 

Family Cricetidae 

Peromyscus maniculatus—deer mouse 

Peromyscus leucopus—white-footed mouse 

Onychomys leucogaster—northern grasshopper 

 mouse 

Clethrionomys gapperi—southern red-backed 

 vole 

Microtus pennsylvanicus—meadow vole 

Microtus ochrogaster—prairie vole 

Ondatra zibethicus—muskrat 

Family Muridae 

Rattus norvegius—Norway rat 


Mus musculus—house mouse 


Family Zapodidae 

Zapus hudsonius—meadow jumping mouse 

Zapus princeps—western jumping mouse 

Family Erethizontidae 

Erethizon dorsatum—porcupine 

ORDER CARNIVORA 

Family Canidae 

Canis latrans—coyote 


Canis lupus—gray wolf* 


Vulpes vulpes—red fox 


Vulpes velox—swift fox*
 

Family Ursidae 

Ursus americanus—black bear 

Family Procyonidae 

Procyon lotor—raccoon 

Family Mustelidae 

Mustela erminea—ermine 


Mustela nivalis—least weasel
 

Mustela frenata—long-tailed weasel
 

Mustela vison—mink 


Taxidea taxus—badger 


Mephitis mephitis—striped skunk 


Lutra canadensis—river otter*
 

Family Felidae 

Felis concolor—mountain lion* 


Felis lynx—lynx* 


Felis rufus—bobcat
 

*Largely extirpated from the area. 
190 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

ORDER ARTIODACTYLA 

Family Cervidae 

Cervus elaphus—elk* 

Odocoileus hemionus—mule deer 

Odocoileus virginianus—white-tailed deer 


Alces alces—moose 

Family Antilocapridae 

Antilocapridae americana—pronghorn 

Family Bovidae 

Bison bison—bison* 


*Largely extirpated from the area. 
 

 

Appendix K 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

of the Souris River Basin Refuges 

Reptile and amphibian species that have been 

documented in the Souris River basin include at least 

the 16 species listed here (Beachy, unpublished; 

Wheeler and Wheeler 1966). 

CLASS REPTILIA 

ORDER CHELONIA 

Family Chelydridae 

Chelydra serpentina—common snapping turtle 

Family Emydidae 

Chrysemys picta belli—western painted turtle 

ORDER SQUAMATA 

Family Colubridae 

Pituophis catenifer—bullsnake 

Thamnophis sirtalis (subsp. parietalis)— 

 red-sided garter snake 

Thamnophis radix—plains garter snake 

Storeria occipitomaculata—redbelly snake 

Opheodrys vernalis—smooth green snake 

Heterdon nasicus—western hognose snake 

CLASS AMPHIBIA 

ORDER CAUDATA 

Family Ambystomidae 

Ambystoma tigrinum—tiger salamander 

ORDER SALIENTIA 

Family Pelobatidae 

Scaphiopus bombifrons—plains spadefoot 

Family Bufonidae 

Bufo hemiophrys—Canadian toad 

Bufo cognatus—Great Plains toad 

Bufo woodhousei—Woodhouse's toad 

Family Hylidae 

Pseudacris triseriata—western chorus frog 

Family Ranidae 

Rana pipiens—northern leopard frog 

Rana sylvatica—wood frog 

 

Appendix L 

Fishes of the Souris River Basin Refuges
 

Fishes include about 26 species that occurred in the 

Souris River basin system circa the 1980s. Most of 

these species probably still occur at the three Souris 

River basin refuges, but several may be extirpated 

from the river system. The following list was compiled 

by Wade King, USFWS–Bismarck, North Dakota 

(personal communication), based on unpublished 

data (sampling records). 

Family Esocidae 

Esox lucius—northern pike 

Family Cyprinidae 

Hybognathus hankinsoni—brassy minnow 

Notemigonus crysoleucas—golden shiner 

Notropis blennius—river shiner 

Notropis cornutus—common shiner 

Notropis atherinoides—emerald shiner 

Notropis dorsalis—bigmouth shiner 

Notropis hudsonius—spottail shiner 

Notropis stramineus—sand shiner 

Pimephales promelas—fathead minnow 

Rhinichthys atratulus—blacknose dace 

Rhinichthys cataractae—longnose dace 

Semotilus atromaculatus—creek chub 

Family Catostomidae 

Catostomus catostomus—longnose sucker 

Catostomus commersoni—white sucker 

Moxostoma anisurum—silver redhorse 

Family Ictaluridae 

Ictalurus melas—black bullhead 

Noturus gyrinus—tadpole madtom 

Family Percopsidae 

Percopsis omiscomaycus—trout-perch 

Family Gasterosteidae 

Culaea inconstans—brook stickleback 

Family Percidae 

Etheostoma exile—Iowa darter 

Etheostoma nigrum—Johnny darter 

Perca flavescens—yellow perch 

Percina maculata—blackside darter 

Stizostedion vitreum—walleye 

Family Centrarchidae 

Micropterus dolomieui—smallmouth bass 

At least five other fish species once occurred at the 

refuges through stocking programs during the 1940s: 

Pomoxis nigromaculatus—black crappie 

Lepomis macrochirus—bluegill 

Micropterus salmoides—largemouth bass 

Ictalurus punctatus—channel catfish 

Ictalurus natalis—yellow bullhead 

Appendix M 

International Water Management Agreements
 
196 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 197 
198 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 199 
200 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 201 
202 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 203 
204 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 205 
206 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 207 
208 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 209 
210 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 211 
212 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 213 
214 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 215 
216 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 217 
218 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 219 
220 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 221 
222 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
 

A-10
 

Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 223 
224 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 225 
226 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 227 
228 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 229 
 

A-17
 

230 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
 

A-18 

Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 231 
232 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 233 
234 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 235 
236 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 237 
238 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 239 
240 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 241 
242 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 243 
244 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
 

A-32
 

Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 245 
246 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 247 
248 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 249 
250 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 251 
252 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 253 
254 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 255 
256 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
 

PLATE-7
 

Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 257 
258 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 259 
260 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 261 
262 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 263 
264 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 265 
266 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

DRAFT dated August 5, 2006 

DIRECTIVE TO THE 

INTERNATIONAL SOURIS RIVER BOARD
 

The International Souris River Board was created by the International Joint Commission 

(hereafter referred to as the Commission) in April 2000 when it amalgamated the Souris River 

basin responsibilities previously assigned to the Commission in two separate references by the 

governments of Canada and the United States. The two references were the International Souris 

River Board of Control Reference (1959) and the Souris-Red Rivers Engineering Board 

Reference (1948). The International Souris River Board’s mandate changed further through an 

exchange of diplomatic notes on June 9, 2005 assigning water quality functions and the 

oversight for flood forecasting and operations as described in Section 4 below. The 

consolidation of water quantity, water quality, and the oversight for flood forecasting and 

operations is a step in the evolution of the International Souris River Board as it moves towards 

an integrated approach to transboundary water issues in the Souris River basin. 

This directive sets out the mandate under which the International Souris River Board will 

operate. 

1. Pursuant to the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 and related agreements, responsibilities 

have been conferred on the Commission to ensure compliance with apportionment 

measures for the waters of the Souris River, to investigate and report on water 

requirements and uses as they impact the transboundary waters of the Souris River basin, 

and to assist in the implementation and review of the Joint Water Quality Monitoring 

Program pursuant to the 1989 Canada-United States Agreement for Water Supply and 

Flood Control in the Souris River Basin. 

2. The apportionment measures derive from the approvals given by the governments of 

Canada and the United States, by letters of March 20, 1959 and April 3, 1959 

respectively, to the recommendations made by the Commission in paragraph 22 of its 

report to the governments of March 19, 1958. Subsequently, with the signing of the 

Canada-United States Agreement for Water Supply and Flood Control in the Souris 

River basin on October 26, 1989 (hereafter referred to as the 1989 Agreement), the 

Interim Measures for apportionment of the Souris River at the Saskatchewan-North 

Dakota boundary were revised as described in Annex B of the Agreement. By letters of 

February 28, 1992, the Commission was requested to monitor compliance with the 

measures as modified in the Agreement. By letters of December 22, 2000, the 

governments amended Annex B of the 1989 Agreement. The attached Appendix A is a 

consolidation of the apportionment measures against which the Commission is to 

monitor compliance. 

3. By letters of January 12, 1948, the governments requested the Commission to undertake 

investigations of water requirements and uses arising out of existing dams and other 

works or projects in the mid-continent portion of the Canada-United States boundary, 

including the Souris River basin, and to make advisory recommendations. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 267 

4. By exchange of diplomatic notes between the governments of Canada and the United 

States dated January 14 and June 9, 2005, the 1989 Canada-United States Agreement for 

Water Supply and Flood Control in the Souris River Basin was formally revised to 

include a reference pursuant to Article IX of the Boundary Waters Treaty which 

assigned the water quality responsibilities contained in the 1989 Agreement to the 

Commission. The Commission was requested to assist with the implementation and 

review of the Joint Water Quality Monitoring Program. On Friday, October 21, 2005 at 

the October 2005 Commission’s meeting with governments, the U.S. State Department 

read a statement into the Commission’s formal record that the U.S. State Department is 

of the opinion the Commission has the authority and has obtained the notification it 

needs from the U.S. State Department to proceed with carrying out the flood related 

responsibilities for the Souris River. On Thursday, April 6, 2006 at the April 2006 

Commission’s meeting with governments, Foreign Affairs Canada indicated that the 

Board should be assigned these responsibilities. It is recognized that Article X of the 

1989 Canada-United States Agreement for Water Supply and Flood Control in the 

Souris River basin designates the entities responsible for operation and maintenance of 

the improvements mentioned in the Agreement and that the operations will be in 

accordance with the Operating Plan shown in Annex A of the Agreement. The 

Department of Army is the entity designated responsible for flood operations within the 

United States. The Government of Saskatchewan is the Canadian entity designated 

responsible for flood operations within the Canadian Province of Saskatchewan. 

5. This directive replaces the April 11, 2002 Directive to the former International Souris 

River Board. 

6. The Board’s mandate is to assist the Commission in carrying out the responsibilities 

assigned to it by the governments of the United States and Canada in the Souris River 

basin by performing the tasks identified in Clause 7 below. 

7. The Board’s duties shall be to: 

(i) Maintain an awareness of existing and proposed developments, activities, 

conditions, and issues in the Souris River basin that may have an impact on 

transboundary water levels, flows, water quality, and aquatic ecosystem health 

and inform the Commission about existing or potential transboundary issues. 

(ii)	 Oversee the implementation of compliance with the Interim Measures As 

Modified For Apportionment of the Souris River as described in Appendix A of 

this document by: 

•	 identifying an adequate hydro-climatic monitoring network to support the 

determination of natural flow and apportionment balance, 

•	 encouraging the appropriate authorities to establish and maintain hydroclimatic monitoring and information collection networks and reporting 

systems to ensure suitable information is available as required for the 

determination of natural flow and apportionment balance. 
 

 

268 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

•	 informing the Commission, in a timely manner, of critical water supply 

or flow conditions in the basin, 

•	 encouraging appropriate authorities to take steps to ensure that 

apportionment measures are met, and 

•	 preparing an annual report and submitting it to the Commission. 

(iii)	 Assist in the implementation and review of a Joint Water Quality Monitoring 

Program (referred to hereafter as “the Program”) by: 

•	 developing recommendations on the Program and setting water quality 

objectives, 

•	 exchanging data provided by the Program on a regular basis, 

•	 collating, interpreting, and analyzing the data provided by the Program, 

•	 reviewing the Program and the water quality objectives at least every five 

years, 

•	 recommending, as appropriate, any modifications to improve the Program, 

and 

•	 preparing an annual report containing: 

- a summary of the principal activities of the Board during the year 

with respect to the Program, 

- a summary of the principal activities affecting water quality in the 

Souris River Basin during the year, 

- a summary of the collated, interpreted, and analyzed data provided by 

the Program, 

- a summary of the water quality of the Souris River at the two 

locations at which it crosses the International Boundary 

- a section summarizing any definitive changes in the monitored 

parameters and the possible causes of such changes, 

- a section discussing the water quality objectives for the Souris River 

at the Saskatchewan/North Dakota boundary and at the North 

Dakota/Manitoba boundary as established pursuant to Agreement, 

- a section summarizing other significant water quality changes and the 

possible causes of such changes, and 

- recommendations on new water quality objectives or on how existing 

water quality objectives can be met, including suggestions on water 

quality as it relates to water quantity during periods of low flow, in 

the event that the annual report indicates that the water quality 

objectives have not been attained as a result of activities pursued 

under the Agreement. 
 

 

 

Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 269 

(iv) Perform an oversight function for flood operations in cooperation with the 

designated entities identified in the 1989 Canada-United States Agreement for 

Water Supply and Flood Control in the Souris River Basin by: 

•	 ensuring mechanisms are in place for coordination of data exchange, flood 

forecasts and communications related to flood conditions and operations; 

•	 determining whether the operations under the Agreement should proceed 

based on the Flood Operation or Non-Flood Operation of the Operating Plan, 

which is Annex A to the Agreement, using its criteria and informing 

designated agencies of this determination; 

•	 reporting to the Commission on any issues related to flood operations and 

management; and 

•	 providing the Commission and the designated entities under the Agreement 

recommendations on how flood operations and coordination activities could 

be improved. 

(v)	 Report on aquatic ecosystem health issues in the watershed and regularly inform 

the Commission on the state and implications of aquatic ecosystem health. 

(vi) Carry out such other studies or activities as the Commission may, from time to 

time, request. 

8. The Board shall provide opportunities for the public to be involved in its work, 

including at least one public meeting in the basin each year. 

9. The Board shall coordinate and collaborate with other agencies and institutions both 

within and outside the Souris River basin as may be needed or desirable, and facilitate 

the timely dissemination of pertinent information within the basin. 

10. The Board shall have an equal number of members from each country. The 

Commission shall normally appoint each member for a three-year term. Appointments 

may be renewed for additional terms. Members shall act in their personal and 

professional capacity, and not as representatives of their countries, agencies or 

institutions. The Commission shall appoint Canadian and United States co-chairs of the 

Board and will strive to appoint chairs with complementary expertise that encompasses 

a broad spectrum of basin issues. 

11. The co-chairs of the Board shall be responsible for maintaining proper liaison between 

the Board and the Commission, and among the Board members. 

12. The co-chairs shall ensure that members of the Board are informed of all instructions, 

inquiries, and authorizations received from the Commission and also of activities 

undertaken by or on behalf of the Board, progress made, and any developments 

affecting such progress. 
270 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

13. The co-chairs may appoint secretaries of the Board who, under the general supervision 

of the co-chairs, shall carry out such duties as are assigned by the co-chairs or the Board 

as a whole. 

14. The Board may establish such committees and working groups as may be required to 

fulfill its responsibilities in a knowledgeable and effective manner. The Commission 

shall be kept informed of the duties and composition of any committee or working 

group. 

15. Unless other arrangements are made with the Commission, members of the Board, 

committees, or working groups shall make their own arrangements for reimbursement 

of necessary expenditures for travel or other related expenses. 

16. The Board shall inform the Commission in advance of plans for any meetings, or other 

means of involving the public in Board deliberations, and shall report to the 

Commission, in a timely manner, on these and any other presentations or 

representations made to the Board. 

17. The Board shall conduct its public outreach activities in accordance with the 

Commission’s public information policies and shall maintain files in accordance with 

the Commission policy on segregation of documents. 

18. Prior to their release, the Board shall provide the text of media releases and other public 

information materials to the Secretaries of the Commission for review by the 

Commission’s Public Information Officers. 

19. The Board shall submit an annual report covering all of its activities, including the 

annual report regarding the Program, as described in Section 7 (ii) and (iii) above, to the 

Commission, at least three weeks in advance of the Commission’s fall semi-annual 

meeting, and the Board shall submit other reports as the Commission may request or the 

Board may feel appropriate in keeping with this Directive. Reports shall be submitted 

in a format suitable for public release and electronic copies shall be provided to each of 

the Commission’s section offices. 

20. Reports, including annual reports, minutes and correspondence of the Board shall, 

normally, remain privileged and be available only to the Commission and to members 

of the Board and its committees until their release has been authorized by the 

Commission. The Board shall provide minutes of Board meetings to the Commission 

within 45 days of the close of the meeting in keeping with the Commission’s April 2002 

Policy Concerning Public Access to Minutes of Meetings. The minutes will 

subsequently be put on the Commission’s web site. 

21. If, in the opinion of the Board or of any member, any instruction, directive, or 

authorization received from the Commission lacks clarity or precision, the matter shall 

be referred promptly to the Commission for appropriate action. 
Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 271 

22. The Board shall operate by consensus. In the event of any disagreement among the 

members of the Board which they are unable to resolve, the Board shall refer the matter 

forthwith to the Commission for decision. 

23. The Commission may amend existing instructions or issue new instructions to the Board 

at any time. 

Signed this ______day of _________, 2006 

 Elizabeth Bourget Murray Clamen 

Secretary Secretary 

 United States Section Canadian Section 
 

 

 

272 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Appendix A 

to the 

Directive to the International Souris River Board
 

Interim Measures As Modified For 

Apportionment of the Souris River 

By letters dated March 20, 1959 and April 3, 1959, respectively, the Commission was 

advised that the governments of Canada and the United States approved the apportionment 

arrangements for the Souris River contained in paragraph 22 of the March 19, 1958 report to 

the Governments of the United States and Canada concerning the Souris River. The measures 

became known as the 1959 Interim Measures, and the Commission was assigned responsibility 

for ensuring compliance with them. Article VII of the 1989 Agreement Between the 

Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America For The Water 

Supply And Flood Control In The Souris River modified paragraph 1 of the 1959 Interim 

Measures. The measures were further modified by the governments in December 2000. The 

‘Interim Measures As Modified’ are as follows: 

From Canada-United States Exchange of Letters December 22, 2000: 

1. The Province of Saskatchewan shall have the right to divert, store, and use waters which 

originate in the Saskatchewan portion of the Souris River basin, provided that such 

diversion, storage, and use shall not diminish the annual flow of the river at the 

Sherwood Crossing more than 50 percent of that which would have occurred in a state 

of nature, as calculated by the International Souris River Board of Control1

 (the Board). 

For the purpose of these calculations, any reference to “annual” and “year” is intended 

to mean the period January 1 through December 31. 

For the benefit of riparian users of water between the Sherwood Crossing and the 

upstream end of Lake Darling, the Province of Saskatchewan shall, so far as is 

practicable, regulate its diversion, storage, and uses in such a manner that the flow in 

the Souris River channel at the Sherwood Crossing shall not be less than 0.113 cubic 

metres per second (4 cubic feet per second) when that much flow would have occurred 

under the conditions of water use development prevailing in the Saskatchewan portion 

of the Souris River basin prior to construction of the Boundary Dam, Rafferty Dam and 

Alameda Dam. 

Under certain conditions, a portion of the North Dakota share will be in the form of 

evaporation from Rafferty and Alameda Reservoirs. During years when these conditions 

occur, the minimum amount of flow actually passed to North Dakota will be 40 percent 

of the annual natural flow volume at the Sherwood Crossing. This lesser amount is in 

recognition of Saskatchewan’s operation of Rafferty Dam and Alameda Dam for flood 

control in North Dakota and of evaporation as a result of the project. 

1

 In April 2000, the International Joint Commission renamed the Board the International 

 Souris River Board. Any reference hereafter to the International Souris River Board of 

 Control refers to the International Souris River Board. 
 

 

Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 273 

(a) Saskatchewan will deliver a minimum of 50 percent of the annual natural flow 

volume at the Sherwood Crossing in every year except in those years when the 

conditions given in (i) or (ii) below apply. In those years, Saskatchewan will 

deliver a minimum of 40 percent of the annual natural flow volume at the 

Sherwood Crossing. 

(i) The annual natural flow volume at Sherwood Crossing is greater than 50 

000 cubic decametres (40 500 acre-feet) and the current year June 1 

elevation of Lake Darling is greater than 486.095 metres (1594.8 feet); or 

(ii) The annual natural flow volume at Sherwood Crossing is greater than 50 

000 cubic decametres (40 500 acre-feet) and the current year June 1 

elevation of Lake Darling is greater than 485.79 metres (1593.8 feet), and 

since the last occurrence of a Lake Darling June 1 elevation of greater 

than 486.095 metres (1594.8 feet) the elevation of Lake Darling has not 

been less than 485.79 metres (1593.8 feet) on June 1. 

(b) Notwithstanding the annual division of flows that is described in (a), in each year 

Saskatchewan will, so far as is practicable as determined by the Board, deliver to 

North Dakota prior to June 1, 50 percent of the first 50 000 cubic decameters (40 

500 acre-feet) of natural flow which occurs during the period January 1 to May 

31. The intent of this division of flow is to ensure that North Dakota receives 50 

percent of the rate and volume of flow that would have occurred in a state of 

nature to try to meet existing senior water rights. 

(c) Lake Darling Reservoir and the Canadian reservoirs will be operated (insofar as 

is compatible with the Projects’ purposes and consistent with past practices) to 

ensure that the pool elevations, which determine conditions for sharing 

evaporation losses, are not artificially altered. The triggering elevation of 485.79 

metres (1593.8 feet) for Lake Darling Reservoir is based on existing water uses 

in North Dakota, including refuges operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Each year, operating plans for the refuges on the Souris River will be 

presented to the Board. Barring unforeseen circumstances, operations will follow 

said plans during each given year. Lake Darling Reservoir will not be drawn 

down for the sole purpose of reaching the elevation of 485.79 metres (1593.8 

feet) on June 1. 

Releases will not be made by Saskatchewan Water Corporation from the 

Canadian reservoirs for the sole purpose of raising the elevation of Lake Darling 

Reservoir above 486.095 metres (1594.8 feet) on June 1. 

(d) Flow releases to the United States should occur (except in flood years) in the 

pattern which would have occurred in a state of nature. To the extent possible 

and in consideration of potential channel losses and operating efficiencies, 

releases from the Canadian dams will be scheduled to coincide with periods of 

beneficial use in North Dakota. Normally, the period of beneficial use in North 

Dakota coincides with the timing of the natural hydrograph, and that timing 

should be a guide to releases of the United States portion of the natural flow. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

274 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

(e) A determination of the annual apportionment balance shall be made by the 

Board on or about October 1, of each year. Any shortfall that exists as of that 

date shall be delivered by Saskatchewan prior to December 31. 

(f) The flow release to the United States may be delayed when State of North 

Dakota determines and notifies Saskatchewan through the Board that the release 

would not be of benefit to the State at that time. The delayed release may be 

retained for use in Saskatchewan, notwithstanding the 0.113 cubic metres per 

second (4 cubic feet per second) minimum flow limit, unless it is called for by 

the State of North Dakota through the Board before October 1 of each year. The 

delayed release shall be measured at the point of release and the delivery at 

Sherwood Crossing shall not be less than the delayed release minus the 

conveyance losses that would have occurred under natural conditions between 

the point of release and the Sherwood Crossing. Prior to these releases being 

made, consultations shall occur between the Saskatchewan Water Corporation, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the State of North Dakota. All releases 

will be within the specified target flows at the control points. 

From paragraph 22 of March 19, 1958 IJC report: 

2. Except as otherwise provided herein with respect to delivery of water to the Province of 

Manitoba, the State of North Dakota shall have the right to divert, store, and use the 

waters which originate in the North Dakota portion of the Souris River basin together 

with the waters delivered to the State of North Dakota at the Sherwood Crossing under 

Recommendation (1) above; provided, that any diversion, use, or storage of Long Creek 

water shall not diminish the annual flow at the eastern crossing of Long Creek into 

Saskatchewan below the annual flow of said Creek at the western crossing into North 

Dakota. 

3. (a) In addition to the waters of the Souris River basin which originate in the 

Province of Manitoba, that Province shall have the right, except during periods 

of severe drought, to receive for its own use and the State of North Dakota shall 

deliver from any available source during the months of June, July, August, 

September, and October of each year, six thousand and sixty-nine (6,069) acrefeet of water at the Westhope Crossing regulated so far as practicable at the rate 

of twenty (20) cubic feet per second except as set forth hereinafter: provided, 

that in delivering such water to Manitoba no account shall be taken of water 

crossing the boundary at a rate in excess of the said 20 cubic feet per second. 

(b) In periods of severe drought when it becomes impracticable for the State of 

North Dakota to provide the foregoing regulated flows, the responsibility of the 

State of North Dakota in this connection shall be limited to the provision of such 

flows as may be practicable, in the opinion of the said Board of Control, in 

accordance with the objective of making water available for human and 

livestock consumption and for household use. It is understood that in the 

circumstances contemplated in this paragraph the State of North Dakota will 

give the earliest possible advice to the International Souris River Board of 

Control with respect to the onset of severe drought conditions. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix M—International Water Management Agreements 275 

4. In event of disagreement between the two sections of the International Souris River 

Board of Control, the matters in controversy shall be referred to the Commission for 

decision. 

5. The interim measures for which provision is herein made shall remain in effect until the 

adoption of permanent measures in accordance with the requirements of questions (1) 

and (2) of the Reference of January 15 1940, unless before that time these interim 

measures are qualified or modified by the Commission. 

Appendix N 

Compatibility Determination 

Souris River Basin Flood Control Project 
278 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix N—Compatibility Determination, Souris River Basin Flood Control Project 279 
280 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix N—Compatibility Determination, Souris River Basin Flood Control Project 281 
282 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix N—Compatibility Determination, Souris River Basin Flood Control Project 283 
284 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix N—Compatibility Determination, Souris River Basin Flood Control Project 285 
286 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix N—Compatibility Determination, Souris River Basin Flood Control Project 287 
288 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix N—Compatibility Determination, Souris River Basin Flood Control Project 289 
290 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix N—Compatibility Determination, Souris River Basin Flood Control Project 291 
292 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix N—Compatibility Determination, Souris River Basin Flood Control Project 293 
294 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix N—Compatibility Determination, Souris River Basin Flood Control Project 295 
296 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix N—Compatibility Determination, Souris River Basin Flood Control Project 297 
298 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix N—Compatibility Determination, Souris River Basin Flood Control Project 299 
300 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix N—Compatibility Determination, Souris River Basin Flood Control Project 301 

Appendix O 

Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Grazing
 
304 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix O—Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Grazing 305 
306 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix O—Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Grazing 307 
308 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix O—Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Grazing 309 
310 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix P 

Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Haying
 
312 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix P—Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Haying 313 
314 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix P—Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Haying 315 
316 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix P—Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Haying 317 
318 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix Q 

Compatibility Determination for the 

Cooperative Farming Program 
320 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix Q—Compatibility Determination for the Cooperative Farming Program 321 
322 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix Q—Compatibility Determination for the Cooperative Farming Program 323 
324 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix Q—Compatibility Determination for the Cooperative Farming Program 325 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix R 

Fire Management Program
 

The Service has administrative responsibility, 

including fire management, for the Souris River 

basin refuges, which cover approximately 110,292 

acres in north-central North Dakota. 

The Role of Fire 

In ecosystems of the Great Plains, vegetation has 

evolved under periodic disturbance and defoliation 

from grazing, fire, drought, and floods. This periodic 

disturbance is what kept the ecosystem diverse and 

healthy while maintaining significant biodiversity 

for thousands of years. 

Historically, natural fire and Native American 

ignitions played an important disturbance role in 

many ecosystems by removing fuel accumulations, 

decreasing the effects of insects and diseases, 

stimulating regeneration, cycling nutrients, and 

providing a diversity of habitats for plants and 

wildlife. 

When fire or grazing is excluded from prairie 

landscapes, fuel loadings increase due to a buildup 

of thatch and invasion of woody vegetation. This 

increase in fuel loadings leads to an increase in a 

fire's resistance to control, which threatens 

firefighter and public safety as well as federal and 

private facilities. However, when properly used, 

fire can do the following: 

Q	 reduce hazardous fuels buildup in both wildlandurban interface (WUI) and non-WUI areas 

Q	 improve wildlife habitats by reducing the density 

of vegetation or changing plant species 

composition, or both 

Q	 sustain or increase biological diversity 

Q	 improve woodlands and shrub lands by reducing 

plant density 

Q	 reduce susceptibility of plants to insect and 

disease outbreaks 

Q	 improve the quality and quantity of livestock 

forage 

Q	 improve the quantity of water available for 

municipalities and activities dependent on 

wildlands for their water supply 

Wildland Fire Management Policy

and Guidance 

In 2001, the Secretaries of the Interior and 

Agriculture completed and approved an update of 

the 1995 “Federal Fire Policy.” The 2001 “Federal 

Wildland Fire Management Policy” directs federal 

agencies to achieve a balance between fire suppression 

—to protect life, property, and resources—and fire 

use to regulate fuels and maintain healthy 

ecosystems. In addition, the policy directs agencies 

to use the appropriate management response for all 

wildland fire regardless of the ignition source. This 

policy provides eight guiding principles that are 

fundamental to the success of the fire management 

program: 

Q	 Firefighter and public safety is the first priority 

in every fire management activity. 

Q	 The role of wildland fire as an ecological process 

and natural change agent is incorporated into the 

planning process. 

Q	 Fire management plans (FMPs), programs, and 

activities support land and resource management 

plans and their implementation. 

Q	 Sound risk management is a foundation for all 

fire management activities. 

Q	 Fire management programs and activities are 

economically viable, based on values to be 

protected, costs, and land and resource 

management objectives. 

Q	 FMPs and activities are based on the best 

available science. 

Q	 FMPs and activities incorporate public health 

and environmental quality consideration. 

Q	 Federal, state, tribal, local, interagency, and 

international coordination and cooperation are 

essential. 

Q	 Standardization of policies and procedures among 

federal agencies is an ongoing objective. 

The fire management considerations, guidance, and 

direction should be addressed in the land use 

resource plans, for example, the CCP. FMPs are 

step-down processes from the land use plans and 

habitat plans, with more detail on fire suppression, 

fire use, and fire management activities. 
 

 

 

 

 

328 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Management Direction 

The Souris River basin refuges will protect life, 

property, and other resources from wildland fire by 

safely suppressing all wildfires. Prescribed fire as 

well as manual and mechanical fuel treatments will 

be used in an ecosystem context to protect both 

federal and private property and for habitat 

management purposes. 

Fuel reduction activities will be applied in 

collaboration with federal, state, private, and 

nongovernmental organization partners. In 

addition, fuel treatments will be prioritized based 

on the guidance for priority setting established in 

the goals and strategies outlined in the “U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge 

System Wildland Fire Management Program 

Strategic Plan 2003–2010” and the “R6 Refuges 

Regional Priorities FY07–11.” For WUI 

treatments, areas with community wildfire 

protection plans and communities at risk will be the 

primary focus. 

All aspects of the fire management program will be 

conducted in a manner consistent with applicable 

laws, policies, and regulations. The Souris River 

basin refuge stations will maintain an FMP to 

accomplish the fire management goals described 

below. Prescribed fire and manual and mechanical 

fuel treatments will be applied in a scientific way 

under selected weather and environmental 

conditions. 

Fire Management Goals 

The goals and strategies of the “U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System 

Wildland Fire Management Program Strategic Plan 

2003–2010” are consistent with the following: 

Q	 Department and Service policies 

Q	 “National Fire Plan” direction 

Q	 President’s “Healthy Forest Initiative” 

Q	 “10-year Comprehensive Strategy and 

Implementation Plan” 

Q	 “National Wildfire Coordinating Group 

Guidelines” 

Q	 Wildland Fire Leadership Council initiatives 

Q	 “Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation 

Operations” 

The “R6 Refuges Regional Priorities FY07–11” are 

consistent with the Refuge System vision 

statement for region 6: “to maintain and improve 

the biological integrity of the region, ensure the 

ecological condition of the region’s public and 

private lands are better understood, and endorse 

sustainable use of habitats that support native 

wildlife and people’s livelihoods.” The fire 

management goals for the Souris River basin 

refuges are to use prescribed fire and manual and 

mechanical treatments to (1) reduce the threat to 

life and property through hazardous fuels reduction 

treatments, and (2) meet the habitat goals and 

objectives identified in this CCP. 

Fire Management Objective 

The objective of the fire management program is to 

use prescribed fire and manual and mechanical 

treatment methods to treat between 500 and 2,500 

acres over a 5-year average. 

Strategies 

The Service will use strategies and tactics that 

consider public and firefighter safety as well as 

resource values at risk. Wildland fire suppression, 

prescribed fire methods, manual and mechanical 

means, timing, and monitoring are described in 

more detail within the step-down FMP(s). 

All management actions would use prescribed fire 

and manual and/or mechanical means to reduce 

hazardous fuels, restore and maintain desired 

habitat conditions, control nonnative vegetation, 

and control the spread of woody vegetation within 

the diverse ecosystem habitats. The fuels treatment 

program will be outlined in the FMP for the 

refuges. Site-specific, prescribed fire burn plans 

will be developed following the “Interagency 

Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation 

Procedures Reference Guide” (2006) template. 

Prescribed fire temporarily reduces air quality by 

reducing visibility and releasing components 

through combustion. The refuges will meet the 

Clean Air Act emission standards by adhering to 

the “North Dakota State Implementation Plan” 

requirements during all prescribed fire activities. 

Fire Management Organization,

Contacts, and Cooperation 

Region 6 of the Service will establish qualified, fire 

management, technical oversight for the refuges 

using the “fire management district” approach. 

Under this approach, fire management staff will be 

determined by established modeling systems based 

on the fire management workload of a group of 

refuges and possibly that of interagency partners. 

The fire management workload consists of 

historical wildland fire–suppression activities as 

well as historical and planned fuels treatments. 

Depending on budgets, fire management staffing 

and support equipment may be located at the 

administrative station or at other refuges and 

shared between all units. The Service will conduct 

fire management activities in a coordinated and 

collaborative manner with federal and nonfederal 

partners. 
 

 

 

Appendix R—Fire Management Program 329 

New FMP(s) will be developed for the Souris River 

basin refuges. The FMP(s) may be done as follows: 

(1) an FMP that covers each individual refuge; 

(2) an FMP that covers the refuges within this 

CCP; (3) an FMP that covers the fire management 

district; or (4) an interagency FMP. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix S 

Compatibility Determination for Recreational Hunting
 

Use: Recreational Hunting 

Refuge Names: Des Lacs National Wildlife 

Refuge (NWR) 

J. Clark Salyer NWR 

Upper Souris NWR 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Q Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

Q Executive Orders 7154-A, 7161, and 7170 

Refuge Purposes 

“As a refuge and breeding ground for migratory
 

birds and other wild life.”
 

[Executive Orders 7154-A, 7161, and 7170]
 

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


management purpose, for migratory birds.” 


[16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)] 


National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans. 

Description of Proposed Use: 

Recreational Hunting 

All three refuges are open to recreational public 

hunting in accordance with state of North Dakota 

seasons and regulations established for each area. 

Visitation during 2004 for this activity was estimated 

at Des Lacs NWR (big game 800, upland game 175); 

at J. Clark Salyer NWR (big game 2,000; upland 

game 600); and at Upper Souris NWR (big game 

2,200; upland game 50). Currently hunted or 

additional animals that may be hunted are listed 

below. 

Des Lacs NWR 

 deer sharp-tailed grouse

 fox ring-necked pheasant

 moose Hungarian partridge 

rabbit turkey 

J. Clark Salyer NWR 

 deer sharp-tailed grouse

 fox ring-necked pheasant

 waterfowl Hungarian partridge 

 turkey 

Upper Souris NWR 

 deer sharp-tailed grouse

 fox ring-necked pheasant

 moose Hungarian partridge 

 turkey 

Specific areas are open to hunting during early 

seasons. Other areas at the refuges, with the exception 

of administrative areas, may open later in the season. 

Additional hunting information, regulations, and maps 

are found in hunting brochures specific to J. Clark 

Salyer NWR and Upper Souris NWR (available at 

information kiosks and administrative areas). 

Hunting is a designated priority public use 

established for the Refuge System. The harvest of 

these species would be compensatory mortality, 

with minimal impact to the overall health of their 

populations. 

Availability of Resources 

Currently, sufficient resources are available to 

continue the existing recreational hunting programs. 

Implementing improvements or expanding hunting 

opportunities will be described in step-down 

management plans and addressed through future 

funding requests. The refuges will provide special 

accommodations for people with disabilities. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

The CCP recommends an annual review of the 

hunting program. This evaluation will determine 

what effect diverting funding and staff will have on 

the ability of the refuges to implement habitat 

management. Limited staff and funding will be 

directed toward habitat management first. Lack of 

funding and personnel may result in decreased 

opportunities and/or facilities. 

Temporary disturbance will exist to wildlife near the 

activity. Animals surplus to populations will be 

removed by hunting. A temporary decrease in 

populations of wild animals will be experienced 

which may help ensure that carrying capacity 

(especially for big-game species) is not exceeded. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

332 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Closed areas will provide some sanctuary for game 

and nongame species, minimize conflicts between 

hunters and other visitors, and provide a safety 

zone around communities and administrative areas. 

Public Review and Comment 

Public review and comment will be solicited through 

public posting of notices at each refuge, notices in 

local newspapers, and public meetings held during 

the CCP process. 

Determination 

Recreational hunting is compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility 

Current hunting regulations will be retained. The 

following stipulations will apply to all three refuges: 

Q	 Hunting will be permitted in accordance with state 

regulations. 

Q	 Overnight camping and open fires will not be 

allowed. 

Q	 The areas around refuge offices, visitor centers, and 

residences will be posted closed to hunting. State 

law prohibits hunting within one-quarter mile of 

an occupied building. 

Q	 It will be unlawful to carry a loaded firearm in 

any vehicle on refuge lands or roads. 

Q	 Nontoxic shot will be required for hunting upland 

game and waterfowl. No other type of shot may 

be possessed while in the field. 

Q	 Collecting, injuring, disturbing, destroying, or 

harming any animal or plant except legally taken 

game animals will be prohibited. 

Q	 Searching for, disturbing, or collecting prehistoric 

or historic artifacts will be prohibited. 

Q	 Archery and gun seasons for deer hunting will 

coincide with state hunting seasons. 

Q	 A deer hunter will need a special state permit to 

hunt on a refuge during rifle season. A hunter 

with a state, muzzleloader, deer permit will be 

allowed to hunt without a refuge permit. 

Q	 Trash, including shell casings, will be required to 

be packed out so the areas remain clean, natural, 

and enjoyable. 

Q	 Possession of fireworks will be prohibited. 

Q	 Possessing alcohol will be prohibited. Intoxicated 

and disorderly conduct will not be permitted. 

Open container of alcoholic beverage in a vehicle 

will be prohibited. 

The following stipulations will apply only to 

J. Clark Salyer NWR: 

Q	 Nine designated areas will be open for hunting 

waterfowl, sharp-tailed grouse, partridge, 

pheasant, and deer. 

Q	 The entire refuge will be open for late-season 

sharp-tailed grouse, partridge, pheasant, and fox 

hunting following the close of firearm deer 

season, in accordance with state hunting seasons. 

Q	 Entry without a firearm to retrieve legally taken 

waterfowl will be permitted within 100 yards of 

exterior refuge boundaries and interior 

boundaries of designated public hunting areas. 

The following stipulations will apply only to Upper 

Souris NWR: 

Q	 Vehicle travel will be restricted to public roads 

and recreation area parking lots. The use of allterrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and other off-road 

vehicles will not be allowed. 

Q	 Horses will not be permitted. 

Q	 Weapons will not be allowed in boats and canoes. 

Q	 Preseason scouting for deer will be allowed only 

in open public use areas and areas marked “Foot 

Traffic Only.” 

Q	 Baiting for deer will not be allowed. 

Q	 Portable tree stands during deer hunting will be 

allowed, but daily removal will be required. Only 

strap-on steps or removable climbing ladders will 

be allowed. 

Q	 Hunters will be allowed to carry, drag, or use 

carts to remove their deer. 

Q	 Once hunters filled their deer tags, they will not be 

allowed to return to the refuge with weapons. 

However, they will be allowed to carry shotguns 

while hunting upland game birds in open birdhunting areas. 

Q	 Land south of Lake Darling Dam will be closed to 

all upland game bird hunting. 

Q	 Wearing of a blaze orange vest and cap will be 

required when hunting game birds during the 

deer firearm season. 

Q	 Dogs will be allowed during hunting of grouse, 

partridge, and pheasant. 

Justification 

Recreational public hunting is an historical wildlifedependent use of the refuges, and is designated as 

one of the priority public uses in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Infrastructure is in place to support hunting 

programs, while current staffing levels and funding 
 

 

________________________________ 

are adequate. Special regulations are in place to 

minimize negative impacts to the refuges and 

associated wildlife, and state of North Dakota law 

further controls hunter activities. 

Hunting is a legitimate wildlife management tool 

that can be used to control wildlife populations. 

Hunting harvests a small percentage of the 

renewable resources, which is in accordance with 

wildlife management objectives and principals. 

Mandatory 15-Year Reevaluation Date: 

2021 

Theodore Gutzke 

Project Leader 

Souris River Basin NWR Complex 

Upham, ND 

___________ 

________________________________ ___________ 

Lloyd Jones 

Regional Compatibility Coordinator 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

NWRS 

Coleharbor, ND 

________________________________ ___________ 

Rod Krey 

Refuge Supervisor (KS, NE, ND, SD) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

NWRS 

Lakewood, CO 

________________________________ ___________ 

Richard A. Coleman, PhD 

Assistant Regional Director, NWRS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 

Appendix S—Compatibility Determination for Recreational Hunting 333 

Review 

Date 

Date 

Date 

Concurrence 

Date 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix T 

Compatibility Determination for 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, 

Environmental Education, and Interpretation 

Uses: Wildlife Observation, Photography, 

Environmental Education, and Interpretation 

Refuge Names: Des Lacs National Wildlife 

Refuge (NWR) 

J. Clark Salyer NWR 

Upper Souris NWR 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Q Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

Q Executive Orders 7154-A, 7161, and 7170 

Refuge Purposes 

“As a refuge and breeding ground for migratory
 

birds and other wild life.”
 

[Executive Orders 7154-A, 7161, and 7170]
 

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


management purpose, for migratory birds.” 


[16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)] 


National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans. 

Description of Proposed Uses: 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, 

Environmental Education, and Interpretation 

All three refuges are currently open to public use in 

accordance with special refuge regulations developed 

for each refuge. Total estimated visits during 2004 

for these activities were 10,675 visits for Des Lacs 

NWR, 14,830 visits for J. Clark Salyer NWR, and 

67,712 visits for Upper Souris NWR. Entry into 

closed areas may be permitted by special use permit 

and special conditions; these will be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis. 

These activities may take place by foot, bicycle, 

automobile, boat, canoe, horse, cross-county skis, 

and snowshoes. Refuge staff will assist in activities 

when available. Organized groups such as school, 

scouts, 4-H, and others may have instructors or 

leaders who will use the refuges’ habitats and 

facilities to conduct compatible programs. Ages of 

participants range from preschool to college and 

beyond. 

Current activities for the refuges are listed below. 

Des Lacs NWR 

Q 1 auto tour route (scenic backway) 

Q 4 hiking trails (1 national recreation trail) 

Q 1 canoe route 

Q 1 observation blind 

Q 3 annual environmental education events 

Q 1 interpretive kiosk 

Q 1 visitor contact station in headquarters building 

The auto tour route is open daily from 5:30 a.m. to 

10:00 p.m. Informational brochures are available at 

the kiosk located beside the refuge headquarters, 

which is open Monday–Friday (except on federal 

holidays) from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 

J. Clark Salyer NWR 

Q 2 auto tour routes (both interpreted) 

Q 1 hiking trail 

Q 1 canoe route (national recreation trail) 

Q 1 observation blind 

Q 1 kiosk 

Q 1 visitor contact station in headquarters building 

Specific areas are open daily to the public, from 5:00 

a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Office hours are Monday–Friday 

(except on federal holidays) from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 

Regulations are available at information kiosks and 

administrative areas. In addition, a bird list is 

available. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

336 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Upper Souris NWR 

Q	 1 auto tour route 

Q	 5 hiking trails (1 is interpreted) 

Q	 2 canoe routes 

Q	 4 observation blinds 

Q	 2 interpretive kiosks (2 additional kiosks are 

planned for 2006 construction) 

Q	 1 visitor contact station in headquarters building 

Q	 1 viewing platform 

Specific areas are open to public, from 5:00 a.m. to 

10:00 p.m., year-round. Visitor center hours are 

Monday–Friday (except on federal holidays) from 

8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Regulations are available at 

information kiosks and administrative areas. In 

addition, lists for wildlife including birds and 

mammals are available. 

Availability of Resources 

Currently, sufficient resources are available to 

continue the existing public use programs. The 

refuges will provide special accommodations for 

people with disabilities. 

The CCP recommends (1) expanding interpretation 

and environmental education, and (2) maintaining or 

decreasing development of wildlife observation 

programs and facilities. The interpretation and 

environmental education programs will emphasize 

the principles of natural plant and animal communities 

and ecological processes and restoration. 

Implementing improvements or expanding public 

use opportunities will be addressed in future stepdown management plans and through future 

funding requests. Program expansion will require 

increased funding for operations and maintenance. 

When funding is not adequate to operate and maintain 

programs, the public use will be reduced in scope or 

discontinued. Informational kiosks, interpretive 

signs, and other infrastructure are in place for the 

present level of public use. 

Anticipated Impacts of Uses 

No detrimental impacts are anticipated with the 

public use programs. Temporary disturbance will 

exist to wildlife near the activity. Closed areas will 

provide sanctuary for wildlife. 

Public Review and Comment 

Public review and comment will be solicited through 

public posting of notices at each refuge, notices in 

local newspapers, and public meetings held during 

the CCP process. 

Determination 

Wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation are compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility 

Current regulations related to these wildlifedependent uses will be retained. The following 

stipulations will apply to all three refuges: 

Q	 Collecting, injuring, disturbing, destroying, or 

harming any animal or plant will be prohibited. 

Q	 Searching for, disturbing, or collecting prehistoric 

or historic artifacts will be prohibited. 

Q	 Vehicles will be required to stay on designated 

roads. 

Q	 Trespassing in closed areas will not be permitted. 

Q	 Overnight camping and open fires will not be 

allowed. 

Q	 Trash will be required to be packed out so the 

areas will remain clean, natural, and enjoyable. 

Q	 Pets will be required to be leashed, except dogs 

used while hunting. 

Q	 Firearms will be prohibited except during 

appropriate hunting seasons. 

Q	 Possession of fireworks will be prohibited. 

Q	 Possessing alcohol will be prohibited. Intoxicated 

and disorderly conduct will not be permitted. 

Open container of alcoholic beverage in a vehicle 

will be prohibited. 

The following stipulation will apply only to Des Lacs 

NWR: 

Q	 Swimming and motorized boating will be 

prohibited. 

The following stipulations will apply only to Upper 

Souris NWR: 

Q	 Wildlife observation will be permitted year-round 

in all open areas, on nature trails, on the auto tour 

route, and in areas marked with “Foot Traffic 

Only” signs. 

Q	 Permission will be required to enter closed areas. 

Q	 Photo blinds for observing sharp-tailed grouse on 

their dancing grounds will be available in April by 

phone reservation. 

Q	 Two canoe trails will be available from May 1 to 

September. No swimming will be permitted on 

either the Beaver Lodge or Mouse River canoe 

trails. 

Q	 Swimming, water skiing, and sailing will not be 

allowed. Recreational boating and the use of jet 

boats or personal watercraft will not be allowed. 
 

 

________________________________ ___________ 

Q	 The use of all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and 

other off-road vehicles will not be allowed. 

Q	 The use of horses for wildlife viewing will be 

allowed with advanced permission from the 

refuge manager. 

Q Dog training will not be allowed. 


Q Guiding will be prohibited. 


Q Geocaching or similar activity will be prohibited. 


Justification 

Wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation are historical wildlifedependent uses of the refuges, and are designated 

as priority public uses in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Infrastructure is in place to support public use 

programs, while current staffing levels and funding 

are adequate. Special regulations are in place to 

minimize negative impacts to the refuges and 

associated wildlife. 

Mandatory 15-Year Reevaluation Date: 

2021 

Theodore Gutzke 

Project Leader 

Souris River Basin NWR Complex 

Upham, ND 

________________________________ ___________ 

Lloyd Jones 

Regional Compatibility Coordinator 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

NWRS 

Coleharbor, ND 

________________________________ ___________ 

Rod Krey 

Refuge Supervisor (KS, NE, ND, SD) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

NWRS 

Lakewood, CO 

________________________________ ___________ 

Richard A. Coleman, PhD 

Assistant Regional Director, NWRS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 

Appendix T—Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation 337 

Review 

Date 

Date 

Date 

Concurrence 

Date 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix U 

Compatibility Determination for Recreational Fishing
 

Use: Recreational Fishing 

Refuge Names: J. Clark Salyer National

 Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

 Upper Souris NWR 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Q	 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

Q	 Executive Orders 7154-A, 7161, and 7170 

Refuge Purposes 

“As a refuge and breeding ground for migratory
 

birds and other wild life.”
 

[Executive Orders 7154-A, 7161, and 7170]
 

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


management purpose, for migratory birds.” 


[16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)] 


National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans. 

Description of Proposed Use: 

Continued Historical Public Use Activity of 

Noncommercial Fishing 

Public use areas such as parking areas, fishing areas, 

boat ramps, docks, jetties, piers, interpretive panels 

and signs, informational kiosks, and other structures 

will need to be maintained to facilitate this program. 

Seasonally sensitive areas at the refuge will remain 

closed to the public. Public visitation at Upper 

Souris NWR may range from 30,000 to 150,000 

visits annually for fishing, while at J. Clark Salyer 

annual visitation may range from 3,000 to 5,000 

visits. 

Only selected areas of each refuge will be open to 

fishing and will be posted accordingly. Special 

refuge regulations for fishing will be available in 

brochures at the refuge. 

J. Clark Salyer NWR 

At J. Clark Salyer NWR, there are 14 public fishing 

areas and each is posted with “Public Fishing Area” 

signs. Fishing is open year-round. The refuge is open 

daily from 5:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. Anglers are 

required to follow North Dakota state law and refuge 

regulations. 

Q	 Bank fishing at designated sites is allowed 

whenever there is open water. 

Q	 Boat fishing, without motors, is allowed in 

designated areas from May 1 through September 30. 

Q	 Ice fishing at designated areas is allowed when the 

ice is thick enough to support anglers. Only 

insured and licensed automobiles are allowed on 

the ice. The use of ice-fishing shelters will be 

allowed in accordance with state law and special 

refuge regulations. 

Upper Souris NWR 

Fishing at Upper Souris NWR is allowed year-round 

from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. Anglers are 

required to follow North Dakota state law and 

refuge regulations. There are four developed boat 

ramps with associated parking areas, boat docks, 

and restroom facilities to support the summer boatfishing program. 

Q	 Bank fishing at designated sites is allowed 

whenever there is open water. Thirteen areas are 

open for bank fishing. Parking areas and several 

restroom facilities are available to bank anglers. 

Q	 Boat fishing is allowed from May 1 through 

September 30 at two designated areas of Lake 

Darling. 

Q	 Ice fishing is allowed when the ice is thick enough 

to support anglers. Several areas are designated 

for ice fishing access. Only properly insured and 

registered automobiles and pickups will be 

allowed to drive on the ice of Lake Darling. The 

use of ice fishing shelters will be allowed in 

accordance with state law and special refuge 

regulations. 

Q	 Fishing tournaments may be allowed by issuing 

special use permits and special conditions. 

Permits will only be issued to nonprofit 

organizations. Ten percent of the entry fees will 

be returned to the refuge to maintain or replace 

fishing facilities. Typical special conditions 

governing fishing tournaments are attached. 

Availability of Resources 

Currently, both refuges have adequate administrative 

and management staff to maintain their fishing 

programs. Implementing improvements or expanding 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

340 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

fishing opportunities will be described in step-down 

management plans and addressed through future 

funding requests. The refuges will provide special 

accommodations for people with disabilities. 

At Upper Souris NWR, boat ramps and docks are in 

place and all have been replaced within the last 5 

years. Condition of these facilities is currently good 

to excellent. 

Annual funding is needed for seasonal workforce 

salary and for supplies to maintain fishing facilities 

(including mowing, painting, repair, litter pickup, 

restroom cleaning, and periodic pumping costs of 

vaulted toilets). Funding is needed for a maintenance 

worker salary and equipment to maintain fishing 

areas and facilities. 

Funding is needed for law enforcement salary, fuel 

costs, repair and maintenance of patrol vehicles, and 

associated costs to support the law enforcement 

program. Routine law enforcement patrols occur 

year-round. J. Clark Salyer NWR has two 

collateral-duty law enforcement officers. Upper 

Souris NWR has one full-time law enforcement 

officer and two “collateral duty” law enforcement 

officers. Both refuges also receive assistance from 

local North Dakota state district wardens. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

The CCP recommends an annual review of the fishing 

program. This evaluation will determine what effect 

diverting funding and staff will have on the ability 

of the refuges to implement habitat management. 

Limited staff and funding will be directed toward 

habitat management first. Lack of funding and 

personnel may result in decreased opportunities, or 

facilities, or both. 

Temporary disturbance of wildlife may occur near 

fishing activity. Fishing will temporarily decrease the 

fish population until natural reproduction or stocking 

replenishes the population. Frequency of use will be 

directly dependent on fish populations and their 

feeding activity. When fish populations are high and 

active, public use will climb and vice versa. No longterm negative impacts to the refuge or its resources 

are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment 

Public review and comment will be solicited through 

public posting of notices at each refuge, notices in 

local newspapers, and public meetings held during 

the CCP process. 

Determination 

Recreational fishing is compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility 

Current fishing regulations will be retained. The 

following stipulations will apply to both refuges: 

Q	 Fishing will be permitted in accordance with state 

regulations. 

Q	 Use or possession of baitfish other than those 

listed in the North Dakota Fishing Guide will be 

prohibited. 

Q	 Collecting, injuring, disturbing, destroying, or 

harming any plant or animal (including minnows, 

frogs, crawfish, and worms) will be prohibited. 

Q	 Searching for, disturbing, or collecting prehistoric 

or historic artifacts will be prohibited. 

Q	 Overnight camping and open fires will not be 

allowed. 

Q	 Vehicles will be required to stay on designated 

roads. 

Q	 Trespassing in closed areas will not be permitted. 

Q	 Overnight camping and open fires will not be 

allowed. 

Q	 Trash will be required to be packed out so the 

areas remain clean, natural, and enjoyable. 

Q	 Pets will be required to be leashed. 

Q	 Firearms will be prohibited except during 

appropriate hunting seasons. 

Q	 Possession of fireworks will be prohibited. 

Q	 Possessing alcohol will be prohibited. Intoxicated 

and disorderly conduct will not be permitted. 

Open container of alcoholic beverage in a vehicle 

will be prohibited. 

The following stipulation will apply only to J. Clark 

Salyer NWR: 

Q	 Ice fishing will be permitted on all refuge waters 

between December 15 and the end of the state 

fishing season. 

The following stipulations will apply only to Upper 

Souris NWR: 

Q	 Fishing boats and canoes will be permitted on 

Lake Darling from May 1 to September 30 in 

designated fishing areas. 

Q	 Float tube fishing will be allowed where boat 

fishing is permitted. 

Q	 Releasing baitfish into any refuge or state waters 

will be prohibited. 

Q	 Operation of a boat in excess of idle speed in the 

Grano Boat Ramp Bay will be prohibited. 

Q	 Fishing will not be permitted on the Beaver 

Lodge Canoe Trail. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________ ___________ 

Q	 Bow and spear fishing, including underwater 

spear fishing, will be prohibited. 

Q	 Use of designated spring, summer, and fall 

fishing areas will follow area-specific regulations 

described in the fishing brochure available at the 

refuge. 

Q	 The use of all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles will 

not be allowed. 

Q	 Access to ice for ice fishing will be permitted only at 

designated sites. 

Q	 Only cars and pickups will be allowed on the ice 

from Lake Darling Dam north to Carter Dam for 

ice-fishing purposes. 

Q	 At designated winter-fishing areas, ice-fishing 

shelters will be permitted and will be required to 

be removed on the date set by the state for icefishing shelter removal. Following the date for 

removal of permanent shelters, portable ones will 

be permitted but will need to be removed daily. 

Q	 At the remainder of the refuge, portable icefishing shelters will be permitted but will need to 

be removed daily. 

Q	 Fishing tournaments will conform to event-specific 

conditions such as those specified in the 

attachment. 

Justification 

Recreational fishing is an historical wildlifedependent use of each refuge, and is designated as 

one of the priority public uses in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Current staffing levels and funding resources are 

adequate. Special regulations are in place to 

minimize negative impacts to the refuges’ habitats 

and associated wildlife. 

Mandatory 15-Year Reevaluation Date: 

2021 

Theodore Gutzke 

Project Leader 

Souris River Basin NWR Complex 

Upham, ND 

________________________________ ___________ 

Lloyd Jones 

Regional Compatibility Coordinator 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

NWRS 

Coleharbor, ND 

________________________________ ___________ 

Rod Krey 

Refuge Supervisor (KS, NE, ND, SD) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

NWRS 

Lakewood, CO 

________________________________ ___________ 

Richard A. Coleman, PhD 

Assistant Regional Director, NWRS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 

Appendix U—Compatibility Determination for Recreational Fishing 341 

Review 

Date 

Date 

Date 

Concurrence 

Date 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

342 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Attachment—Typical Special Conditions
 

Upper Souris NWR 


Ice Fishing and Open-water Fishing Tournaments 


1. 	 This permit will only be valid after a North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDGF) fishing contest 

 permit has been issued. 

2. 	 The permittee shall conduct and supervise this event by following the refuge and NDGF fishing contest 

 rules and regulations and by following all required self-imposed tournament rules. 

3. 	 The permittee shall submit a report within 30 days after completion of the fishing contest to the refuge

 manager and to NDGF. The report should include the following: (1) number of contest participants;

 (2) quantity (number, total length, and weight) and species of fish taken in the contest; (3) gross and net

 proceeds for the tournament; (4) percentage of entry fees paid to participants as prizes; and 

(5) identification of the intended fishery conservation project to be accomplished at Upper Souris NWR. 

 Failure to submit this report shall be justification for denial of future fishing contest permits. 

4. 	 The permittee shall provide readily visible and marked patrol vehicles staffed with volunteers to assist 

 contestants having problems and to check for compliance with ice-fishing tournament rules. One patrol 

 vehicle per 50 teams is required during ice-fishing tournaments.

 The permittee shall provide readily visible and marked patrol boats staffed with volunteers to assist 

 contestants having problems and to check for compliance with open water fishing tournament rules.

 The ratio of tournament patrol boats to participant boats shall be at no time less than 1:20 in fishing 

 contests involving 100 or fewer boats, and 1: 25 for contests involving more than 100 boats. 

5. 	 All areas where the tournament is held shall be cleaned of litter before leaving for the day. All trash

 must be packed out. There are no fish cleaning facilities available. 

6.	 Participants shall not interfere with other refuge visitor activities. 

7. 	 No entry or participation fees or prize winnings may be collected or distributed on federal property. No

 commercial products may be sold or distributed on federal property. 

8. 	 All fish brought to the check station to be measured or weighed shall be marked by cutting off one-half

 of the tailfin and the fish returned to the contestant. All fish must remain in the possession of the team 

 that caught them. 

9.	 Participants may use only one-half of the “Landing 1” parking lot during open water fishing tournaments. 

The remainder of the parking lot is reserved for refuge visitors not fishing in the tournament. Non-tournament 

anglers should not have to wait in line to launch their boat. Tournament sponsors shall provide volunteers to

 direct parking of participants and non-tournament anglers. The overflow parking lot west of the township

 road may be used for tournament vehicle and trailer parking. 
Appendix V 

RONS and SAMMS Projects, Des Lacs NWR
 

Refuge Operations Needs System 

RONS amounts shown for Des Lacs NWR include a startup cost to carry out each program, with successive 

yearly costs that are significantly less. 

RONS1 

Number Project Description 

First-Year 

Need 

($1,000s) 

Recurring 

Annual 

Need 

($1,000s) 

Personnel 

(FTE2

) 

R-94009 

R-99009 

R-99013 

R-93007 

R-94001 

R-93014 

R-94005 

R-01002 

R-99003 

R-99001 

Implement the geographic information system 

(computer specialist). 

Increase resource protection and security 

(law enforcement officer). 

Increase biological monitoring for adaptive resource 

management (biologist). 

Increase habitat management (refuge manager). 

Increase the integrated pest management program 

(biological technician). 

Protect and manage water rights. 

Construct an equipment storage building. 

Construct refuge housing for the law enforcement 

officer. 

Construct water development to expand the grassland 

grazing program. 

Conduct a cultural resource inventory. 

151 

140 

151 

151 

106 

126 

200 

228 

155 

55 

74 

60 

74 

74 

50 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1.0 

1.0

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

1 RONS=Refuge Operations Needs System. 

2 FTE=full-time equivalent; one or more tours of duty that, when combined, equate to one person employed for the standard 

 government work-year. 
 

Service Asset Maintenance Management System 

SAMMS*

 Number Description 

Cost 

($1,000s) 

Deferred Maintenance 

93106800 Replace the unit 4 water control structure. 

93106830 Replace the unit 5 water control structure. 

93106834 Replace the unit 6 water control structure and emergency spillway. 

01116014 Replace the unit 3 water control structure spillway/weir. 

01115455 Replace residence Q-4. 

Large Construction 

Construct the fire equipment storage and cache. 

Road Rehabilitation 

03126148 Do preliminary engineering of auto tour route (routes 011, 012,103; 12.3 miles). 

03126149 Construct and asphalt the auto tour route (routes 011, 012,103; 12.3 miles). 

03126152 Do preliminary engineering of the Canada Goose Trail (route 102, 11.0 miles). 

03126153 Construct the Canada Goose Trail (route 102, 11.0 miles). 

Heavy Equipment 

97106791 Replace the 1978 Ford backhoe. 

99106837 Replace the 1978 JD 544 B front-end loader. 

01114123 Replace the 1979 IHC tractor. 

Small Equipment 

00106802 Replace the 1992 Dodge Dakota 4x4 pickup. 

01111766 Replace the 1990 Polaris 4x4 ATV. 

01111763 Replace the 1989 Dodge 4x4 pickup. 

01111766 Replace the 1989 Chevrolet 4x4 pickup. 

01114123 Replace the 1997 Ford 4x4 pickup. 

00106859 Replace the 1984 Type 4X fire engine. 

215 

235 

280 

250 

280 

450
 

313 

 1,500 

282 

 2,700 

110 

181 

95 

30 

10 

 30 

30 

 30 

98 

 *SAMMS=Service Asset Maintenance Management System. 

 

344 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix W 

RONS and SAMMS Projects, J. Clark Salyer NWR
 

Refuge Operations Needs System 

RONS amounts shown for J. Clark Salyer NWR include a startup cost to carry out each program, with 

successive yearly costs that are significantly less. 

RONS1 

Number Project Description 

First-Year 

Need 

($1,000s) 

Recurring 

Annual 

Need 

($1,000s) 

Personnel 

(FTE2

) 

R-00001 

R-99012 

R-99010 

R-00002 

R-03001 

R-97010 

R-97038 

Restore and enhance the prairie grassland and forest 

habitat (resource specialist). 

Improve marsh habitat management (refuge 

operations specialist). 

Improve habitat management, and population and 

habitat monitoring (biologist). 

Improve visitor services and outreach programs 

(administrative receptionist/clerk). 

Improve the resource protection capability (law 

enforcement officer). 

Enhance streamflow monitoring and the water 

management capability (refuge operations specialist). 

Develop a new area-capacity table for marsh 

impoundments. 

125 

139 

139 

110 

136 

 97 

324 

75 

75 

75 

55 

55 

55 

0 

1.0 

1.0

1.0 

1.0

1.0 

1.0 

— 

1 RONS=Refuge Operations Needs System. 

2 FTE=full-time equivalent; one or more tours of duty that, when combined, equate to one person employed for the standard 

 government work-year. 
 

Service Asset Maintenance Management System 

SAMMS* 

 Number Description 

Cost 

($1,000s) 

Deferred Maintenance 

90106948 Replace the boundary fence. 

02121135 Repair the pool 320 dike and nesting islands. 

89106942 Rehabilitate the 6-stall storage building. 

99106956 Repair and rehabilitate quarters 40. 

01117727 Rehabilitate the office visitor area. 

Large Construction 

97109872 Construct a vehicle and equipment storage building. 

99109875 Improve water level management in pool 341. 

Small Construction 

99112488 Construct a wildfire response storage building. 

97123485 Construct an equipment storage yard. 

Road Rehabilitation 

88106960 Do preliminary engineering for the headquarters and a scenic trail. 

02121139 Construct a scenic trail. 

02121147 Construct the headquarters road and parking areas. 

10028965 Replace the Johnson Bridge. 

Heavy Equipment 

00106973 Replace the 1972 Caterpillar grader. 

01115317 Replace the 1968 5-ton 6x6 fire truck. 

01117349 Replace the Case 680E loader/backhoe. 

01116659 Replace the 1972 White semi-tractor. 

01117375 Replace the 1972 John Deere 8630 tractor. 

01116987 Replace the 1982 dump truck. 

Small Equipment 

01113840 Replace the 1996 Honda ATV. 

01115730 Replace the 1991 Chevrolet Service truck. 

01113900 Replace the John Deere loader tractor. 

01116659 Replace the John Deere rotary mower. 

01116659 Replace the 1988 pickup. 

 118 

201 

 28

 223 

 34

1,460 


1,298
 

449
 

 54
 

 408 

1,400 

 396 

689 

116 

 95

 95

105 

126 

 95

 7 

 33

 90

 9 

 29 

 *SAMMS=Service Asset Maintenance Management System. 

346 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix X 

RONS and SAMMS Projects, Upper Souris NWR
 

RONS1 

Number Project Description 

First-Year 

Need 

($1,000s) 

Recurring 

Annual 

Need 

($1,000s) 

Personnel 

(FTE2

) 

R-97008 

R-97001 

R-00002 

R-98002 

R-02001 

R-97005 

R-97004 

R-01001 

R-01004 

R-97019 

Monitor adaptive management 

(biologist). 

Increase the environmental education and outreach 

efforts (public use specialist). 

Support the visitor service, educational, biological, and 

law enforcement functions (receptionist/typist).

Initiate a comprehensive biological inventory 

(biological technician). 

Manage invasive species (range technician).

Develop a fire management program. 

Protect water rights and monitor water quality. 

Compile and analyze the existing Souris River water 

quality data and its effect on the refuge. 

Construct a shelter for environmental education 

activities. 

Survey for archeological and historical sites. 

151.0 

151.0 

 63.5

 74.5

 83.0

130.5 

193.0 

358.0 

185.0 

181.0 

86 

 86 

 26 

 37 

 39 

 78 

140 

 48 

43 

 10 

1.0 

1.0 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

1.0 

0 

0.6 

0.6 

 0 

1 RONS=Refuge Operations Needs System. 

2 FTE=full-time equivalent; one or more tours of duty that, when combined, equate to one person employed for the standard 

 government work-year. 

Refuge Operations Needs System 

RONS amounts shown for Upper Souris NWR include a startup cost to carry out each program, with 

successive yearly costs that are significantly less. 
 

Service Asset Maintenance Management System 

SAMMS*

 Number Description 

Cost 

($1,000s) 

Deferred Maintenance 

05139174 Expand quarters 7. 118 

01117654 Deepen the landing 1 boat channel. 160 

89106755 Rehabilitate the deteriorating dam 41 Oxbow Marshes. 136 

05139281 Replace unsafe bridges (1st, 2nd, and 3rd north of Highway 5 East). 129 

05139389 Replace three unsafe bridges north of Highway 5 West. 129

93106756 Replace a deteriorated bridge (1st north of dam 41 east). 43 

05139360 Replace unsafe bridges (1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th north of Greene, West). 172 

00106777 Replace 12 miles of boundary fence (Highway 28 to dam 41 west). 257 

89106776 Replace 11 miles of boundary fence (Highway 28 to dam 41 east). 237 

89106775 Replace 7 miles of boundary fence (Grano to Highway 28 West). 151 

Small Construction 

97109865 Build a new equipment storage building. 725 

97123624 Construct two interpretive observation towers. 164 

98109866 Expand the refuge office’s interpretive, educational, and office space. 447

97123510 Create prairie wetlands and restore riparian wetlands. 135 

02121177 Replace two deteriorated mobile home trailers. 354 

Heavy Equipment 

01117777 Replace the 1979 Case backhoe. 79
 

96106738 Replace the aging 1986 5-ton, White Freightliner truck tractor. 182
 

01117780 Replace the 1981 GMC dump truck. 116 

Small Equipment 

01117696 Replace the worn-out 1985 blue Dodge pickup. 32 

97106744 Replace the aging 1990 Chevy 4x4 extended cab pickup. 29

97106745 Replace the aging 1991 Chevy 4x4 pickup. 34 

01117706 Replace the 1999 John Deere F911 riding lawn mower. 14 

01117711 Replace the 1991 Chevrolet fire engine. 37

01117784 Replace the 1990 Wajax Pacific BB-4 fire pumper unit. 13

Road Rehabilitation 

02121052 Construct the landing 1 parking lot (916). 156 

348 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
 

SAMMS*

 Number Description 

Cost 

($1,000s) 

98106752 Construct the Outlet Fishing Area road and parking (route 101, parking lot 908­

9; 0.5 mile). 
 272

98106750 Do the preliminary engineering for landings 2 and 3 roads, parking, and spillway 


road and parking (routes 12, 102; 1.72 miles; parking lots 900 and 908-917). 136

98106768 Construct landings 2 and 3 roads, parking, and the spillway road and parking 

(routes 12, 102; 1.72 miles; parking lots 900 and 908-917). 
 1,100 

02121048 

02121049 

Pave the Overlook Viewing Trail parking lot (Federal Highway Administration
 

[FHWA] Route 910); regravel the Lake Darling Interpretive Overlook (FHWA 

Route 913); and pave the Lake Darling Dam pullout (FHWA 911).

108

 *SAMMS=Service Asset Maintenance Management System. 

Appendix X—RONS and SAMMS Projects, Upper Souris NWR 349 

 

References
 

Anderson, Oscar. 1955. A brief history of Velva, 

North Dakota. Velva, ND: Hauff Printing. 26 p. 

Aufforth, A.D.; Goetz, H.; Higgins K.F. 1990. Duck 

nesting on islands at J. Clark Salyer refuge in 

North Dakota, 1983–1984. Prairie Naturalist. 

22:1–12. 

Bailey, V. 1913. Field notes, Kenmare, ND. In: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 1860–1961 field reports. 

Smithsonian Institute Archives, record unit 7176. 

Beachy, Christopher. Unpublished data. Minot, ND: 

Minot State University, Biology Department. 

Berger, R.P.; Baydack, R.K. 1992. Effects of aspen 

succession on sharp-tailed grouse, Tympanuchus 

phasianellus, in the Interlake Region of Manitoba. 

Canadian Field-Naturalist 106:185–91. 

Bildstein, K.L.; Gollop, J.B. 1988. Northern harrier. 

In: Palmer, Ralph S. Handbook of North American 

birds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 

251–303. 

Billeck, William T. 1990. Alexander Henry’s 1806 

route between the Assiniboine and Missouri 

rivers. Journal of the North Dakota 

Archaeological Association 4:[Pages unknown]. 

Blankespoor, G.W. 1987. The effects of prescribed 

burning on a tall-grass prairie remnant in eastern 

South Dakota. Prairie Naturalist 19:177–88. 

Bluemle, J.P. 1991. The face of North Dakota 

(revised). North Dakota Geological Survey 

Education Series 21. [Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 177 p. 

Boller, Henry A.; Quaife, Milo Milton; editors. 1972. 

Among the Indians, four years on the upper 

Missouri, 1858–1862. Lincoln, NE: University of 

Nebraska Press. 372 p. 

Bragg, T.B. 1995. The physical environment of 

Great Plains grasslands. In: Keeler, K.; Joern, 

A.; editors. The changing prairie. New York: 

Oxford University Press. 49–81. 

Bragg, T.B.; Steuter, A.A. 1995. Mixed prairie of the 

North American Great Plains. In: Transactions 

of the North American wildlife and natural 

resources conference; [Dates of conference 

unknown]; [Place of conference unknown]; [Place 

of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 

60:1–14. 

Buell, M.F.; Buell, H.F. 1959. Aspen invasion of 

prairie. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 

86:264–265. 

Caudill, J.; Henderson, E. 2003. Banking on nature 

2002: the economic benefits to local communities 

of national wildlife refuge visitation. Washington 

DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Division of Economics. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Christian, J.M.; Wilson, S.D. 1999. Long-term 

ecosystem impacts of an introduced grass in the 

northern Great Plains. Ecology 80:2397–2407. 

Coues, E. 1878. Field notes on birds observed in 

North Dakota and Montana along the 49th parallel 

during the seasons of 1873 and 1874. Bulletin, 

U.S. Geological Survey Territories 4:545–661. 

Coues, Elliot. 1897. New light on the early history of 

the great Northwest: the manuscript journals of 

Alexander Henry and of David Thompson 1799– 

1814. New York: F.P. Harper. 446 p. Vol. 1, The 

Red River of the North. 

Coupland, R.T. 1961. A reconsideration of grassland 

classification in the northern Great Plains of 

North America. Journal of Ecology 49:135–67. 

Coupland, R.T. 1992. Mixed prairie. In: Coupland, 

R.T., editor. Ecosystems of the world: natural 

grasslands. New York: Elsevier Press. 151–82. 

Cowardin, L.M.; Carter, V.; Golet, F.C.; LaRoe, E.T. 

1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater 

habitats of the United States. Washington DC: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 


Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown.]
 

Cowardin, L.M.; Gilmer, D.S.; Shaiffer, C.W. 1985. 

Mallard recruitment in the agricultural 

environment of North Dakota. Wildlife 

Monograph 92. Washington DC: The Wildlife 

Society. 37 p. 

Dahlberg, James C.; Whitehurst, John C. 1990. An 

overview of Souris River basin prehistory in 

North Dakota. Journal of the North Dakota 

Archaeological Association 4:76–110. 

Duebbert, H.F. 1966. Island nesting of the gadwall 

in North Dakota. Wilson Bulletin 78:12–25. 

Duebbert, H.F.; Higgins, K.F.; Jacobson, E.T.; 

Podoll, E.B. 1981. Establishment of seeded 

grasslands for wildlife habitat in the prairie 

pothole region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Special Science Report, Wildlife No. 234. [Place 

of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages 

unknown]. 
 

 

 

 

 

352 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Eddingsaas, A.A.; Murphy, R.K.; Isakson, P.T. [2007 

accepted.] Predicted responses of small mammals 

to reintroduction of fire along a northern prairie 

river valley. [Transactions of the North American 

Prairie Conference 20.] 

Euliss, N.H.; Mushet, D.M.; Wrubleski, D.A. 2003. 

[Draft] Invertebrates in wetlands in the prairie 

pothole region. Jamestown, ND: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 22 p. 

Ewing, J. 1924. Plant succession of the brush-prairie 

in north-western Minnesota. Journal of Ecology 

12:238–66. 

Fredrickson, L.H. 1979. Impact of water management 

on the resources of lowland hardwood forests. In: 

Chabreck, R.A.; Mills, R.H.; editors. Proceedings 

of the 29th annual forest symposium; [Dates of 

symposium unknown]; [Place of symposium 

unknown]. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State 

University. 51–64. 

Fredrickson, L.H.; Batema, D.L. 1992. Greentree 

reservoir management handbook. Gaylord 

Memorial Laboratory, Wetland Management 

Series No. 1. Puxico, MO: Gaylord Laboratory. 

Gates, C.M. 1933. Five fur traders of the Northwest. 

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Gleason, R.A.; Euliss, N.H., Jr.; Holmes, C.W. 2003. 

Sedimentation rates in the marshes of Sand Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge. Quick Response 

Project QR-F6-00-07. Jamestown, ND: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center. 27 p. 

Gough, Barry M., editor. 1988. The journal of 

Alexander Henry the younger: 1799–1814. In: 

Red River and the journey to the Missouri. Vol. 1. 

Toronto, ON: The Champlain Society. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Grace, J.B.; Collins, S.L.; Grace, S.L.; Smith, M.D.; 

Stohlgren, T.J. 2001. Interactions between fire 

and invasive plants in temperate grasslands of 

North America. In: Proceedings of the invasive 

species workshop: the role of fire in the control 

and spread of invasive species; fire conference 

2000: the first national congress on fire ecology, 

prevention, and management; [Dates of conference 

unknown]; [Place of conference unknown]. Tall 

Timbers Research Station Miscellaneous 

Publication 11. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 40–65. 

Grant, T.A.; Berkey, G.B. 1999. Forest area and 

avian diversity in fragmented aspen woodland of 

North Dakota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:904–14. 

Grant, T.A.; Berkey, G.B.; Madden, E.M. 2004a. Tree 

and shrub invasion in northern mixed-grass 

prairie: implications for breeding grassland birds. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:807–18. 

Grant, T.A.; Madden, E.M.; Murphy, R.K.; Nenneman, 

M.P.; Smith, K.A. 2004b. Monitoring native 

prairie vegetation: the belt transect method. 

Ecological Restoration 22:106–11. 

Grant, T.A.; Madden, E.M.; Shaffer, T.L.; Martin, 

J.S. [In review.] Fire effects on vegetation and 

breeding grassland birds in northern mixedgrass prairie. [Journal of Wildlife Management.] 

Grant, T.A.; Madden, E.M.; Shaffer, T.L. [et al.] 

2005. Does proximity to woodland edge affect 

survival of songbird nests in mixed-grass prairies? 

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher 

unknown]. [Pages unknown]. 

Grant, T.A.; Madden, E.M.; Shaffer, T.L. [et al.] 

2006. Nest survival of clay-colored and vesper 

sparrows in relation to woodland edge in mixedgrass prairies. Journal of Wildlife Management 

70:691–701. 

Grant, T.A.; Murphy, R.K. 2005. Changes in woodland 

cover on prairie refuges in North Dakota, USA. 

Natural Areas Journal 25:359–68. 

Grant, Todd. Unpublished data. Fire effects on duck 

and songbird nest density and nest survival; J. 

Clark Salyer NWR, 1998–2003. Field forms on 

file at J. Clark Salyer NWR, Upham, ND. 

Grant, Todd; Hammond, Merrill. Unpublished data. 

Prairie grouse survey field forms. On file at J. 

Clark Salyer NWR, Upham, ND. 

Grant, Todd; Shaffer, Terry. Unpublished data. 

Island nesting study field forms and data 

summaries. On file at J. Clark Salyer NWR, 

Upham, ND. 

Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the 

Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of 

Kansas. 1402 p. 

Hammond, M.C. [No date]. Marsh transects and 

surveys, 1946–1956, Lower Souris Refuge. On 

file at J. Clark Salyer NWR, Upham, ND. 

Hammond, M.C. 1961. Proposal for needed research 

on aquatic plant (pondweed) study. Memo on file 

at J. Clark Salyer NWR, Upham, ND. 

Hammond, M.C. 1962. Herbicides in control of moist 

soil, marsh and aquatic vegetation. Memo to the 

regional director. On file at J. Clark Salyer NWR, 

Upham, ND. 

Hammond, M.C.; Mann, G.E. 1956. Waterfowl nesting 

islands. Journal of Wildlife Management 20:345–52. 
 

 

 

 

Hanson, J.R. 1984. Bison ecology in the northern 

plains and a reconstruction of bison patterns for 

the North Dakota Region. Plains Anthropologist 

29:93–113. 

Hanowski, J.M.; Christian, D.P.; Niemi, G.J. 2000. 

Landscape requirements of prairie sharp-tailed 

grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus campestris 

in Minnesota, USA. Wildlife Biology 6:257–63. 

Henry, C. J. 1939. Response of wildlife to management 

practices on the Lower Souris Migratory 

Waterfowl Refuge. In: Transaction of the North 

American wildlife conference; [Dates of conference 

unknown]; [Place of conference unknown]. [Place 

of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 

4:372–77. 

Hickerson, Harold. 1965. The Virginia deer and 

intertribal buffer zones in the upper Mississippian 

Valley. In: Lewis, Anthony; Vayda, Andrew P.; 

editors. Man, culture, and animals: the role of 

animals in human ecological adjustments. 

Publication 78. Washington DC: American 

Association for the Advancement of Sciences. 

43–65. 

Higgins, K.F. 1986. Interpretation and compendium 

of historical fire accounts in the northern Great 

Plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource 

Publication 161. [Place of publication unknown]: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 39 p. 

Higgins, K.F.; Barker, W.T. 1982. Changes in 

vegetation structure in seeded nesting cover in 

the prairie pothole region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Special Science Report, Wildlife No. 242. 

[Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Hood, G.N. 1994. Against the flow: RaffertyAlameda and the politics of the environment. 

Saskatoon, SK: Fifth House Publishers. 220 p. 

United States and Canadian Negotiating Delegation. 

1989. Agreement between the United States of 

America and Canada for water supply and flood 

control in the Souris River basin. Modified in 2000. 

James, F.C.; Shugart, Jr., H.H. 1970. A quantitative 

method of habitat description. Audubon Field 

Notes 24:727–36. 

Johnson, D. H. 1979. Estimating nest success: the 

Mayfield method and an alternative. Auk 96:651-61. 

Johnson, D.H.; Igl, L.D. 1995. Contribution of the 

Conservation Reserve Program to populations of 

breeding birds in North Dakota. Wilson Bulletin 

107:709–18. 

References 353 

Johnson, D.H.; Igl, L.D. 2001. Area requirements of 

grassland birds: a regional perspective. Auk 

118:24–34. 

Jones, J.K.; Armstrong, D.M.; Hoffman, R.S.; Jones, C. 

1983. Mammals of the northern Great Plains. 

Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 379 p. 

Jordan, Nicholas; Larson, Diane; Huerd, Sheri. 

Unpublished data. Manuscript on file with 

Nicholas Jordan, Department of Agronomy and 

Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, 

MN. 33 p. 

Kadlec, J.A. 1982. Mechanisms affecting salinity of 

Great Salt Lake marshes. American Midland 

Naturalist 107:82–94. 

Kadrmas, Neil. Unpublished data. Vegetation survey 

field notes. On file at J. Clark Salyer NWR, 

Upham, ND. 

Kadrmas, Neil; Grant, Todd; Murphy, Robert; Rubin, 

Cory. Unpublished data. On file at J. Clark 

Salyer NWR, Upham, ND; and Upper Souris NWR, 

Carpio, ND. 

Kadrmas, N.J. 2005. Community dynamics of 

terrestrial vertebrates in aspen parkland–mixed 

grass prairie habitats at J. Clark Salyer National 

Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota [master’s thesis]. 

Grand Forks, ND: University of North Dakota. 

103 p. 

Kemner, D.P.; Higgins, K.F. 1993. Response by 

upland nesting ducks to three rejuvenation 

treatments applied to two types of seeded nesting 

cover in eastern South Dakota. In: Proceedings 

of the South Dakota Academy of Sciences; 

[Dates of academy unknown]; [Place of academy 

unknown]. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 72:87–109. 

Kerns, C. 2005. Passerine nest survival in managed, 

mixed-grass prairie [master’s thesis]. Columbia, 

MO: University of Missouri. 87 p. 

Kruse, A.D.; Bowen, B.S. 1996. Effects of grazing 

and burning on densities and habitats of breeding 

ducks in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 60:233–46. 

Kuchler, A.W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of 

the conterminous United States. American 

Geographical Society Special Publication 36. 

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher 

unknown]. 39 p. 

Laubhan, M.K.; Fredrickson, L.H.; Gleason, R.A. 

2003. A biological assessment of wetland conditions 

on the Souris River National Wildlife Refuges 

(Upper Souris, Des Lacs, and J. Clark Salyer). 

Jamestown, ND: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center. 91 p. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

354 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Laubhan, M.K.; Roelle, J.E.. 2001. Managing wetlands 

for waterbirds. In: Rader, R.B, Batzer, D.P., 

Wissinger, S. Biomonitoring and management of 

North American freshwater wetlands. New York: 

John Wiley and Sons. 387–411. 

Livingston, R.J.; Loucks, O.L. 1979. Productivity, 

trophic interactions, and food web relationships 

in wetlands and associated systems. In: Greeson, 

P.E., Clark, J.R., Clark, J.E. Wetland functions 

and values: the state of our understanding. 

American Water Resources Technical 

Publication 79-2. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 101–19. 

Lord, M.L.; Kehew, A.E. 1990. Geomorphology of 

the Souris River Valley, Saskatchewan, North 

Dakota, and Manitoba. Journal of the North 

Dakota Archaeological Association 4:8–16. 

Ludwick, T.L.; Murphy, R.K. 2006. Fire history and 

passerine abundance and habitat on a North 

Dakota drift plain prairie. Prairie Naturalist 

38:1–11. 

Madden, E.M.; Hansen, A.J.; Murphy, R.K. 1999. 

Influence of prescribed fire history on habitat 

and abundance of passerine birds in northern 

mixed-grass prairie. Canadian Field-Naturalist 

113:627–40. 

Madden, E.M.; Hansen, A.J.; Murphy, R.K.; Murray, L. 

2000. Models for guiding management of prairie 

bird habitat in northwestern North Dakota. 

American Midland Naturalist 144:377–92. 

Miller, H.W. 1971. Relationships of duck nesting 

success to land use in North and South Dakota. 

In: Transactions of the Congress of International 

Union of Game Biologists; [Dates of congress 

unknown]; [Place of congress unknown]. [Place of 

publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 

10:133–41. 

Minot Chamber of Commerce. 2005. [Title unknown]. 

<www.minot chamber.org> [Date of access 

unknown]. 

Mitsch, W.J.; Gosselink, JG. 2000. Wetlands. 3d ed. 

New York: John Wiley and Sons. 936 p. 

Murphy, R.K.; Freed, D.W.; Grondahl, C.D. [et al.] 

2001. Status of the burrowing owl in North 

Dakota. Journal of Raptor Research 35:322–30. 

Murphy R.K.; Grant, T.A. 2005. Land management 

history and floristics in mixed-grass prairie, 

North Dakota, USA. Natural Areas Journal 

25:351–58. 

Murphy, R.K.; Rosenfield, L.J.; Rosenfield, R.N.; 

Nenneman, M.P. 2004. High abundance of 

nesting long-eared owls in North Dakota. Prairie 

Naturalist 36:247–50. 

Murphy, R.K.; Sondreal, M.L. 2003. Breeding bird 

abundance and habitat along the Des Lacs River 

valley, North Dakota. Blue Jay 61:82–94. 

Murphy, Robert; Boyle, Jennifer; Behrend, Keith. 

Unpublished data [a]. On file at Des Lacs NWR, 

Kenmare, ND. 

Murphy, Robert; Muscha, Jennifer; Whipp, Stacy. 

Unpublished data [b]. On file at Des Lacs NWR, 

Kenmare, ND. 

Naugle, D.E.; Bakker, K.K.; Higgins, K.F. 2000. A 

synthesis of the effects of upland management 

practices on waterfowl and other birds in the 

northern Great Plains of the U.S. and Canada. 

Wildlife Technical Report 1. Stevens Point, WI: 

University of Wisconsin, College of Natural 

Resources. 28 p. 

Nenneman, Melvin; Grant, Todd; Kadrmas, Neil. 

Unpublished data. Woodland plot vegetation 

sampling field forms. On file at J. Clark Salyer 

NWR, Upham, ND. 

Nenneman, Melvin; Murphy, Robert. Unpublished 

data. On file at Des Lacs NWR, Kenmare, ND. 

Nenneman, M.P. 2003. Vegetation structure and 

floristics at nest sites of grassland birds in north 

central North Dakota [master’s thesis]. Missoula, 

MT: University of Montana. 103 p. 

Nenneman, M.P.; Grant, T.A.; Murphy, R.K.; Sondreal, 

M.L. 2003. Nesting habitat of Cooper’s hawks in 

northern Great Plains woodlands. Journal of 

Raptor Research 37:246–52. 

Nenneman, M.P.; Murphy, R.K.; Grant, T.A. 2002. 

Cooper’s hawks (Accipiter cooperii) nest 

successfully at high densities in deciduous 

woodlands of the northern Great Plains. 

Canadian Field-Naturalist 116:573–77. 

Peterjohn, B.G.; Sauer, J.R. 1999. Population status 

of North American grassland birds from the 

North American breeding bird survey, 1966–96. 

Studies in Avian Biology 19:27–44. 

Robinson, Elwyn B. 1966. History of North Dakota. 

Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 599 p. 

Romo, J.T.; Grilz, P.L.; Driver, E.A. 1990. Invasion 

of the Canadian prairies by an exotic perennial. 

Blue Jay 48:131–35. 

Rumble, M.M.; Sieg, C.H.; Uresk, D.W.; Javersak, J. 

1998. Native woodlands and birds of South 

Dakota: past and present. Research Paper 

RMRS-RP-8. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 11 p. 
References 355 

Schneider, Fred E. 1977. Preliminary cultural 

resource investigation of the upper Souris River 

basin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Research 

Report, Purchase Order Number, DACW37, 

77M-1387. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. 39–51. 

Schranck, B.W. 1972. Waterfowl nest cover and 

some predation relationships. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 36:182–86. 

Schweigert, Kurt P. 1990. An historic overview of 

the Souris River valley in North Dakota. In: 

Gnabasik, V., editor. Journal of the North 

Dakota Archaeological Association 4:206–29. 

Seastedt, T.R. 1995. Soil systems and nutrient 

cycles of the North American prairie. In: Joern, 

A.; Keeler, K.H.; editors. The changing prairie: 

North American grasslands. New York: Oxford 

University Press. 157–74. 

Sexton, N.R.; Koontz, L.; Stewart, S.C. 2005. Visitor 

survey results for Souris River loop national 

wildlife refuges. Completion report: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Biological Division, Open-file Report 

2005-1399. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 172 p. 

Speulda, Lou Ann; Lewis, Rhoda Owen. 2003. 

Historical and architectural assessment of the 

Depression era work projects, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service in Region 6. Lakewood, CO: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 6. 129 p. 

Squires, L.; van der Valk, A.G. 1992. Water-depth 

tolerances of the dominant emergent 

macrophytes of the Delta Marsh, Manitoba. 

Canadian Journal of Botany 70:1860–67. 

Steenis, J.H. 1939. Marsh management on the Great 

Plains waterfowl refuges. In: North American 

wildlife conference; [Dates of conference unknown]; 

[Place of conference unknown]. [Place of 

publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 

4:400–5. 

Stewart, R.E. 1975. Breeding birds of North Dakota. 

Fargo, ND: Tri-college Center for Environmental 

Studies. 295 p. 

Stewart, R.E.; Kantrud, H.A. 1971. Classification of 

natural ponds and lakes in the glaciated prairie 

region. Resource Publication 92. [Place of 

publication unknown]: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 57 p. 

Ulrich, R.A.; Pfeifer, F.K. 1976. Limnological 

survey of the Souris River and its major 

tributaries in North Dakota, October 1975. 

Bismarck, ND: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of 

Fishery Services, Bismarck Area Office. 75 p. 

[USACE] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. 

[Title unknown]. <http://www.mvp.usace 

.army.mil> Accessed February 12, 2004. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000 summary 

file, American factfinder. <http://factfinder 

.census.gov> [Date of access unknown]. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2002. Regional 

economic information system. U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

<www.bea.gov> [Date of access unknown]. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; U.S. Department of Commerce, 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. 2001 National survey 

of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated 

recreation. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. [Pages unknown]. 

[USFWS] U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 1962. Objectives of marsh 

vegetation control. Documentation files at J. 

Clark Salyer NWR, Upham, ND. 

———. 1994. Draft revised recovery plan for piping 

plovers (Charadrius melodus), breeding on the 

Great Lakes and northern Great Plains of the 

United States. Twin Cities, MN. 120 p. 

———. 1999. Fulfilling the promise: the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Arlington, VA. 94 p. 

———. 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. 

Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Division of Migratory 

Bird Management. 99 p. 

———. Unpublished data. Weather records. On file 

at Des Lacs NWR (Kenmare, ND) and at J. Clark 

Salyer NWR (Upham, ND). 

U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Field technical 

guide. Bismarck, ND: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 14 p. 

van der Valk, A.G. 1981. Succession in wetlands: a 

Gleasonian approach. Ecology 62:688–96. 

van der Valk, A.G.; Welling, C.H. 1988. The 

development of zonation in freshwater wetlands: 

an experimental approach. In: During, H.; Werger, 

M.; Willems, J. Diversity and pattern in plant 

communities. Hague, Netherlands: Academic 

Publishing. 145–58. 

Weller, M.W.; Fredrickson, L.H. 1974. Avian 

ecology of a managed glacial marsh. Living Bird 

12:269–91. 

Weller, M.W.; Spatcher, C.E. 1965. Role of habitat 

in the distribution and abundance of marsh birds. 

Entomology Special Report 43. Ames, IA: Iowa 

State University, Department of Zoology, 

Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment 

Station. 31 p. 
 

 

 

 

356 CCP, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Wettlaufer, B.N.; Mayer-Oakes, W.J. 1960. The 

Long Creek site. Anthropological Series No. 2. 

Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Museum of Natural 

History. 137 p. 

Willms, M.A.; Crawford, R.C. 1989. Use of earthen 

islands by nesting ducks in North Dakota. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 53:411–17. 

Willson, G.D.; Stubbendieck, J. 2000. A provisional 

model for smooth brome management in degraded 

tall-grass prairie. Ecological Restoration 18:34–8. 

Wilson, S.D. 2002. Prairies. In: Davy, A.J.; Perrow, 

M.R.; editors. Handbook of ecological restoration. 

Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 

443–65. 

Wilson, S.D.; Belcher, J.W. 1989. Plant and bird 

communities of native prairie and introduced 

Eurasian vegetation in Manitoba, Canada. 

Conservation Biology 3:39–44.