Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge 

J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge
 

Upper Souris National Wildlife Refuge
 

January 2007 

Prepared by 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge
 

County Road 1A 


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 4365 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents 


Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................................................... vii
 

Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ ix
 

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 .................................................................................................................................................. 17


 Purpose........................................................................................................................................................... 20 


 Vision and Goals ............................................................................................................................................ 20 


 Special Values................................................................................................................................................ 23


 Planning Issues.............................................................................................................................................. 23
 

3 	 Affected Environment.................................................................................................................................. 27


 Physical Attributes....................................................................................................................................... 28


 Biological Attributes .................................................................................................................................... 29


 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 57


 Special Management Areas ......................................................................................................................... 61


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


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

4 	 Alternatives and Environmental Consequences ................................................................................... 69


 Summary of Alternatives............................................................................................................................. 69


 Summary of Environmental Consequences .............................................................................................. 71


 Detailed Description of Alternatives and Consequences ........................................................................ 72


 Economic Impacts of the No-action and Proposed Action Alternatives............................................... 118 


5 	 Implementation of the Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 127 


 Determination of the Proposed Action (Draft CCPs).............................................................................. 127 


 Management Direction................................................................................................................................. 128 


 Draft CCP—Des Lacs NWR....................................................................................................................... 129 


 Draft CCP—J. Clark Salyer NWR............................................................................................................. 146 


 Draft CCP—Upper Souris NWR ............................................................................................................... 168 


 Step-down Management Plans.................................................................................................................... 189 


 Personnel........................................................................................................................................................ 189 


 Funding .......................................................................................................................................................... 193 


 Partnership Opportunities........................................................................................................................... 193 


 Monitoring and Evaluation.......................................................................................................................... 194 


 Plan Amendment and Revision................................................................................................................... 194 


Glossary............................................................................................................................................................... 195 


Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policy...................................................................................................... 207 


Appendix B—Contributors .............................................................................................................................. 215 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iv Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Appendix C—Public Involvement .................................................................................................................. 217 


Appendix D—Plants of the Souris River Basin Refuges............................................................................. 221 


Appendix E—Plant Group Types of Upland Vegetation at the Souris River Basin Refuges ............... 227 


Appendix F—Birds of the Souris River Basin Refuges .............................................................................. 229 


Appendix G—Birds of Conservation Concern at the Souris River Basin Refuges.................................. 235 


Appendix H—Mammals of the Souris River Basin Refuges....................................................................... 237
 

Appendix I—Reptiles and Amphibians of the Souris River Basin Refuges................................................ 239 


Appendix J—Fishes of the Souris River Basin Refuges ............................................................................... 241 


Appendix K—Water Management Agreements........................................................................................... 243 


Appendix L—Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Grazing......................................................... 325 


Appendix M—Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Haying......................................................... 333 


Appendix N—Compatibility Determination for the Cooperative Farming Program............................. 341 


Appendix O—Fire Management Program..................................................................................................... 349 


Appendix P—Draft Compatibility Determination for Recreational Hunting .......................................... 353 


Appendix Q—Draft Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography, 

Environmental Education, and Interpretation..................................................................... 357 


Appendix R—Draft Compatibility Determination for Recreational Fishing........................................... 361 


Appendix S—RONS and SAMMS, Des Lacs NWR...................................................................................... 367 


Appendix T— RONS and SAMMS, J. Clark Salyer NWR............................................................................ 369
 

Appendix U— RONS and SAMMS, Upper Souris NWR ............................................................................. 371 


References .......................................................................................................................................................... 375 


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.......................................................................................... 18 


7 Base map for J. Clark Salyer NWR, North Dakota ............................................................................... 19 


8 Base map for Upper Souris NWR, North Dakota .................................................................................. 21 


9 Contemporary habitat coverage for the Souris River basin refuges, North Dakota ........................ 30 


10 Habitats at Des Lacs NWR, North Dakota............................................................................................. 31 


11 Habitats at J. Clark Salyer NWR, North Dakota................................................................................... 32 


12 Habitats at Upper Souris NWR, North Dakota ..................................................................................... 33 


Des Lacs NWR, North Dakota, following several dry years (1994) and wet years (2001) .................. 36 


and grassland within prairie parkland at J. Clark Salyer NWR, North Dakota ................................ 41 


15 Extent of three wetland types at each of the Souris River basin refuges, North Dakota ...................... 50 


16 The adaptive management process .......................................................................................................... 194 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Contents v 

Tables 

1 Planning process summary for the Souris River basin refuges, North Dakota.................................. 12 


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


 North Dakota................................................................................................................................................ 66 


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 ............. 68 


Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, 

 Souris River basin refuges, North Dakota............................................................................................... 73 


6 Economic impacts of local nonsalary budget purchases for alternative A for the Souris 

 River basin refuges, North Dakota (2005$).............................................................................................. 118 


7 Economic impacts of local nonsalary budget purchases for alternative B for the Souris 

 River basin refuges, North Dakota (2005$).............................................................................................. 119 


8 Change in local nonsalary spending impacts between alternatives A and B for the Souris

 River basin refuges, North Dakota (2005$).............................................................................................. 119 


9 Local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge personnel for alternative A for the 

 Souris River basin refuges, North Dakota (2005$) ................................................................................. 119 


Local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge personnel for alternative B for the 

 Souris River basin refuges, North Dakota (2005$) ................................................................................. 120 


11 Change in salary spending impacts between alternatives A and B for the Souris River 


 basin refuges, North Dakota (2005$)......................................................................................................... 120 


12 Estimated annual refuge visitation for alternative A for the Souris River basin refuges,


 North Dakota................................................................................................................................................ 121 


13 Average nonlocal visitor spending per person per day for the Souris River basin refuges, 


 North Dakota (2005$) .................................................................................................................................. 122 


14 Annual local economic impacts of nonlocal visitor spending for alternative A for the 


 Souris River basin refuges, North Dakota (2005$) ................................................................................. 122 


Estimated annual refuge visitation for alternative B for the Souris River basin refuges,

 North Dakota................................................................................................................................................ 123 


16 Annual local economic impacts of nonlocal visitor spending for alternative B for the 


 Souris River basin refuges, North Dakota (2005$) ................................................................................. 124 


17 Change in visitor-spending impacts between alternatives A and B for the Souris River 


 basin refuges, North Dakota (2005$)......................................................................................................... 124 


18 Summary of the economic impacts of all refuge management activities for alternatives A 


and B for Des Lacs NWR (Kenmare and Bowbells areas), North Dakota .......................................... 125 


19 Summary of the economic impacts of all refuge management activities for alternatives A 


and B for J. Clark Salyer NWR (Bottineau and McHenry counties), North Dakota ......................... 125 


Summary of the economic impacts of all refuge management activities for alternatives A 

and B for Upper Souris NWR (Ward and Renville counties), North Dakota ..................................... 125 


21 Step-down management plans for Des Lacs NWR, North Dakota ...................................................... 190 


22 Step-down management plans for J. Clark Salyer NWR, North Dakota ............................................ 190 


23 Step-down management plans for Upper Souris NWR, North Dakota............................................... 191 


24 Current and proposed staff for Des Lacs NWR, North Dakota............................................................ 192 


Current and proposed staff for J. Clark Salyer NWR, North Dakota.................................................. 192 


26 Current and proposed staff for Upper Souris NWR, North Dakota .................................................... 193
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abbreviations 


Administration Act 

ATV 

AUM 

CCC 

CCP 

CFR 

cfs 

CRP 

CWCS 

DNC 

EA 

EO 

EPA 

FHWA 

FMP 

FONSI 

FTE 

GIS 

GPS 

GS 

HAPET 

Improvement Act 

NAWMP 

ND 

NDGF 

NEPA 

NOI 

NRCS 

NWI 

NWR 

NWRS 

PL 

PPJV 

Refuge System 

region 6 

RONS 

SAMMS 

Service 

SUP 

SWG 

Three Affiliated Tribes 

USACE 

USDA 

USFWS 

USGS 

VOR 

WG 

WMD 

WUI 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

all-terrain vehicle 

animal unit month 

Civilian Conservation Corps 

comprehensive conservation plan 

Code of Federal Regulations 

cubic feet per second 

conservation resource plan 

“Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy” 

dense nesting cover 

environmental assessment 

executive order 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Federal Highway Administration 

fire management plan 

finding of no significant impact 

full-time equivalent 

geographic information system 

global positioning system 

general schedule (employment) 

“Habitat and Population Evaluation Team” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

North Dakota 

North Dakota Game and Fish Department 

National Environmental Policy Act 

notice of intent 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

“National Wetland Inventory” 

national wildlife refuge 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

public law 

“Prairie Pothole Joint Venture” 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

“Mountain–Prairie Region” of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

“Refuge Operating Needs System” 

“Service Asset Maintenance Management System” 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

special use permit 

“State Wildlife Grant” 

Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara tribes 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

visual obstruction reading 

wage grade (employment) 

wetland management district 

wildland–urban interface 

 Definitions of these and other terms are in the glossary, located after chapter 5. 

 

 

 

 

North Dakota’s Souris River basin is home to three 

national wildlife refuges, known collectively as the 

“Souris River basin refuges”: 

■	 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 

■	 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 

■	 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 

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 

Summary
 

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. 

Representing a comprehensive collection of most 

North Dakota plant communities, these refuges 

include important remnants of the Drift Plain 

prairie, which could be considered a threatened 

resource. 

SETTING 

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. 

Duane C. Anderson/USFWS 

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

 

 

 

 

 

x Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 this basin, the three national wildlife refuges 

provide extensive breeding and migration habitat 

for grassland- and wetland-dependent birds. The 

refuges have potential for restoration of reasonably 

intact communities of native plants and animals. In 

addition, the refuges provide a wide variety of 

wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities and 

facilities for visitors including the following: 

■	 Hunting of deer and upland birds 

■	 Wildlife observation and wildlife 

photography—auto tour routes, hiking trails, 

viewing and photography blinds 

■	 Interpretive information—kiosks, panels, and 

headquarters’ exhibits 

In addition, 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. 

PLANNING PROCESS 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a 

draft comprehensive conservation plan as the 

foundation for management and use of the three 

Souris River basin refuges. The purposes of this 

plan are as follows: 

■	 to identify the role that the three Souris River 

basin refuges will play in support of the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

■	 to provide guidance for managing refuge
 

programs and activities during the next 15 


years. 


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. 

VISION AND GOALS 

The 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 conserve much of the ecology and 

natural character of the northern plains region 

while helping sustain populations of migratory 

birds and other wildlife native to the landscape. 

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. 

The following goals will direct work toward 

achieving the vision for the refuges. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary xi 

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.) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

xii Draft CCP and EA, 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.) 

ISSUES 

The following key issues were identified during 

analysis of concerns raised by refuge staffs, along 

with analysis of 57 public comments collected 

during scoping. 

Habitat and Wildlife Management 

Dynamic ecological processes are fundamental to 

the evolution and maintenance of prairies and 

wetlands in the northern Great Plains. Processes 

such as fire, grazing, and drought shaped plant 

communities of the region. Before Euro-American 

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. 

Many plant communities and wildlife populations 

have been negatively affected—some refuge habitats 

are so degraded that they may not be restorable. 

Trees and tall shrubs have expanded, fragmenting 

much prairie that provides breeding habitat for 

grassland birds (most of which are exhibiting 

continental population declines). Introduced species 

such as smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass, and 

noxious weeds such as leafy spurge and Canada 

thistle have devalued refuge habitats for wildlife. In 

addition, programs to control these plants divert 

important resources from other habitat management. 

Refuge staffs suggest that (1) goals and objectives 

need to emphasize management of vegetation 

communities as habitat for wildlife, and (2) research 

and monitoring should be used to predict and 

validate wildlife response to management. 

Too often, biological needs of wildlife and their 

habitats receive less consideration than 

socioeconomic and political factors in the decisionmaking process. 

Prescribed fire, haying, and grazing can be 

controversial management tools, especially when 

objectives for their use are unclear. Control of 

predators is controversial—some groups or 

individuals question the ethics of killing one group 

of species to increase another group, especially to 

increase recreational hunting. 

Water Quality and Management 

The public is mainly interested in having a highquality water source within the Souris River basin. 

Pesticides are widely used in the area, especially for 

oil seed crops, and may enter the rivers along with 

heavy metals and other contaminants. 

Wetland productivity is likely compromised by 

modifications of the Souris River, as well as by 

political constraints associated with management of 

the river such as flood control. Historically, the 

Souris River had a meandering river channel, 

characterized by overbank flooding and the 

development of oxbow ponds. Today, with three 

major dams and channelization of much of the midriver section, the river system is more static than 

dynamic. 

A major reservoir, Lake Darling, occurs behind a 

dam at Upper Souris NWR. Water levels of this 

reservoir have been regulated for flood control and 

to support a recreational fishery. 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. One of the 

challenges to attain long-term productivity in the 

entire system is the ability to manage water to 

promote natural marsh cycles. 

The role of drawdowns (lowering of water levels) to 

maintain marsh productivity is poorly understood 

by the public. Some refuge visitors see a dry 

wetland and conclude that this condition is not 

beneficial to wildlife. 

Public Outreach and Partnerships 

Refuge managers and the public underutilize 

opportunities for the public to understand refuges 

and their management. Partnerships with local 

schools, universities, special interest groups, and 

state and local governments need to be strengthened. 

Opportunities for outreach and partnerships are 

constrained by declining rural populations. In 

addition, relatively few nongovernmental 

organizations in North Dakota have an interest in 

wildlife and habitat. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary xiii 

Public Use 

America’s mobile society is demanding increased 

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 these services can be provided, 

unless refuge staffing and budgets increase. 

Increased public use could enhance awareness of 

refuge issues and activities. 

Refuge Operations 

The Souris River basin refuges are currently 

understaffed and poorly funded relative to the 

scope and responsibility of management. 

ALTERNATIVES 

The planning team developed the following four 

alternatives as management options for addressing 

the key issues. 

Alternative A (Current Management, 

No Action) 

This no-action alternative reflects the current 

management of the Souris River basin refuges. It 

provides the baseline against which to compare the 

other alternatives. 

Refuge habitats would continue to be managed on 

an opportunistic schedule that may maintain—or 

most likely would result in further decline in—the 

diversity of vegetation and wildlife species. The 

Souris River basin refuges would continue to 

perform only limited research and would monitor 

only long-term vegetation change. 

Outreach, partnerships, and priority public uses 

(fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation) would continue at present minimal 

levels. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

Alternative B is the Service’s proposed action and 

basis for the draft comprehensive conservation plan. 

This “ecological triage” alternative would prioritize 

habitats with high probability of restoration for 

management. Triage is defined here as the 

assignment of priority order 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. 

Alternative C 

In alternative C, waterfowl habitat management 

and waterfowl production would be emphasized 

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. 

Alternative D 

Management under 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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Introduction 


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

developed this draft 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 northcentral North Dakota (figure 1). The CCP is intended 

as 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”): 

■	 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 

■	 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 

■	 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 CCP was developed in compliance with the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 (Improvement Act) and Part 602 (National 

Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of “The Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions described 

within this CCP also meet the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 

Compliance with the NEPA is being achieved through 

the involvement of the public and the inclusion of an 

integrated environmental assessment (EA). 

The final CCP will specify the necessary actions to 

achieve the vision and purposes of each refuge. 

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 

refuge’s purpose. 

A planning team of representatives from various 

Service programs and the North Dakota Game and 

Fish Department (NDGF) has prepared the CCP. 

In developing this plan, the planning team used 

input from local citizens and organizations. Public 

involvement and the planning process are described 

in “The Planning Process” section of this chapter. 

After reviewing a wide range of public comments 

and management needs, the planning team developed 

the “proposed action” alternative. This action 

Habitats at the Souris River basin refuges support the 

gadwall and many other migratory ducks. 

addresses all substantive issues while determining 

how best to achieve purpose of each refuge. The 

proposed action alternative is the Service’s 

recommended course of action for the management 

of these refuges. 

NOTE: The Des Lacs NWR Complex includes Des 

Lacs NWR, Lostwood NWR, Lostwood Wetland 

Management District (WMD), and Crosby WMD. 

The J. Clark Salyer NWR Complex includes J. 

Clark Salyer NWR, Upper Souris NWR, J. Clark 

Salyer WMD, Wintering River NWR, Cottonwood 

Lake NWR, Buffalo Lake NWR, Willow Lake 

NWR, Lords Lake NWR, School Section Lake 

NWR, and Rabb Lake NWR. This draft CCP and 

EA addresses management for only Des Lacs 

NWR, J. Clark Salyer NWR, and Upper Souris 

NWR and does not include any of the other units 

within the complexes. 

Donna Dewhurst/USFWS 
2 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR 

PLAN 

The purpose of this draft CCP is to identify the role 

that the three Souris River basin refuges will play 

in support of the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (Refuge System), and is to provide 

long-term guidance for managing refuge programs 

and activities. 

The CCP is needed 

■	 to provide a clear statement of direction for the 

future management of the refuges; 

■	 to ensure that the Service’s management
 

actions are consistent with mandates 


governing management of the Refuge 


System; 


■	 to ensure that management of these refuges is 

consistent with federal, state, and county 

plans; 

■	 to provide a basis for development of budget 

requests for the refuge’s operation, 

maintenance, and capital improvement needs; 

■	 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 

Chapter 1—Introduction 

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 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”: 

■	 employed 242 people in North Dakota 

■	 497 volunteers donated more than 17,990 hours 

to help Service projects 

■	 contributed 13.4 million fingerlings to North
 

Dakota waters
 

■	 managed 62 national wildlife refuges 

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

■	 managed 12 wetland management districts 

■	 managed 254,000 acres of fee-title, waterfowl 

production areas (0.6% of the state) 

■	 hosted more than 478,500 annual visitors to 


Service-managed lands in North Dakota
 

■	 provided education programs for more than
 

17,000 school children participants 


■	 provided $2.7 million to NDGF for sport fish 

restoration and $2.1 million for wildlife 

restoration and hunter education 

■	 helped about 2,500 landowners enhance
 

wildlife habitat on 162,000 acres since 1987
 

■	 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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. 

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 

■	 to fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; 

■	 to fulfill the individual purpose of each refuge; 

■	 to consider the needs of fish and wildlife first; 

■	 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; 

■	 to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health of the Refuge System; 

■	 to recognize that wildlife-dependent 

recreation activities including hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation are legitimate and priority 

public uses; 

■	 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: 

■	 Wildlife comes first. 

■	 Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are 

vital concepts in refuge management. 

■	 Refuges should ensure biological integrity 


and environmental health. 


■	 Growth of refuges must be strategic. 

■	 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/ mixedgrass 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 
Chapter 1—Introduction 5 

 Figure 2. Ecosystem map. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 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/mixed-grass 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 mid-summer. 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 (the 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 may enter the rivers along with 

heavy metals and other contaminants. 

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 present-day 

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 mid-river 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 

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 
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 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

is the priority of Refuge System lands and that the 

Secretary of the Interior will ensure that the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

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 A. 

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 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, land bird 

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 mixedgrass 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 

known as the Prairie Pothole Region. Internally, the 

various moraines are particularly rugged and marked 

by potholes. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1—Introduction 9 

Figure 4. Physiographic areas of the United States. 

Priority bird species and habitats of the northern 

mixed-grass prairie include the following: 

Grassland 

Baird’s sparrow 


greater prairie-chicken 


McCown’s longspur 


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 highpriority species of 

shorebirds breed in 

the northern mixedgrass prairie, and 

huge numbers of 

more northerly 

breeding bird 

species pass Marbled Godwit 

 Lee Karney/USFWS 

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 

grassland–wetland 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 Canadian 

governments developed a strategy to restore 

waterfowl populations through habitat protection, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

restoration, and enhancement. Mexico became a 

signatory to the plan in 1994. 

The plan is innovative because 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 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. 

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). Lake 

Darling at Upper Souris NWR is within the area as 

designated critical habitat for the federally listed 

piping plover. 

Piping Plover 

State Wildlife Grants Program 

Over the past several decades, documented declines 

of wildlife populations have occurred nationwide. The 

Edward Henry/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1—Introduction 11 

State Wildlife Grant (SWG) program was created by 

Congress 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 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 draft CCP and EA for the three Souris River 

basin refuges are intended to comply with the 

Improvement Act, the NEPA, and the 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): 

■	 Form a planning team and conduct preplanning. 

■	 Initiate public involvement and scoping. 

■	 Draft the vision statement and goals. 

■	 Develop and analyze alternatives, including the 

proposed action. 

■	 Prepare the draft CCP and EA. 

■	 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. 

■	 Implement the CCP; monitor and evaluate. 

■	 Review the CCP every 5 years and revise it
 

every 15 years. 


Figure 5. The planning process. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 1 displays the details of the planning process 

to date for this draft CCP and EA. 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: 

■	 Service personnel from the refuges and 


division of refuge planning (region 6, 


Lakewood, Colorado) 


■	 personnel from NDGF 

■	 personnel from the U.S. Geographical 

Survey’s (USGS) biological resources division 

A list of planning team members and other major 

contributors to development of this document are 

found in appendix B. 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. 

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

Date Event 	 Outcome 

Toured refuges. Kickoff meeting 

(CCP overview; establishment of 

planning team; identified purpose of June 3–6, 2002 CCP kickoff meeting the refuges, history, and establishing 

authority; developed planning 

schedule). 

NOI (to prepare the CCP)	 Notified the public of the upcoming January 2003 published in “Federal Register” 	 preparation of the CCP. 

Conducted internal scoping by 

developing initial issues and qualities January 14–15, 2003 Vision and goals workshop lists. Developed a vision statement 

and goals. 

News releases for public meetings Notified public of opportunities for March 18–20, 2003 sent to local newspapers, and radio involvement in the CCP process. and television stations 

Opportunity for public to learn about March 24, 2003 Public open house in Mohall, ND the CCP. 

Opportunity for public to learn about March 25, 2003 Public open house in Bowbells, ND the CCP. 

Public open houses in Bottineau and 	 Opportunity for public to learn about March 26, 2003 Kenmare, ND	 the CCP. 

Public open houses in Towner and 	 Opportunity for public to learn about March 27, 2003 Minot, ND 	 the CCP. 

Site visit to refuges by USGS– Toured refuges. Met with refuge 

March 2003 Northern Prairie Wildlife Research staff. Collected data for assessment of 

Center wetland conditions at the refuges. 

USGS researchers met with refuge Site visit to refuges by Fort Collins staff to understand refuge needs, April 2003	 Science Center, policy analysis visitation, and management issues to science assistance branch design a public use survey. 

Conducted research to assess (1) visitor 

Survey distributed to refuge experience, perceptions, and August 2003–August 2004 visitors 	 preferences, and (2) visitor spending 

in relation to recreation. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1—Introduction 13 

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

Date Event 	 Outcome 

Planning team toured refuges with 

Wetlands biological workshop; field representatives from Northern Prairie September 2–4, 2003 assessment 	 Wildlife Research Center and discussed 

wetland conditions. 

Report issued by USGS–Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center: “A 

December 2003 Assessment of wetland conditions 	 Biological Assessment of Wetland 

Conditions on the Souris River 

National Wildlife Refuges.” 

Developed a range of alternatives for January 25–26, 2005	 Alternatives workshop the refuges. 

Environmental consequences 	 Reviewed the anticipated 

March 15–16, 2005	 workshop and identification of the environmental consequences. Identified 

proposed action alternative B as the proposed action. 

Reviewed the proposed objectives, 

strategies, and rationale for May 26, 2005 	 Objectives workshop implementation of the proposed action 

(draft CCP). 

Internal review of draft CCP and	 Received comments on the draft CCP June 2006 EA 	 and EA. 

Release of draft CCP and EA for	 Received comments on the revised Summer 2006 public review	 draft CCP and EA. 

Increased public understanding of the 

Summer 2006 Public open houses draft CCP and EA. Received public 

comments about the draft CCP and EA. 

Coordination with the Public 

Public scoping began January 17, 2003, with 

publication in the “Federal Register” of the notice of 

intent (NOI) to prepare CCPs and associated 

environmental documents 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 C). 

In March 2003, a planning update was sent 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. 

Six open houses were held 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. Attendees were 

invited to submit additional thoughts or questions in 

writing and each was given a two-page comment 

form to complete. 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 with an April 30, 2003 response deadline. 

A second planning update (with comment form) was 

sent 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. 

Input obtained from open houses and planning 

updates was considered in developing this draft CCP 

and EA. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 ongoing 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 has not been a 

participant in the planning workshops. The 

commission will provide input through review of the 

CCP documents. 

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: 

■	 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 the review of CCP documents. 

■	 The Service also 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 

Comments collected from scoping meetings and 

correspondence were used to help develop key issues. 

The planning team determined which alternatives 

could most appropriately address these issues. 

The proposed action alternative formed the basis for 

the draft CCP, with its objectives and strategies to 

achieve the goals developed by the planning team. 

This process ensures that key issues are resolved or 

given priority over the life of this CCP. Chapter 2 

provides a summary of these issues and the 

associated resource ramifications. 

The Service received 57 comments during scoping. 

USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

15 

Decision to be Made 

The decision to be made by the Service’s regional 

director is the selection of an alternative that will be 

carried out as the CCP for the Souris River basin 

refuges. This decision will be made in recognition of 

the environmental effects of each alternative 

considered. The decision will be disclosed in a FONSI 

included in the final CCP. Implementation of the 

CCP will begin on signature and publication of the 

final CCP. 

The CCP 

provides long-term guidance for management 

decisions; 

sets forth goals, objectives, and strategies 

needed to accomplish the purpose of the 

refuges; 

identifies the Service’s best estimate of future 

needs. 

Chapter 1—Introduction 

The draft CCP details program-planning levels that 

are sometimes substantially above current budget 

allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service 

strategic planning purposes. This CCP does not 

constitute a commitment for staffing increases, 

operational and maintenance increases, or funding 

for future land acquisition. 

Chapter 2—The Planning Process 1 

 

 

2 The Refuges 


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 following-described 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 following-described 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 

The three Souris River basin refuges were The Des Lacs Migratory Waterfowl Refuge (later 

established by executive order in 1935. renamed “Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge”) was 

established by Executive Order (EO) 7154-A (figure 6). 
18 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Figure 6. Base map for Des Lacs NWR, North Dakota.
 
Chapter 2—The Refuges 19 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 Draft CCP and EA, 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 following-described 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.” 

VISION AND GOALS 

During the early stages of the planning process, the 

planning team developed a vision statement for the 

refuges. 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 statement was presented to the public 

during open houses. 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 conserve much of the ecology and 

natural character of the northern plains region 

while helping sustain populations of migratory 

birds and other wildlife native to the landscape. 

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. 

The planning team 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. 

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.) 
Chapter 2—The Refuges 21 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 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.) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23 

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 

■	 preserve a large component of the natural
 

environment totaling 110,220 acres; 


■	 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); 

■	 represent a comprehensive collection of most 

North Dakota plant communities; 

■	 have some of the only remaining 

representative tracts of native prairie on the 

Drift Plain, a declining and threatened type of 

prairie habitat; 

■	 are associated with rivers and serve as sediment 

traps for the Hudson Bay drainage; 

■	 are a critical area of the Central Flyway and 


provide resting and breeding habitat for
 

migratory birds; 


■	 are in an area that has been a gathering spot
 

for people and wildlife through time; 


■	 occur in an area with a rich history of 


paleohistory, early exploration, and 


settlement; 


■	 were originally developed in part by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps (CCC); 

■	 have potential for a broad range of partnerships 

that are integral to every aspect of refuge 

management (hunting, fishing, research, and 

education). 

Stiff Sunflower 

Gary Eslinger/USFWS 

Chapter 2—The Refuges 

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 

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 

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). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 

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. 

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 wildlife 

photography. These opportunities may increase as 

refuge habitat and wildlife management are enhanced. 

USFWS 
 

 

 

Chapter 2—The Refuges 25 

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 Affected Environment
 

Native Prairie Clover and Coneflowers

 Gary Eslinger/USFWS 

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 (needlegrass–bluestem– 

wheatgrass) vegetation association (Kuchler 1964, 

Coupland 1992, Bragg 1995). However, the 

contemporary landscape is dominated by annually 

tilled cropland (figure 3). 

In the late 1880s and early 1890s, Government Land 

Office officials surveyed the basin’s vast prairie to 

guide forthcoming settlement by Euro-American 

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 coolseason, 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 EuroAmerican 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 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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: 

 physical attributes 

 biological attributes 

 cultural resources 

 special management areas 

 visitor services 

 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 

data). 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 and Upper 

Souris NWRs) 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, high-relief 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29 

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. 

Ducks settle in a wetland at Upper Souris NWR. 

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: 

 drift prairie 

 prairie slope 

 prairie parkland 

 sandhills 


 old cropland 


 coulee woodland and coulee woodland edge 

 riparian woodland 

 meadow 

 wetland 

 islands 

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). 

Darla Leslie/USFWS 

Chapter 3—Affected Environment 

Detailed information about biological resources of 

the Souris River basin refuges are found in several 

appendixes: 

 plants (appendix D) 

 plant group types (appendix E) 

 birds (appendix F) 

 birds of conservation concern (appendix G) 

 mammals (appendix H) 

 reptiles and amphibians (appendix I) 

 fishes (appendix J) 

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. 

Drift prairie tracts at Des Lacs NWR and J. Clark 

Salyer NWR have similar management histories 

(Murphy and Grant 2005): 

 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. 
30 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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

Chapter 3—Affected Environment 31 

Figure 10. Habitats at Des Lacs NWR, North Dakota.
 
32 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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

Chapter 3—Affected Environment 33 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 onethird 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. 

 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. 

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: 

 Drift prairie at Upper Souris NWR was idle 

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

and then grazed heavily through the mid1950s. Light, season-long grazing and rest 

prevailed through the early 1970s. This was 

followed by rest-rotation grazing, then twiceover 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. 

 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. 

USFWS 

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): 

 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%). 

 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%). 

 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). 

 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 data). 

The plant community of Upper Souris NWR’s drift 

prairie is also badly invaded by introduced plant 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35 

predictably reflect the refuge’s longer grazing 

history and relative lack of fire, as follows: 

 Intact assemblages of native herbaceous 

vegetation compose <5% of the prairie, similar 

to the other two refuges. 

 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. 

 Low shrub-dominated types are more 

prevalent (27% frequency) than on drift prairie 

at Des Lacs NWR and J. Clark Salyer NWR. 

 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. in press). 

Species characteristic of the contemporary drift 

prairie are Savannah sparrow, clay-colored sparrow, 

and bobolink; less common are sharp-tailed 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 

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 2003a, Grant et 

al. 2004a). 

Chapter 3—Affected Environment 

 The Savannah sparrow is a common species at the 

 refuges.

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). 

In an adjacent, rolling to hilly region of northern 

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 

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 

 Dave Menke/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

36 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

 Old Cropland 

Prairie Slope 

 Drift Prairie 

Woodland–Prairie Edge 

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), clay-colored 

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). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37 

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 brown-headed 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 to several groves of 

quaking aspen and 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, however. An analysis of recent data 

from the refuge suggests that the survival of claycolored 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 data). 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 

shrubsare 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 

Chapter 3—Affected Environment 

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., unpublished 

data). 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

38 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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., 

unpublished data). Coyote, white-tailed jackrabbit, 

and northern pocket gopher are less common. 

Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel 

© Cindie Brunner 

Prairie Slope 

Prairie slope occurs at Des Lacs NWR, at Upper 

Souris NWR, and minimally at J. Clark Salyer NWR. 

Prairie slope, especially the southwest-facing 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 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 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 coolseason 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 southwest-facing 

prairie slope is noninvaded, native herbaceous 

vegetation, compared to only 6% on the adjoining 

drift prairie (Murphy, Whipp, and Muscha; 

unpublished data). 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3—Affected Environment 39 

native wheatgrasses (several species) 

sideoats grama 

little bluestem 

porcupine grass 

Kentucky bluegrass 

big bluestem 

smooth brome 

Tall shrubs and trees occur infrequently on southwestfacing 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, Whipp, and Muscha; 

unpublished data). 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” habitat). 

Prairie slope at Upper Souris NWR are less pristine 

than those 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). 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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. 

© Cindie Brunner 

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). Longterm rest (that is, limited grazing and burning) is 

implicated in more recent expansion of this woodland. 

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. 

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). 

 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). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3—Affected Environment 41 

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.) 

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%. 

 Except for clay-colored sparrow, vesper 

sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, and upland sandpiper, 

few grassland bird species nest in prairie 

parkland (Grant et al., in press). 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., in press). 

 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 abandoned 

at J. Clark Salyer NWR since 1950 because of 

woodland expansion (Grant and Hammond, 

unpublished data). 

 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

42 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 

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). 

Gary Eslinger/USFWS 

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 southwestoriented 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 

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 unvegetated. 

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. 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 3—Affected Environment 43 

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. 

Sandhills in Fall 

Black-billed Magpie 

much sandhill habitat on the refuge (Grant and 

Berkey 1999). 

Woodland edge and shrubland species include blackbilled 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 black-capped 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 disturbance 

or other physical evidence of tillage often are subtle. 

Definitive inventories generally have not been 

completed. 

Gary Eslinger/USFWS Gary Eslinger/USFWS 

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 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

44 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 cool-season 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 warmseason 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 blue-winged 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.; unpublished 

data). 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 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, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45 

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 

north-facing , 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 generally are 65–80 

years old. Green ash is the overwhelmingly 

dominant overstory tree (Nenneman and Murphy, 

unpublished data). 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, 

© Cindie Brunner 

Chapter 3—Affected Environment 

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 

data). 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 data) and 

appears to have increased markedly since (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 data). Leafy 

spurge rarely occurs. 

Woodland edge at Des Lacs NWR is not just the 

broken-canopy transition between woodland and 

open prairie. More often, it is 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 woodland edge areas 

(Murphy et al., unpublished data). 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

46 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 forestinterior 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). 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., unpublished data). Eastern 

cottontail and moose are uncommon and local in 

distribution, while the white-tailed deer is common 

and widespread. 

Song Sparrow 

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 

 Lee Karney/USFWS 

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, 

would 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 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). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

47 

Physical Environment 

Riparian woodland occurs within about 0.5 mile of 

the Souris River and is most extensive on the 

southern one-half 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. 

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 data). 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). 

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 forestChapter 3—Affected Environment 

interior 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). 

 Black-crowned night-heron (above) and great blue heron 

 colonies are found in riparian woodland. 

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 water-loving 

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. 

Gary Kramer/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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. 

© Cindie Brunner Willow shrubland 

 and aspen woodland 

have expanded significantly since 1900 and now 

occupy 15–20% of the meadow 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 

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). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3—Affected Environment 49 

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. 

Dave Menke/USFWS 

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 impact 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. 

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 K). To 

offset evaporation from two large reservoirs Common Yellowthroat constructed in Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan’s 


apportionment would now be 60% of the natural 
 Other characteristic vertebrates include beaver, 
 flow, depending on the elevation of Lake Darling on
 muskrat, red-backed vole, meadow vole, deer 
 October 1 of a given year. This language was 
 mouse, masked shrew, raccoon, moose, wood frog,
 modified in 2001. The current language gives the 
 chorus frog, leopard frog, and tiger salamander. 


Wetland 


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. 

USFWS 

 Lake Darling 

In addition to the flood control project, there are 

senior water right holders in North Dakota, and an 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 Acres 

30000.0 

25000.0 

20000.0 

15000.0 

10000.0 

5000.0 

0.0 

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 

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. 

Open lake impoundments within the 

riverine system 

Riverine marsh impoundments, 

river channels, and oxbow ponds 

Prairie ponds and other wetlands 

imbedded within uplands 

Des Lacs NWR Upper Souris J. Clark Salyer 

NWR NWR 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51 

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 acrefeet. Each dike is equipped with water control 

structures to permit water level manipulations. 

However, control is limited for several reasons, as 

follows: 

 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. 

 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. 

Chapter 3—Affected Environment 

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. 

 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. 

 Aerial View of Unit 6 (upper third of photograph) at 

 Des Lacs NWR 

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, 

USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

and prairie marshes (figure 15). The watershed 

contributing to the refuge covers about 9,000 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 

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 

Gary Eslinger/USFWS 

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 draft CCP and EA. 

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: 

 9,575-acre reservoir, Lake Darling 

 58 acres of river 

 2,127 acres of riverine marshes with riparian 

woodlands 

 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). 

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 in-stream pools be lowered before 

they can be drained. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53 

Pool C at Upper Souris NWR 

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: 

 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. 

 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. 

 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 Sanford Rostad/USFWS 

Chapter 3—Affected Environment 

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, 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 that “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 (anonymous 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: 

 The volume of water entering the refuge is 

frequently outside the control of the refuges. 

 Water entering the refuge cannot be diverted 

from marshes because the river flows through 

each impoundment. 

 Management actions such as drawdown of one 

impoundment constrains management options 

at other impoundments. 

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55 

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, a total of 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 

Chapter 3—Affected Environment 

Green-winged Teal 

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 

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. Donna Dewhurst/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

56 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Wetlands in the region also provide important 

migration habitat for the following: 

 waterfowl such as tundra swan and snow
 

goose 


 waterbirds including sandhill crane 

 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. 

Northern Pike 

Bob Hines/USFWS 

Yellow Perch 

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 

hay meadows east of the Rubble Masonry Unit. 

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 varies 

significantly among islands. The average cover on 

islands at J. Clark Salyer NWR follows: 

 18% low shrubs (western snowberry and 


Woods’ rose) 


 38% introduced grasses (mainly smooth brome 

and Kentucky bluegrass) 

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

Canada thistle, and absinth wormwood) 

 9% leafy spurge 

 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 is roughly 

similar and as variable. 

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 data). 

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. Double-crested cormorant, American 

avocet, and ring-billed gull nest on islands occasionally. 

Nests on islands at Des Lacs NWR are mostly of 

mallard, gadwall, and Canada goose. Canada geese 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

57 

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 data). Nest survival can be greater 

than 75% (apparent survival), especially following 

winter drawdowns in conjunction with predator 

removal. Deep water and an extensive unvegetated 

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 data). 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-tobenefit 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 

Chapter 3—Affected Environment 

Remains of a Prehistoric Campground in the Souris 

River Basin 

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 

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 Euro-American 

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. 

Rhoda Lewis/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

58 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 presentday Minot, North Dakota. On the return portion of 

the trip, the Souris River was crossed near presentday 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 

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 an unforested 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 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3—Affected Environment 59 

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 

(Stammen 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 coal mine 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. 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 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 still 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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

61 

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: 

 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. 

 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. 

 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. 

 J. Clark Salyer NWR has been designated as 

a regional shorebird site in the Western 

Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. 

Chapter 3—Affected Environment 

Munch’s Coulee Hiking Trail at Des Lacs NWR 

 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. 

Hunting 

The hunting program provides opportunity to hunt 

deer, turkey, pheasant, gray partridge, sharp-tailed 

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 hunting 

“tear sheet” provides information, regulations, and 

a map for a variety of game seasons. Some aspects 

of the hunting program follow: 

 Turkeys are hunted in the spring and fall. 

 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. 

 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 

USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

62 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

encouraged at the refuge during the September 

season. 

 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. 

 Requests for accessible hunting permits (to 

shoot from vehicles) are evaluated for hunters 

with disabilities and are generally allowed. 

 The use of dogs is permitted for upland game 

hunting only. 

 No field trials or shooting ranges are permitted 

at the refuge. 

Fishing 

Fishing does not occur at the refuge. 

Wildlife Observation and Wildlife 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: 

 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
 

 Munch’s Coulee Hiking Trail—1-mile nature 

trail loop is open to hiking with an accessible 

section 

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

open to hiking 

 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 a 

curricula on fire ecology of the northern Great 

Plains, which is available for use in schools. Smallgroup 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. 

Monarch Butterfly on Switchgrass 

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: 

 “Green Wing Day” promotes youth hunting 


safety and conservation 


 National Wildlife Refuge Week 

 “Eco-Ed Days” promotes conservation and 


resource management for fifth- and sixth-


grade students 


 “Haunted Hayride” 

The refuge also assists with the annual Kenmare 

Goosefest celebration in October. 

 Gary Eslinger/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3—Affected Environment 63 

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, wildlife 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: 

 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. 

 Most of the refuge, with exception of specific 

closed areas, is open to deer hunting with 

archery, muzzleloader, and rifle equipment 

following state seasons. 

 Late-season hunting for upland game bird and 

for fox is allowed after the close of the deer 

firearm season. 

 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 Wildlife Photography 

There are numerous opportunities for these activities, 

many opportunistic and some formalized. The selfguided 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. 

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: 

 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. 

 The 5-mile Grassland Trail is located along 

the northern shoreline of pool 341 on the west 

side of the refuge. It moves through mixedgrass 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

64 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 hand-pumped 

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 two-tiered viewing platform and an accessible 

observation deck provides visitors with an excellent 

view of marsh habitat and associated wildlife at pool 

326. 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. 

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. 

Upper Souris NWR 

Upper Souris NWR provides visitors with a full 

complement of wildlife-dependent activities 

including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife 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: 

 3% of visitors participated in hunting 

 78% of visitors participated in fishing 

 9% of visitors participated in wildlife
 

observation and wildlife photography 


 less than 1% of visitors participated in 


environmental education activities 


 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. 

Bob Savannah/USFWS 

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. 

A fishing brochure containing information, rules, 

and a map is available. 

Wildlife Observation and Wildlife 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. 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

65 

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 

Chapter 3—Affected Environment 

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. 

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 five-county 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. 

Bowbells in Burke County and Kenmare in Ward 

County are the centers of visitation activity 

associated with the Des Lacs NWR, as follows: 

 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 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

66 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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

North Dakota. 

Population in 2000 % Population Change 

 Area Number of Residents Persons per Square Mile 1990–2000 

-10.8 

Burke County 2,242 2.0 

Bottineau County 7,149 	 4.3 

-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). 

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). 

 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: 

 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). 

 The town of Westhope has 533 residents and 


is northwest of the refuge near the Canada
 

border.
 

 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. 

 Granville has 286 residents and is also 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: 

 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. 

 Carpio is a small town composed of 148 

residents, located southwest of the refuge on 

the Des Lacs River. 

 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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3—Affected Environment 67 

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 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. Also, 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, and 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. 

 

 

68 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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). 
Chapter 4—Alternatives 1 

 

 

 

 

 

4 Alternatives and Environmental 


This chapter describes the management alternatives 

and associated environmental consequences 

considered for the Souris River basin refuges. 

Alternatives are different approaches to planning 

unit management designed to achieve 

the refuges’ purposes, vision, and goals; 

the mission of the Refuge System; 

the mission of the Service. 

Alternatives are formulated to address the significant 

issues, concerns, and problems identified by the 

Service, the public, and the governmental partners 

during public scoping and throughout the development 

of the draft plan. 

This chapter contains the following sections: 

■	 summary of alternatives 

■	 summary of environmental consequences 

■	 detailed description of alternatives and 


consequences (table 5)
 

■	 economic impacts of no-action and proposed 


action alternatives 


SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES 

Four alternatives, identified and evaluated, represent 

different approaches to enhance protection and 

restoration of fish, wildlife, plants, habitats, and 

other resources. Alternative A, the no-action 

alternative, describes ongoing refuge management. 

The no-action alternative is a basis for comparison 

of alternatives B–D. Alternative B is the Service’s 

proposed action and basis for the draft CCP 

(chapter 5). 

The planning team assessed biological conditions and 

external relationships affecting the refuges. This 

information contributed to the development of 

alternatives. As a result, each alternative presents a 

unique approach for addressing long-term goals. Each 

alternative was evaluated based on expected progress 

in meeting the vision and goals of the refuges and 

how it addresses core wildlife and habitat issues and 

threats. Where data are available, trends in habitat 

and wildlife are evaluated, and environmental 

consequences of each alternative are projected. 

Consequences 


 Black-eyed Susan 

Elements Common to All Alternatives 

Several elements of refuge management are common 

to all alternatives. Management activities that could 

affect natural, archaeological, and historical resources 

would be managed to comply with applicable laws, 

regulations, and policies. 

All alternatives would provide equal protection and 

management of cultural resources. Individual projects 

may require additional consultation with North 

Dakota’s State Historic Preservation Office. 

Additional consultation, surveys, and clearance may 

be required when activities potentially affect 

properties eligible for the National Historic Register. 

Description of Alternatives 

Management actions to advance the mission of the 

Refuge System and the purpose and vision of the 

Souris River basin refuges are summarized below. 

The alternatives reflect options to address 

significant threats, problems, and issues raised by 

public agencies, private citizens, and interested 

organizations. 

Each alternative differs in its ability to achieve 

long-term wildlife and habitat goals. However, each 

is similar in its approach to managing the refuges. 

Gary Eslinger/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

70 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Each alternative 

would pursue the goals outlined in chapter 2; 

would protect and enhance a diverse 

assemblage of habitats; 

would promote wildlife-dependent 

recreational use; 

would be consistent with the purpose of the 

refuges, and with the mission and goals of the 

Refuge System. 

The focus and actions for each of alternatives A–D 

are summarized below. 

Alternative A (Current Management, No Action) 

Alternative A, the no-action alternative, reflects the 

current management of the Souris River basin 

refuges. It provides the baseline against which to 

compare other alternatives. It is also a requirement 

of the NEPA that a no-action alternative is addressed 

in the planning process. 

Key elements of alternative A follow: 

■	 Habitat and wildlife management practices to 

benefit migratory birds and other wildlife 

would continue at present levels unless 

staffing or funding were reduced. Refuge 

habitats would continue to be managed 

opportunistically and would continue to decline 

in terms of biological diversity, ecological 

integrity, and environmental health. 

■	 The refuges would continue to perform only 

limited, issue-driven, scientific research and 

only monitor long-term changes in vegetation 

communities. 

■	 Outreach, partnerships, and priority public uses 

that are compatible and wildlife-dependent 

(fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation) would continue at present levels 

unless staffing or funding were reduced. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

This alternative (the draft CCP) embodies the concept 

of “ecological triage.” Triage is defined here as the 

assignment of priority order 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. 

Management under alternative B would acknowledge 

pre-existing declines in quantity and quality of 

native upland and wetland habitats as the result of 

human-induced modification of the local landscape. 

Because some of these changes are significant, many 

refuge habitats can no longer be fully restored to 

the condition existing prior to settlement of the 

region (1750–1850). In these cases, habitats or habitat 

units that are ranked as lower priority for restoration 

may be managed to meet other resource needs (for 

example, migratory bird production), or would be 

minimally managed until additional resources were 

available. 

Key elements of alternative B follow: 

■	 Significant gaps in current and projected 

funding and staffing would be assumed. These 

gaps would likely limit widespread, full-scale 

habitat restoration. 

■	 Habitats and habitat units with the highest 

probability of restoration would be prioritized 

for management. Other habitats or habitat 

units may only be partially restored, and many 

habitats or habitat units would be minimally 

managed. As funding, staff, and knowledge 

change, restorations may be expanded to 

additional habitats or habitat units. 

■	 Some visitor services would decrease as some 

staff and funding shifts to habitat restoration, 

while others remain at current levels. 

■	 Environmental education, scientific research, 

and monitoring would improve. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C would emphasize enhancement of 

waterfowl habitat and production over other refuge 

activities, and acknowledges the significance of the 

Souris River basin refuges as important local and 

regional habitats for breeding and migrating 

waterfowl. 

Key elements of alternative C follow: 

■	 Waterfowl habitat management and waterfowl 

production would be emphasized over other 

refuge programs. 

■	 Scientific 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, 

environmental education, or wildlife viewing 

would be emphasized over other activities. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would require restoration of all 

refuge habitats and habitat units to the fullest 

extent feasible. This alternative would assume 

significant increases in staffing, funding, and 

scientific knowledge relative to the other 

alternatives. 

Key elements of alternative D follow: 

■	 Full restoration of ecological processes,
 

vegetation communities, and wildlife 


characteristics of the presettlement period 


(1750–1850) would be emphasized. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 71 

■	 Scientific research and monitoring would 

focus on strategies that enhance or restore 

native plant and animal communities. 

■	 Public uses that are compatible or that support 

habitat restoration would be emphasized. 

■	 Interpretation and environmental education 

would be expanded, with an emphasis on 

restoration of ecological processes (for example, 

fire and grazing) important for enhancing 

natural plant and animal communities. 

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

The planning team assessed the environmental 

consequences of implementing each alternative on 

the biological, physical, social, economical, cultural, 

and historical resources of the refuges. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Some projected effects would be similar for all 

alternatives. 

■	 The implementation of any alternative would 

follow the Service’s best management practices. 

■	 The alternatives would minimize impacts to 

federally threatened and endangered species, 

to the extent possible and practicable. 

■	 The refuges, contractors, researchers, and 

other consultants would continue to acquire 

all applicable permits, for example, for future 

construction activities. 

The sections below describe other projected effects 

common to all alternatives. 

Cultural Resources 

As a whole, cultural resources would be enhanced 

through protection of existing resources and by 

extending such protections to newly discovered 

cultural resources. 

Cultural resource surveys at the refuges have been 

limited. Therefore, additional surveys would be 

required prior to any new construction or excavation 

to fully satisfy provisions of the NEPA and 

applicable acts and policies related to historical and 

archaeological resources. 

Potentially negative effects from construction of 

trails or facilities would require review by the 

regional archaeologist (region 6) and consultation 

with the North Dakota State Historic Preservation 

Office. 

Environmental Justice 

None of the management alternatives described in 

this EA would disproportionately place any adverse 

environmental, economic, social, or health effects on 

minority or low-income populations. 

Implementation of any action alternative that 

includes visitor services and environmental education 

is anticipated to benefit minority and low-income 

citizens living near the Souris River basin refuges. 

Climate Change 

All alternatives would prioritize preservation and 

restoration of natural resources to varying degrees, 

which would enhance carbon sequestration (explained 

further in this section). Carbon sequestration is one 

method to mitigate human effects related to humaninduced global climate change. 

The U.S. Department of the Interior requires 

consideration of potential climate change effects 

during long-range planning such as CCP development. 

The increases of carbon within the earth’s atmosphere 

are linked to the gradual rise in surface temperature 

commonly referred to as global warming. 

The U.S. Department of Energy defines carbon 

sequestration as the capture and secure storage of 

carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain 

in the atmosphere. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts 

(such as grassland, wetland, and forest) are effective 

in both preventing carbon emission and acting as a 

biological “scrubber” of atmospheric carbon. The 

U.S. Department of Energy report notes that 

ecosystem protection is an important element in 

efforts to sequester carbon that might otherwise be 

released into the atmosphere. 

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 the Canada border, 

and should be operational by 2006. 

Soils 

All alternatives would positively affect soil formation 

processes on the refuge lands. Some disturbances to 

surface soils and topography would occur at those 

locations selected for (1) administrative, maintenance, 

and visitor facilities; (2) introduced and invasive 

species removal and eradication; and (3) restoration 

of native prairie. 

Water Quality, Wetlands, and Floodplains 

All alternatives would positively affect water quality. 

Positive effects are anticipated from protecting 

groundwater recharge, preventing runoff, retaining 

sediment, and minimizing nonpoint source pollution. 

The management alternatives are not anticipated to 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

72 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

have any adverse effects on the areas’ wetlands and 

floodplains, pursuant to EO 11990 and EO 11988. 

Unit 4 at Des Lacs NWR 

USFWS 

Public Health and Safety 

Based on the nature of each alternative, the location 

of the refuges, and current land use, all alternatives 

are anticipated to have no significant negative effects 

on the quality of the human environment, including 

public health and safety. 

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF 

ALTERNATIVES AND 

CONSEQUENCES 

Management actions are prescribed for each 

alternative as the means for responding to problems 

and issues raised by Service managers, the public, 

and governmental partners. Because management 

would differ for each alternative, environmental and 

social effects resulting from implementation would 

likely differ as well. 

Table 5 describes management direction of 

alternative A (current management) for comparison 

with action alternatives B–D. In most instances, 

proposed management (outlined in alternatives B–D) 

would differ significantly from current management 

(alternative A). 

Table 5 is organized as follows: 

■	 Columns in the table contain management 

actions for each alternative, organized in rows. 

For each alternative, these actions describe 

(1) a general management philosophy, 

(2) direction for managing ecological processes 

(such as soils, fire, and grazing), and (3) direction 

for managing plant communities. 

■	 The predicted environmental consequences of 

carrying out the prescribed actions follow. 

The consequences are organized in rows by 

their projected effects following 15 years of 

CCP implementation. The planning team 

evaluated effects on (1) environmental 

processes, (2) plant community integrity and 

structure, and (3) trust wildlife species. The 

section “50 Years Hence” describes projected 

effects assuming 50 years of prescribed 

management. 

■	 Management actions and their consequences 

are organized first by major habitats found on 

the refuges, followed by visitor services, 

research and science, and operations. 

Comparisons can be made across alternatives 

A–D for a given topic, for example, management 

actions for drift prairie or environmental 

effects of hunting. 

■	 Unless otherwise noted, the actions and 


consequences apply to all three refuges.
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 73 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

DRIFT PRAIRIE—Management Actions 

Des Lacs NWR—5,393 acres; J. Clark Salyer NWR—4,420 acres; Upper Souris NWR—3,680 acres 

GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH 

Manage extensively but Emphasize the fullest Emphasize tall, robust, Strive to fully restore 

imprecisely, using a possible restoration of a undisturbed vegetation native plant communities 

coarse, generic approach diverse native flora only composed of grasses, and the ecological 

with little regards for on units with the greatest forbs, and low shrubs. processes that shaped 

special restoration needs potential for success (for them. Emphasize broadand limitations of example, the most Directly control mammals scale management that 

individual management floristically intact). On that are potential affords significant 

units. other (most) units, 

concede to invasion by 

cool-season introduced 

grasses. 

predators of waterfowl 

nests (versus no direct 

species-specific or 

population control in 

other alternatives). 

competitive advantages 

to native herbaceous 

plants and that 

discourages woody 

plants and introduced 

plant species (such as 

smooth brome, Kentucky 

bluegrass, sweetclover, 

and state-listed noxious 

weeds). 

ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES PROCESSES PROCESSES PROCESSES 

Refuge Qualifiers Incorporate frequent, Use fire infrequently Same as alternative B, 

Des Lacs NWR: Use fire 

and grazing extensively 

and generally, within a 

broad range across refuge 

units with regard to type, 

timing, frequency, and 

intensity of disturbances. 

carefully timed fire and 

grazing disturbances 

(for example, in 4 of 

every 5 years) on highpriority units. Use 

intensive, locally focused, 

or specialized restoration 

methods as needed to 

(for example, every 5–10 

years), only to reduce 

excess litter and 

periodically restore 

plant vigor. 

except extend intensive 

effort throughout each 

refuge’s drift prairie. 

J. Clark Salyer NWR: restore processes. 

Use fire and grazing in 

selected units—within a 

broad range with regard 

to type, timing, frequency, 

and intensity of the 

disturbances—mainly to 

reduce litter and 

periodically rejuvenate 

grassland vegetation. 

Account for landscape 

composition, 

interconnectivity, and 

extent when planning 

management to provide 

large, contiguous tracts 

of treeless grassland 

(the largest grasslands 

may include adjacent old 

Upper Souris NWR: cropland, prairie slope, 

Use grazing extensively and private grassland 

and generally, within a tracts). 

broad range across refuge 

units with regard to 

type, timing, frequency, 

and intensity of the 

disturbances. Use fire to 

reduce litter and woody 

vegetation on areas 

where most feasible. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

74 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

DRIFT PRAIRIE—Management Actions
 

PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE 

Maintain a broad range On high-priority units, Provide late-successional Restore plant species 

of vegetation structure maintain relatively low grassland structure on diversity. Strive to 

across units. levels of plant litter, 

mainly by frequent use 

most areas, with 

vegetation structure 

attain plant communities 

dominated by native Periodically remove of prescribed fire. On more important than herbaceous species on all plant litter. low-priority units, reduce composition. units. Allow vegetation 

Use an integrated 

approach to control 

noxious weeds, especially 

leafy spurge. 

Refuge Qualifier 

Des Lacs NWR and 

J. Clark Salyer NWR: 

plant litter as 

opportunities arise. 

Use an integrated 

approach to control 

noxious weeds, especially 

leafy spurge. 

Reseed native plants in 

Periodically reduce 

excessive litter and 

restore plant vigor. 

Use an integrated 

approach to control 

noxious weeds, especially 

leafy spurge. 

structure to be a function 

of the dynamic, frequent 

disturbances that would 

be restored to units. Full 

restoration would require 

a much more intensive 

effort on the most 

degraded tracts. 

Reduce woody 

vegetation, including 

tree shelterbelts around 

old farmsteads. 

the most degraded 

grassland dominated by 

smooth brome. 

Reduce woody vegetation, 

Reduce trees and tall 

shrubs but enhance low 

shrubs such as western 

snowberry. 

Use an integrated 

approach to control 

noxious weeds, especially 

leafy spurge. 

including tree shelterbelts 

around old farmsteads. Seed the most degraded 

areas of drift prairie to 

DNC. 

DRIFT PRAIRIE—Environmental Consequences 

ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES PROCESSES PROCESSES PROCESSES 

Refuge Qualifiers On tracts deemed most Grazing rarely would be Same as alternative B, 

Des Lacs NWR and 

J. Clark Salyer NWR: 

Grazing would be too 

infrequent to facilitate 

historical levels of 

nutrient cycling, 

hindering a diverse soil 

invertebrate fauna. 

Grazing also would be 

too infrequent to exert 

natural defoliation 

influences on plant 

restorable (only the most 

floristically intact), fire 

and grazing disturbances 

would approximate 

historical frequency, 

timing, and intensity. 

Associated nutrient 

cycles would largely be 

restored. 

The relatively arid soil 

surface environment 

would be less hospitable 

used as a plant defoliation 

method. Nutrient cycling 

would be restricted, 

limiting the diversity of 

soil invertebrate fauna. 

Grazing also would be 

too infrequent to exert 

natural defoliation 

influences on plant 

competition via dynamic 

changes in physiology 

and morphology. 

except effects would be 

measurable and extend 

to most drift prairie units. 

competition via dynamic to introduced plant Fire would be 

changes in physiology species. infrequently applied to and morphology. reduce tall woody 

Upper Souris NWR: 

Fire would be too 

infrequent for managing 

Soil mycorrhizae and 

symbiotic relationships 

would be restored and 

maintained. 

vegetation and 

periodically control 

litter. 

litter and woody 

vegetation. 

(continued) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE 

Declines in native plant 

abundance and diversity 

would accelerate. 

Introduced, cool-season 

grasses would increase, 

sparsely interspersed 

with low shrub. 

The last opportunities 

for restoring the 

relatively few, 

potentially restorable 

native prairie tracts 

would be lost. 

The diversity of 

vegetation structure 

would have an 

accelerated decline on 

multiple scales, 

especially due to the 

expansion of smooth 

brome, which would be 

further encouraged by 

spring burning and 

infrequent grazing. 

Brome would continue 

to expand and replace 

low shrub communities, 

especially western 

snowberry. 

A short–sparse 

structural component 

would be nearly absent 

from the landscape. 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 75 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

DRIFT PRAIRIE—Environmental Consequences 


ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES CONTINUED 

Slow and fast nutrient 

cycles would be 

significantly reduced 

(these are essential to 

plant competition and 

critical in the evolution 

and development of 

native plant communities). 

PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE 

The most-intact native The plant community on Same as restorable, 

prairie would not be restorable, high-priority high-priority tracts in 

restored and maintained units would become alternative B, except 

due to the demands of an increasingly dominated that effects would 

extensive management by native herbaceous extend to most drift 

approach. Native plant species. prairie units as a result 

abundance and diversity of extensively applied 

would continue to decline. Low shrub species 

would occur infrequently management. 

Introduced cool-season (5–10% occurrence) on Complete restoration to 

grasses would continue high-priority units. Tall a presettlement condition 

to gradually increase, woody vegetation would probably would not be 

interspersed with sparse become increasingly rare. biologically feasible on 

low shrub. 

Vegetation structure many or most tracts 

because they are too The diversity of across units would be badly degraded. vegetation structure diverse, including much 

would continue to decline short–sparse cover (0–2 

on multiple scales inches spring visual 

especially due to the obstruction reading 

prevalence of smooth [VOR]; some moderate 

brome, the abundance of cover (2–5.9 inches); and 

which would be furthered relatively little tall, 

by spring burning and robust cover (>5.9 inches). 

infrequent grazing. Structure would vary 

A short–sparse temporally and spatially 

structure would be within and among highunderrepresented in the priority units. 

grassland landscape. On low-priority units, 

Refuge Qualifiers native plant species 

Des Lacs NWR: 

Western snowberry 

communities would be 

degraded, while 

silverberry would 

would become more rare 

and, except for a few 

species of forbs, 

gradually disappear 

from some units. 

regenerate more than 

(continued) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

76 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

DRIFT PRAIRIE—Environmental Consequences 


PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE CONTINUED 

desired. Tall woody 

vegetation would 

become increasingly 

rare. 

Upper Souris NWR: The 

net (overall) invasion by 

tall woody vegetation 

would not be reversed 

because fire would be 

too infrequently applied 

on most refuge units 

where coulee woodland 

edge is a prominent 

landscape component. 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES 

Endemic species of 

wildlife, plus many other 

species that historically 

were common, would be 

absent or rare (such as 

Richardson’s ground 

squirrel, burrowing owl, 

chestnut-collared 

longspur, Baird’s 

sparrow, northern 

pintail, and marbled 

godwit). 

Refuge Qualifiers 

Des Lacs NWR: The 

abundances of breeding 

bird species associated 

with woody cover would 

generally decline. 

Gradual reduction of 

scattered, isolated 

patches of tall shrub and 

green ash trees would 

result in decreased nest 

parasitism by brownheaded cowbirds and 

increased nest survival 

for songbirds because 

edge predators are 

reduced. 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES 

On restorable, highpriority units, the 

diversity of species that 

use grassland would 

increase, especially 

those that require early 

successional grassland 

and that avoid woody 

plants. 

The abundances of 

species that require tall 

woody plants would 

gradually decline. 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES 

Many effects are the 

same as alternative A; 

additionally, management 

to sustain plant structure 

ideal for nesting ducks 

would be successful in 

the short term (5–20 

years), but not in the 

long-term due to 

significant changes in 

plant community 

composition, which 

ultimately affect plant 

structure. For example, 

management for nesting 

cover for mallards and 

gadwalls (average of 

about 5.9 inches spring 

VOR) would become less 

and less sustainable as 

smooth brome 

irreversibly replaced 

low shrub communities 

that would provide 

important nesting cover. 

As a result, duck nesting 

densities would decline 

and the makeup of 

nesting species would 

change. 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES 

Same as restorable, 

high-priority tracts in 

alternative B, except 

that wildlife species that 

require grassland with 

tall, robust structure 

(>5.9 inches spring VOR) 

would decline as such 

vegetation became less 

available. 

 (continued) (continued) 
 

 

50 YEARS HENCE 

Mallard, blue-winged 

teal, gadwall, Savannah 

sparrow, clay-colored 

sparrow, and bobolink 

would characterize the 

breeding and nesting 

bird community; few 

other bird species would 

be present. 

Richardson’s ground 

squirrel colonies that 

once characterized the 

prairie would be absent. 

The plant community 

would be a homogenous, 

indistinguishable matrix 

of smooth brome, 

Kentucky bluegrass, and 

western snowberry, 

with almost no native 

plant species. 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 77 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

DRIFT PRAIRIE—Environmental Consequences 


TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES CONTINUED 

Upper Souris NWR: 

Abundances of breeding 

bird species associated 

with woody cover would 

increase. Grassland bird 

species that avoid woody 

vegetation (such as 

Baird’s sparrow and 

grasshopper sparrow) 

would persist but would 

be sparsely distributed. 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES CONTINUED 

Nest survival of ducks 

and sharp-tailed grouse 

would be sustained at 

relatively high levels 

(versus other 

alternatives) via 

intensive, though 

expensive, annual 

predator control. 

50 YEARS HENCE 

Prairies would be 

increasingly dominated 

by native herbaceous 

species. 

On high-priority units, 

the breeding and nesting 

bird community would 

become more diverse, 

characterized by at least 

10 species including 

northern pintail, bluewinged teal, northern 

shoveler, burrowing owl, 

chestnut-collared 

longspur, Baird’s 

sparrow, grasshopper 

sparrow, Savannah 

sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, 

western meadowlark, 

marbled godwit, and 

upland sandpiper. 

Richardson’s ground 

squirrels would occur, 

with colonies conspicuous 

on some restored tracts. 

On low-priority tracts 

(>75% of the drift 

prairie), plant community 

and trust species 

response would be 

similar to responses 

under alternative A, 

characterized by a 

continued, gradual 

decline in diversity of 

native flora and fauna. 

50 YEARS HENCE 

Same as alternative A, 

except losses of native 

plant and animal species 

diversity would be 

accelerated. 

50 YEARS HENCE 

Same as restorable, 

high-priority tracts in 

alternative B, except 

that effects would 

extend to most drift 

prairie units as a result 

of extensively applied 

management. 

Complete restoration to 

a presettlement condition 

probably would not be 

biologically feasible on 

many or most tracts 

because they are too 

badly degraded. 
 

 

 

 

78 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

PRAIRIE SLOPE—Management Actions 

Des Lacs NWR—4,231 acres; J. Clark Salyer NWR—almost none; Upper Souris NWR—11,225 acres 

GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH 

Manage in concert with Manage in concert with Same as alternative A. Similar to drift prairie; 

the adjacent drift prairie the adjacent drift prairie plus extend an 

as contiguous units, as contiguous units, intensive, 

using the same general using the same general comprehensive 

approach for both. approach for both. 

Refuge Qualifiers 

Des Lacs NWR: 

Regardless of priority 

rank of adjoining drift 

prairie, intensively 

manage several of the 

most extensive examples 

of south- to west-facing 

prairie slope, including 

an area readily visible to 

the public, to preserve 

near-pristine plant 

communities. 

Upper Souris NWR 

(prairie slope is the most 

common upland 

habitat): Carry out the 

fullest possible 

restoration of a diverse 

native flora on units 

with prairie slope that 

have the best potential 

for success (those most 

floristically intact). 

restoration effort 

throughout each refuge’s 

prairie slope. Emphasize 

south- to west-facing 

prairie slope as a uniquely 

pristine native flora by 

including frequent 

monitoring and locally 

intensive restoration. 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

Similar to drift prairie; 

use fire and grazing 

disturbances extensively, 

within a broad range of 

prescriptions as regards 

type, timing, frequency, 

and intensity. 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

Similar to drift prairie; 

use intensive, locally 

focused, or specialized 

restoration methods as 

needed to restore 

processes on high-priority 

areas. 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

Similar to drift prairie; 

use fire is infrequently. 

Use almost no grazing. 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

Similar to drift prairie; 

use intensive, locally 

focused, or specialized 

restoration methods as 

needed to restore 

processes on all areas. 
 

 

 

—

 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES

Compared with drift 

prairie, south- to westfacing prairie slopes are 

relatively arid, hostile 

environments for most 

introduced plant species, 

and competition would 

favor native plant species 

despite infrequent 

disturbance. (This 

generality would apply 

to middle and upper 

slopes.) Consequences 

for lower slopes would 

be similar to those for 

drift prairie. 

On north- to east-facing 

slopes, plant species 

diversity, nutrient 

cycling, soil mycorrhizae 

and invertebrate 

diversity would be 

reduced. 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 79 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

PRAIRIE SLOPE—Management Actions 


PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE 

Periodically remove 

litter (although on midto upper-slopes, it 

accumulates at much 

slower rates than on 

drift prairie). 

Use an integrated 

approach to control 

noxious weeds, especially 

leafy spurge. 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE 

Use frequent prescribed 

fire to reduce litter in 

lower slopes of highpriority areas. 

Use an integrated 

approach to control 

noxious weeds, especially 

leafy spurge. 

Significantly reduce 

trees and tall shrubs on 

high-priority areas. 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE 

Maintain late 

successional vegetation 

structure on lower slope 

areas by restricting 

disturbance, especially 

prescribed fire. 

Use an integrated 

approach to control 

noxious weeds, especially 

leafy spurge. 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE 

Similar to drift prairie. 

PRAIRIE SLOPE Environmental Consequences 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

Similar to drift prairie, 

except the more arid 

microenvironment of 

south- to west-facing 

prairie slopes would 

have significant 

implications for invasion 

by woody and introduced 

plant species. 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

On high-priority units, 

fire and grazing 

disturbances would 

approximate historical 

frequency, timing, and 

intensity. Associated 

nutrient cycles would be 

largely restored. 

The soil surface 

environment would 

remain arid and generally 

inhospitable to introduced 

plant species, especially 

on high-priority units. 

Soil mycorrhizae and 

symbiotic relationships 

would be restored and 

maintained on highpriority units. 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

Same as alternative B, 

except that effects would 

extend to most prairie 

slope units as a result of 

extensively applied 

management. 

Restored prairie slope 

would more likely 

represent a 

presettlement condition 

in the Souris River basin 

than would other habitats 

on the refuges. 
 

 

 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE

Tall woody vegetation 

would become 

increasingly rare. 

Relatively low, sparse 

cover would typify 

middle and upper slopes 

on high-priority units, 

but structure on lower 

slopes of these units 

would vary. 

Native species would 

dominate the plant 

community. On lowpriority units, south to 

west-facing prairie 

slopes would be more 

floristically intact than 

drift prairie and would 

experience a slower rate 

of degradation from 

invasion by woody and 

introduced plant species. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

PRAIRIE SLOPE—Environmental Consequences 


PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE 

The diversity of native, South- to west-facing The already diverse 

herbaceous plant species prairie slopes would be native plant community 

would respond more more floristically intact of south- to west-facing 

favorably and rapidly to and would experience a prairie slope would 

burning or grazing of slower rate of invasion respond favorably and 

south- to west-facing by woody and introduced rapidly to burning or 

prairie slope than would plant species than grazing. Introduced 

the drift prairie. adjoining drift prairie. plant species would 

become increasingly Introduced, cool-season Woody and introduced rare and woody plants grasses would continue plant species would would become 

to gradually increase continue to expand on inconspicuous, along the lower slopes. north- to east-facing subdominant components 

Refuge Qualifiers slopes. of the plant community. 

Des Lacs NWR: Tall 

woody vegetation would 

become increasingly 

rare. 

- Slow and fast nutrient 

cycles would be 

significantly reduced. 

These are essential to 

plant competition and 

Restoration of many 

north- to east-facing 

slopes to nearly a 

presettlement condition 

probably would not be 

Upper Souris NWR: The critical in the evolution biologically feasible 

net (overall) invasion by and development of because they are so 

tall woody vegetation native plant communities. badly degraded. 

would not be reversed 

because prescribed fire 

would be too infrequently 

applied on most refuge 

units where coulee 

woodland edge is a 

prominent landscape 

component. 

TRUST WILDLIFE TRUST WILDLIFE TRUST WILDLIFE TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES SPECIES SPECIES SPECIES 

Habitat on southwest- On south- to west-facing With the emphasis of Occurrence and 

facing slopes would slopes of high-priority nondisturbance, there abundance of grassland 

remain suitable for units, occurrences of would be an overall bird species would 

vesper sparrow and some grassland bird decline in occurrences of increase, although claygrasshopper sparrow. species such as Sprague’s grassland bird species, colored sparrow and 

The value of lower slopes pipit would increase. especially along lower vesper sparrow would 

would continue to Woodland-edge species slopes and near shallow decrease slightly. For 

gradually decline for such as song sparrow, drainages and coulees. prairie ducks, nest-site 

nesting ducks, clay- yellow warbler, and gray Conversely, there would habitat on lower slopes 

colored sparrow, and catbird would decline on be a gradual increase in would shift to favor 

Savannah sparrow as these areas. breeding species species associated with 

smooth brome would associated with woody relatively short, 

continue to replace On most north- to east- cover or tolerant of herbaceous cover (such 

snowberry. Limited facing slopes, woodland smooth brome. as blue-winged teal). 

habitat for Sprague’s edge species and those 

tolerant of smooth brome Species associated with 

woodland edge would 

(continued) would increase gradually. decrease. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 81 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

PRAIRIE SLOPE—Environmental Consequences 


TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES CONTINUED 

pipit would remain 

available along some 

upper slopes. 

Refuge Qualifiers 

Des Lacs NWR: 

Breeding bird species 

associated with woody 

cover would generally 

decline. 

Upper Souris NWR: 

Breeding bird species 

associated with woodland 

edge would increase. 

Grassland bird species 

that avoid woody 

vegetation would persist 

but would be sparsely 

distributed. 

50 YEARS HENCE 50 YEARS HENCE 50 YEARS HENCE 50 YEARS HENCE 

Kentucky bluegrass, Tall woody vegetation Woody and introduced Tall woody vegetation 

smooth brome, and would be increasingly plant species would would be increasingly 

woody vegetation would rare. expand significantly. rare. Prairie slopes 

expand significantly on would be dominated by 

lower slopes and along Kentucky bluegrass, Diversity of breeding native herbaceous 

drainages. Native smooth brome, and birds would be species. 

herbaceous flora would woody vegetation would diminished, although 

remain relatively expand significantly on some grassland bird Although the total 

common on the middle lower slopes and along species persist along number of birds would 

and upper slopes. drainages. Native 

herbaceous flora would 

south- to west-facing 

slopes. 

be unchanged, the 

number of common 

Refuge Qualifiers 

Des Lacs NWR: There 

would be little change in 

the breeding bird 

community on southwestfacing prairie slopes, but 

a marked reduction in 

woodland edge species 

on other slopes. Nesting 

success would improve 

remain relatively 

common on the middle 

and upper slopes. 

There would be little 

change in the breeding 

bird community on 

southwest-facing prairie 

slopes, but a marked 

reduction in woodland 

edge species on other 

Despite desires to 

maintain western 

snowberry, smooth 

brome and tall shrubs 

would characterize most 

north- to east-facing 

slopes. 

grassland bird species 

would increase 

measurably, as would 

their reproductive 

success. Once common, 

woodland-edge species 

such as brown-headed 

cowbird, yellow warbler, 

and spotted towhee 

would now be uncommon. 

measurably for some slopes. Nesting success Abundances of some 

bird species as would improve woodland edge mammals abundances of brown- measurably for some such as white-tailed deer, headed cowbirds and bird species as deer mouse, and nest predators associated abundances of brown­ Franklin’s ground with woodland edge headed cowbirds and squirrel would be 

diminished. 

(continued) (continued) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

82 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

PRAIRIE SLOPE—Environmental Consequences 


50 YEARS HENCE 

CONTINUED 

declined (for example, 

deer mouse). 

Upper Souris NWR: 

Species of wildlife 

associated with woodland 

edge would gradually 

displace species of 

grassland wildlife that 

are intolerant of woody 

vegetation. 

50 YEARS HENCE 

CONTINUED 

nest predators associated 

with woodland edge 

declined (for example, 

deer mouse). 

PRAIRIE PARKLAND—Management Actions 

Des Lacs NWR—none; J. Clark Salyer NWR—9,580 acres; Upper Souris NWR—none 

GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH 

Emphasize to the fullest Same as alternative A, Minimally manage prairie Strive to fully restore 

extent possible, except extend parkland as resources native plant communities 

restoration of a diverse management to smaller are diverted to other and the ecological 

native flora on units (40- to 100-acre) prairies habitats more suitable processes that shaped 

with the greatest mostly surrounded by for waterfowl production. them. Emphasize broadpotential for success (for aspen–oak woodland. scale management that 

example, tree cover <30% Passively manage, mainly affords significant 

and most floristically using rest, to provide competitive advantages 

intact). Elsewhere, late-successional to native herbaceous 

concede to invasion by grassland structure that plants and that 

aspen–oak woodland. is tall and dense. discourages tall woody 

plants and introduced 

species of plants. 

ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES PROCESSES PROCESSES PROCESSES 

Use prescribed fire Same as alternative A, Use prescribed fire and Same as alternative B, 

intensively within high- except account for grazing infrequently, except extend intensive 

priority units to reduce landscape composition, mainly to reduce litter efforts to all prairie 

woody vegetation. Use interconnectivity, and and periodically restore parkland units. 

grazing extensively extent when planning plant vigor. 

within a broad range of management to provide 

prescriptions. large, contiguous tracts 

of open grassland; the 

largest grasslands may 

include adjacent old 

cropland, meadow, 

sandhill, and private 

grassland tracts. 
 

 

 

 

 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES

Slow and fast nutrient 

cycles would be 

significantly reduced. 

These are essential to 

plant competition and 

critical in the evolution 

and development of 

native plant communities. 

Grazing and fire would 

be inadequate to exert 

natural defoliation 

influences on plant 

competition. 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 83 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

PRAIRIE PARKLAND—Management Actions 


PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE 

Reverse woodland Same as alternative A, Use mainly rest to Reverse woodland 

invasion and restore except also control provide late-successional invasion in most prairies. 

prairie in areas where woody vegetation within vegetation structure on Retain only the 

cover of aspen–oak the interiors of small most areas; vegetation woodland patches >200 

woodland is <30%. (40- to 100-acre), but structure is more acres in size. 

Elsewhere, concede to floristically intact, important than 

woodland invasion. prairie patches. composition. Restore plant species 

diversity, to be 

On restoration units, Minimally control woody characterized mostly by 

control plant litter and plants. native herbaceous 

reduce introduced species species. 

of plants—community Use an integrated 

composition (native approach to control Allow vegetation 

herbaceous emphasized) noxious weeds, especially structure to be a 

is more important than leafy spurge. function of the dynamic, 

vegetation structure. frequent disturbances 

restored to units; plant 

Use an integrated composition is more 

approach to control important than 

noxious weeds, especially vegetation structure. 

leafy spurge. Use an integrated 

approach to control 

noxious weeds, especially 

leafy spurge. 

PRAIRIE PARKLAND—Environmental Consequences 

ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES PROCESSES PROCESSES 

The extent and frequency Same as alternative A, Grazing and fire would 

of grazing and fire would except effects would be approximate historical 

be adequate to facilitate extended to smaller (40­ frequency, timing, and 

historical levels of to 100-acre) prairies intensity. 

nutrient cycling only on mostly surrounded by 

areas where woodland aspen–oak woodland. Historical levels of 

extent were reduced. nutrient cycling would 

Soil mycorrhizae, be gradually restored 

invertebrate diversity, over most areas. 

and symbiotic 

relationships would 

gradually recover. 

Elsewhere, extensive 

woodland would limit 

use of grazing and fire as 

The relatively arid soil 

surface environment 

would be less hospitable 

to introduced plant 

species. 

defoliation tools. Soil Soil mycorrhizae, functions and symbiotic invertebrate diversity, relationships would shift and symbiotic to those characteristic of relationships would woodlands. gradually recover. 

(continued) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES

Grassland-dependent 

wildlife species would 

occur only on areas 

where woodland cover 

was reduced (such as 

Sprague’s pipit, Baird’s 

sparrow, chestnutcollared longspur, and 

upland sandpiper). 

Elsewhere, woodland 

and shrubland wildlife 

species would increase. 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES

Abundance and diversity 

of grassland-dependent 

wildlife would gradually 

decline. Conversely, 

woodland and shrubland 

wildlife species would 

increase. 

84 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

PRAIRIE PARKLAND—Environmental Consequences 


ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES CONTINUED 

Grazing and fire would 

be adequate to exert 

natural defoliation 

influences on plant 

competition. 

PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE 

Aspen–oak woodland Same as alternative A, Most remaining prairie Aspen–oak woodland 

would be reduced or except effects would be would be gradually and tall shrubs would be 

eliminated on tracts extended to small (40- to replaced by aspen–oak gradually reduced and, 

where it currently 100-acre) prairies mostly woodland. in some areas, 

accounts for <30% cover, surrounded by aspen– eliminated. 

but would replace many oak woodland. Declines in native plant 

small, isolated prairie abundance and species Native grass–forb and 

tracts elsewhere. diversity would be 

accelerated. 

low shrub communities 

would increase. 

Native herbaceous plant 

species would The last opportunities Complete restoration to 

increasingly dominate for restoring open a presettlement condition 

restoration tracts, but grassland or parkland would be unlikely on 

would decline elsewhere would be lost. some units that have 

as woody and introduced 

plants increased. Vegetation structure 

would be less variable, 

been dominated by aspen 

woodland for more than 

60 years. 

Vegetation structure and would be typically 

would be variable and tall and dense. Vegetation structure 

would be a function of would be variable and 

dynamic, frequent would be a function of 

disturbances, where dynamic, frequent 

they occurred. disturbances. 

TRUST WILDLIFE TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES SPECIES 

Similar to alternative A, Abundance and diversity 

except smaller prairies of grassland-dependent 

would also provide wildlife would gradually 

habitat for Sprague’s increase. Overall species 

pipit, vesper sparrow, diversity would decline, 

grasshopper sparrow, mainly because woodland 

and clay-colored sparrow. and shrubland wildlife 

species would decline 

and, in some areas, would 

disappear. 
 

 

 

 

 

50 YEARS HENCE

The landscape would be 

dominated by woodland 

and shrubland. Grassland 

area would be vastly 

reduced. 

Grassland-dependent 

wildlife would be 

increasingly replaced by 

species tolerant of 

woodland and shrubland. 

 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 85 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

PRAIRIE PARKLAND—Environmental Consequences 


50 YEARS HENCE 

The landscape would be 

less heterogeneous 

because patchy and edge 

habitats would be 

increasingly replaced by 

either grassland 

(restoration areas) or 

woodland (unmanaged 

areas). 

Grassland-dependent 

wildlife would be common 

in large, treeless 

grasslands. Important 

species would be vesper 

sparrow, clay-colored 

sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, 

grasshopper sparrow, 

and upland sandpiper. 

Elsewhere, large 

woodland patches would 

support forest-interior 

species such as hairy 

woodpecker, rosebreasted grosbeak, 

ovenbird, and veery. 

Many edge and habitatgeneralist wildlife species 

would be less common, 

found only in areas where 

woodland and shrubland 

occurred. 

50 YEARS HENCE 

Same as alternative A, 

except several small, 

isolated grasslands 

would be restored as 

representative examples 

of intact prairie plant 

communities. 

50 YEARS HENCE 

The landscape would be 

less heterogeneous 

because woodland and 

shrub habitats would be 

increasingly replaced by 

grassland. Woodland 

cover would be widely 

and extensively reduced. 

Grassland-dependent 

wildlife would be 

common, increasingly 

dominated by species 

intolerant of woody 

vegetation (such as 

Sprague’s pipit, 

grasshopper sparrow, 

Baird’s sparrow, 

chestnut-collared 

longspur, and upland 

sandpiper). 

Woodland- and 

shrubland-associated 

wildlife species would 

persist, but would be 

sparsely distributed. 

SANDHILLS—Management Actions 

Des Lacs NWR—none; J. Clark Salyer NWR—2,800 acres; Upper Souris NWR—none 

GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH 

Manage in concert with Same as alternative A. Minimally manage the Strive to fully restore 

prairie parkland. sandhills as resources 

are diverted to other 

native plant communities 

and the ecological Restore a diverse native habitats (such as drift processes that shaped flora on the sandhills with prairie, old cropland, them. Emphasize broad- the greatest potential meadow, and wetland) scale management that for success (for example, more suitable for affords significant aspen woodland cover waterfowl production. competitive advantages <30% and more to native herbaceous 

floristically intact). plants and discourages 

tall woody plants and 

introduced plant species. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES

Same as alternative A. 

 

 

86 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

SANDHILLS—Management Actions 


ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES PROCESSES PROCESSES PROCESSES 

Use fire to reduce woody Same as alternative A, Use fire infrequently, Same as alternative A, 

plant cover. except account for 

landscape composition, 

mainly to reduce litter 

and periodically restore 

except extend intensive 

effort to all sandhill units. 

Exclude cattle. interconnectivity, and 

extent when planning 

management to provide 

large, contiguous tracts 

of open grassland; the 

largest grasslands may 

include prairie parkland, 

adjacent old cropland, 

meadow, and private 

grassland tracts. 

plant vigor. 

Exclude cattle. 

Exclude cattle until 

effective leafy spurge 

control is used. 

Restore sand blowouts. 

PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE 

Reverse invasion by Same as alternative A. Use an integrated Restore plant species 

aspen woodland. Restore approach to control diversity—ideal savanna 

prairie and oak savanna noxious weeds, especially contains widely scattered 

in conjunction with leafy spurge. patches of bur oak within 

priority, prairie parkland a matrix of native prairie. 

units. Plant composition 

is more important than Allow vegetation 

vegetation structure. structure to be a function 

of the dynamic, frequent 

Use an integrated disturbances restored to 

approach to control units; plant composition 

noxious weeds, especially is more important than 

leafy spurge. vegetation structure. 

Use an integrated 

approach to control 

noxious weeds, especially 

leafy spurge. 

SANDHILLS—Environmental Consequences 

ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES PROCESSES PROCESSES 

On areas managed in Grazing and fire Grazing and fire would 

concert with priority, disturbances would be approximate their 

prairie parkland units, too infrequent to facilitate historical frequency, 

fire disturbance would historical levels of timing, and intensity; 

be adequate to exert nutrient cycling across and would be adequate 

natural defoliation most areas. Slow and to facilitate historical 

influences on plant fast nutrient cycles levels of nutrient cycling 

competition. Broadly, would be reduced. over most areas. 

nutrient cycling and 

defoliation influences on The characteristically The characteristically 

grassland plant arid soils of sandhills arid soils of sandhills 

(continued) (continued) (continued) 
 

 

 

 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES CONTINUED

would be inhospitable to 

introduced plant species, 

except leafy spurge. 

 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE

Same as alternative A. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 87 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

SANDHILLS—Environmental Consequences
 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES CONTINUED 

physiology and 

competition would not 

be achieved because 

grazing disturbance 

would be too infrequent. 

Soil mycorrhizae, 

invertebrate diversity, 

and symbiotic 

relationships would 

gradually recover except 

in heavily wooded areas, 

where they would be 

characteristic of 

woodlands. 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES CONTINUED 

would be inhospitable to 

introduced plant species, 

except leafy spurge. 

Soil mycorrhizae, 

invertebrate diversity, 

and symbiotic 

relationships would 

gradually recover. 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE 

Aspen woodland would 

be reduced in sandhills 

that are managed in 

conjunction with restored 

prairie parkland units. 

Native herbaceous 

plants would gradually 

increase on restoration 

tracts, but would decline 

elsewhere as woody 

plants increase. 

Without an effective 

method of control, leafy 

spurge would invade 

native prairie. 

The characteristically 

arid soils of sandhills 

would be inhospitable to 

introduced plant species, 

except leafy spurge. 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE 

Most remaining prairie 

and savanna would be 

gradually replaced by 

aspen–oak woodland. 

Leafy spurge would 

invade many remaining 

prairie tracts. 

Compared to other 

alternatives, declines in 

native plant abundance 

and species diversity 

would be accelerated. 

The last opportunities 

for restoring open prairie 

or savanna would be lost. 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE 

Aspen–oak woodland 

and tall shrubs would be 

gradually reduced, and 

would be eliminated in 

some areas. 

Native grass–forb and 

low shrub communities 

would increase. 

Complete restoration to 

a presettlement condition 

would be unlikely on 

some units that have 

been dominated by 

aspen woodland for 

more than 60 years. 

Vegetation structure 

would be variable and 

would be a function of 

dynamic, frequent 

disturbances. 

Without an effective 

method of control, leafy 

spurge would invade 

native prairie. 
 

 

 

 

 

50 YEARS HENCE

The landscape would be 

less heterogeneous 

because patchy and edge 

habitats would be 

increasingly replaced by 

grassland or savanna 

(restoration areas) or by 

woodland (unmanaged 

areas). 

Grassland-dependent 

wildlife would be common 

in prairie parkland–

sandhill complexes 

where aspen woodland 

was a minor component. 

Important species would 

be vesper sparrow, claycolored sparrow, 

Sprague’s pipit, and lark 

sparrow. 

Elsewhere, extensive 

patches of tall woody 

vegetation would 

support woodland and 

shrubland species such 

as black and-white 

warbler and red-eyed 

vireo. 

Without an effective 

method of control, leafy 

spurge would become 

codominant with native 

herbaceous plants. 

50 YEARS HENCE

Same as alternative A. 

50 YEARS HENCE

The landscape would be 

predominantly woodland 

and shrubland. 

Remaining prairie would 

occur only on south- and 

west-facing slopes. 

Grassland-dependent 

wildlife would be 

increasingly replaced by 

woodland- and shrublandassociated species. 

Without effective control, 

leafy spurge would 

become codominant with 

native herbaceous plants. 

 

 

 

88 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

SANDHILLS—Environmental Consequences
 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES 

Grassland-dependent 

wildlife species would be 

common on areas devoid 

of tall woody plants. 

Elsewhere, woodland 

and shrubland species of 

wildlife would increase. 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES 

Same as alternative A. 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES 

Woodland and shrubland 

species of wildlife would 

gradually increase. 

Diversity and abundance 

of grassland-dependent 

species of wildlife would 

decrease. 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES 

Abundance and diversity 

of grassland-dependent 

wildlife would gradually 

increase. 

Woodland and shrubland 

species of wildlife would 

decline as woody plants 

were reduced. 

50 YEARS HENCE 

The landscape would be 

predominantly grassland 

and savannah. 

Grassland-dependent 

wildlife would be common 

and widespread. 

Composition would be 

increasingly composed of 

species intolerant of 

woody vegetation (for 

example, Sprague’s pipit 

and grasshopper 

sparrow). 

Woodland- and 

shrubland-associated 

wildlife species would 

persist, but would be 

sparsely distributed. 

Without an effective 

method of control, leafy 

spurge would become 

codominant with native 

herbaceous plants. 

-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 89 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

OLD CROPLAND—Management Actions 

Des Lacs NWR—1,816 acres; J. Clark Salyer NWR—7,675 acres; Upper Souris NWR—1,068 acres 

GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH 

Continue to maintain Establish native Seed and maintain DNC Restore as closely as 

herbaceous vegetation vegetation on most old in all old cropland to possible the floristic 

on old cropland areas by cropland units that adjoin provide attractive nesting composition and 

either using periodic high-priority drift prairie cover for ducks. Reseed structural characteristics 

farming and reseeding, tracts. stands that become of northern mixed-grass 

or by maintaining dominated by prairie. 

current grass–forb undesirable, cool-season 

stands, which typically grasses when tall, dense 

are heavily invaded by structure can no longer 

introduced, cool-season be restored and 

species of grasses that maintained. 

are undesirable. If 

reseeding, treat only the Reduce mammals that 

most degraded stands, are potential nest 

such as those dominated predators in areas 

by smooth brome. surrounding DNC stands 

that support high 

densities of nesting ducks. 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

Occasionally use fire, 

haying, or grazing 

within a broad range of 

prescriptions. 

Continue to use a farming 

rotation as an option for 

periodically adding stands 

of robust vegetation. 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

Use hay harvests to help 

establish native grass 

and forb species on old 

cropland areas of high 

priority (those adjacent 

to high-priority drift 

prairie and prairie slope). 

Then, apply mainly fire 

and grazing in concert 

with management of 

adjoining drift prairie 

and prairie slope to 

further competitiveness 

of native plant species. 

Account for landscape 

composition, 

interconnectivity, and 

extent when planning 

management to provide 

large, contiguous tracts 

of open grassland; the 

largest grasslands may 

include adjacent drift 

prairie, prairie slope, 

parkland, and private 

grassland tracts. 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

Infrequently defoliate, 

emphasizing hay harvests 

and fire, only as 

necessary to reduce 

excess litter and restore 

plant vigor. 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

Use hay harvests to help 

establish recently seeded 

native species, and then 

apply mainly fire and 

grazing treatments, 

managing old cropland in 

concert with management 

of adjoining drift prairie 

and prairie slope. 

Emphasize defoliation 

events to further 

competitiveness of 

native plants. Consider 

restoration of mycorrhizal 

fungi. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES

In high-priority areas, 

soil erosion potential 

would be negligible 

because perennial plant 

cover would be 

established and the 

cropping cycle would be 

eliminated. 

Carbon sequestration 

and nutrient cycling 

would be significantly 

greater in a more 

floristically diverse 

community. 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES

Management inputs 

would be increased; for 

example, the cropping 

rotation would be 

shortened to yield more 

years under an optimal 

range of structure. 

The farming cycle would 

be a major source of soil 

erosion, which would 

degrade adjoining native 

prairie. 

Nutrient cycling, carbon 

sequestration, and soil 

invertebrate diversity 

would be simplified and 

limited. Capture of 

sunlight for 

photosynthesis would be 

inefficient. 

 

 

 

90 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

OLD CROPLAND—Management Actions 


PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE 

Attempt to establish 

perennial herbaceous 

cover that is dense and 

dominated by tall species. 

Strive to maintain this 

robust structure on at 

least some old cropland 

areas. 

Disregard species 

composition unless 

structure can no longer 

be restored by routine 

management treatments. 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE 

On high-priority units, 

emphasize a composition 

that is dominated by 

warm-season grasses. 

Remove nearby tree 

shelterbelts. 

Manage low-priority 

units opportunistically, 

disregarding structure 

and composition. 

Control noxious weeds. 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE 

Maximize tall, dense, 

late-successional 

structure. Disregard 

native species as an 

important vegetation 

component on most or all 

old cropland units. 

Remove nearby tree 

shelterbelts. 

Control noxious weeds. 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE 

Restore as closely as 

possible the floristic 

composition and 

structural characteristics 

of northern mixed-grass 

prairie. 

Remove nearby tree 

shelterbelts. 

Emphasize biological 

approaches for controlling 

noxious weeds. 

Control noxious weeds. 

OLD CROPLAND—Environmental Consequences 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

Excessive plant litter 

would be controlled and 

plant vigor would be 

stimulated through fire, 

haying, and occasional 

grazing. 

The farming cycle would 

be a major source of soil 

erosion, which would 

degrade adjoining native 

prairie. 

Compared to pristine 

native grasslands, the 

diversity of soil 

invertebrate species and 

nutrient cycling processes 

would be vastly simplified. 

The seeded stand would 

be markedly less efficient 

in capturing and 

transferring solar energy, 

sequestering carbon, and 

resisting disturbances 

such as weed species 

invasions. 

Seeded legumes would 

facilitate fixation of soil 

nitrogen. 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

Soil erosion potential 

would be negligible with 

permanent plant cover 

established and no 

cropping cycle. 

Fire and grazing 

disturbances would 

follow historical 

frequency, timing, and 

intensity. 

Associated nutrient 

cycles would be largely 

restored. 

Compared to denser, 

taller plant cover in 

other alternatives, the 

arid soil surface 

environment under this 

alternative would be less 

hospitable to introduced 

plant species. 

Soil mycorrhizae, 

invertebrate diversity, 

and symbiotic 

relationships would 

gradually recover. 

(continued) 
 

 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE

The plant community 

would consist of only 

two or three introduced 

plant species that would 

be seeded intentionally, 

and up to several 

undesirable introduced 

species. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 91 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

OLD CROPLAND—Environmental Consequences 


ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES CONTINUED 

Carbon sequestration 

would be enhanced in 

the more floristically 

diverse community. 

PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE 

On high-priority areas, Same as alternative A, The plant community 

the native warm-season except that the present would be characterized 

component would be DNC stands are, on by 6–10 native species, 

enhanced, while average, of greater which would present a 

introduced cool-season height and density. heterogeneous structure 

plant species would be that varies spatially and 

discouraged, by DNC stands would be temporally (a cool-season 

prescribed fire applied homogenous, with growth period would be 

with proper frequency almost no structural followed by a warmand timing. diversity. season growth period 

from spring to summer). Source sites for smooth Compared to DNC or brome and yellow old cropland invaded by sweetclover would be undesirable, introduced reduced significantly plants, a varied structure around high-priority would provide living drift prairie and prairie space for a greater slope, which would help number of wildlife species. restore and protect native 

plant species composition 

in these areas. 

TRUST WILDLIFE TRUST WILDLIFE TRUST WILDLIFE TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES SPECIES SPECIES SPECIES 

Habitat for trust wildlife Vegetation structure Structure of DNC in old Numbers of bird species 

species associated with generally would be less cropland would be suited and of other vertebrates 

the tall-grass prairie attractive to bird species for bird species such as that rely on grasslands 

component of northern that prefer the tallest, mallard, gadwall, and would increase, especially 

mixed-grass prairie densest grass–forb cover northern harrier, which species that require 

would be maintained or possible. Mallard, prefer the tallest, early successional, short– 

increased. gadwall, northern harrier, 

and sedge wren would 

densest, grass–forb 

cover possible for nest 

sparse grassland and 

that avoid woody plants. Refuge Qualifier be replaced by species sites. Other grassland 

Des Lacs NWR: Nesting attracted to mid-height bird species would be 

ducks would be attracted density ranges such as uncommon or rare. 

to some old cropland 

areas where they would 

experience mediocre 

nest survival (average 

annual nest survival in 

DNC at Des Lacs NWR 

is 15–20% [Mayfield 

blue-winged teal, shorteared owl, upland 

sandpiper, grasshopper 

sparrow, Savannah 

sparrow, and western 

meadowlark. 

Nest survival of ducks 

and sharp-tailed grouse 

would be sustained at 

relatively higher levels 

(versus other 

alternatives), because of 

annual predator control. 

(continued) 
 

 

 

50 YEARS HENCE

DNC often would be 

dominated by smooth 

brome. 

Periodically available 

tall, dense cover would 

favor mallard, gadwall, 

northern harrier, sedge 

wren, bobolink, and Le 

Conte’s sparrow.

 

50 YEARS HENCE

Continuous, periodic 

farming would 

characterize management 

that would emphasize 

tall, dense herbaceous 

cover in old cropland for 

nesting ducks. 

Areas that border DNC 

stands would accumulate 

eroded topsoil and support 

only undesirable, 

introduced plant species. 

 

92 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

OLD CROPLAND—Environmental Consequences 


TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES CONTINUED 

Survival of ducklings 

probably would be 

limited in these areas, 

where open-water 

impoundments account 

for nearly all wetland 

habitat. 

50 YEARS HENCE 

Native warm-season 

grasses would dominate 

high-priority sites. 

Undesirable, introduced 

grasses would dominate 

low-priority sites. 

Breeding bird densities 

would decline on highpriority old cropland, 

but makeup of the 

community would be 

more diverse. 

Densities of early nesting 

species such as mallard 

and northern pintail 

would possibly decline, 

as might densities of 

species that use newly 

growing vegetation for 

nesting (such as gadwall). 

50 YEARS HENCE 

Same as alternative B, 

except native plants 

would dominate all old 

cropland areas. In some 

areas, warm-season 

grasses would begin to 

reinvade adjoining drift 

prairie and prairie slope. 

Volunteer native forbs 

would be evident in most 

areas. 

COULEE WOODLAND—Management Actions 

Des Lacs NWR—1,255 acres; J. Clark Salyer NWR—none; Upper Souris NWR—1,604 acres 

GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH 

Refuge Qualifiers Strive to eliminate Generally slow the Ultimately, eliminate 

Des Lacs NWR: Reduce 

tall woody vegetation in 

all but the most 

contiguous woodland 

patches. Reverse 

invasion by introduced 

woody plants. 

woodland and edge, 

particularly near highpriority drift prairie, 

prairie slope, and the 

largest tracts of open 

grassland. 

spread of woodland 

edge, while principally 

managing for late 

successional cover on 

grasslands. Do not 

attempt to manage the 

largest, most contiguous 

woodland patches. 

nearly all but the most 

mature, contiguous 

woodland patches. 

Among the latter areas, 

stop further woody 

expansion and reverse 

the rapid spread of 

common buckthorn and 

Upper Souris NWR: other introduced woody 

Continue modest effort plants in the understory. 

to slow invasion by tall 

woody vegetation on a 

limited area of the refuge 

uplands. 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 93 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

COULEE WOODLAND—Management Actions 


ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES PROCESSES PROCESSES PROCESSES 

Apply recurrent fire. Same as alternative A. Apply fire infrequently Same as alternative A; 

Use grazing animals to to woodland edge as a apply recurrent fire 

knock down dead woody component of adjacent widely and aggressively. 

fuels and create openings grassland-dominated Precisely time fire applied 

in the regenerating units being treated by to woodland edge that 

woody plant cover. fire. borders drift prairie and 

prairie slope, as regards 

phenology and 

competitive abilities of 

native herbaceous plants. 

PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE 

Gradually decrease trees Same as alternative A, Use fire infrequently, Create an upland 

and tall shrubs that except completely chiefly to maintain late landscape nearly devoid 

extend from edges of remove woodland edge successional grassland of patches of trees and 

coulee woodlands into from and adjacent to cover, but, in some areas, tall shrubs including 

adjacent grasslands. high-priority drift prairie to achieve simultaneously those extending from 

Disregard the extent, and prairie slope units. modest reductions in contiguous woodlands. 

distribution, and coulee woodland edge Restrict remaining tall 

structure of contiguous Control noxious weeds. that may harbor woody to contiguous 

coulee woodlands. predators of duck nests. woodland in the deepest, 

broadest coulees into 

Control noxious weeds. Ignore structure and 

composition of coulee 

woodland. 

Control noxious weeds. 

which fire can scarcely 

penetrate. Maintain this 

as mature woodland with 

a low edge-to-interior 

ratio, variably broken 

canopy, and variable 

densities of understory 

tall shrub and sapling 

trees. 

Use cutting and 

herbicides to eliminate 

introduced species of 

woody plants in interiors 

of coulee woodlands. 
 

 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES

Expansion of tall woody 

vegetation would be 

reversed where 

prescribed fire was 

applied at appropriate 

frequencies. 

Soil erosion would 

sometimes occur on 

steep slopes exposed 

after thorough burning 

of woody vegetation. 

Nutrient cycling and 

defoliation influences on 

grassland plant physiology 

and competition would 

not be achieved because 

grazing disturbance 

would be too infrequent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

94 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

COULEE WOODLAND—Environmental Consequences 

ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES PROCESSES PROCESSES 

Same as alternative A; Same as alternative A, Fire and grazing 

however, nutrient cycling, only the changes would disturbances would 

occurrence of mycorrhizal be more severe. Major approximate historical 

relationships, and overall 

competitiveness of native 

herbaceous plants would 

be more improved in highecological processes 

important in the evolution 

of prairie plant 

frequency, timing, and 

intensity. Associated 

nutrient cycles would be 

largely restored. 

priority areas where communities would be 

grass–forb vegetation disrupted including The relatively arid soil 

mostly replaced tall (1) patterns of nutrient surface environment 

woody vegetation. cycling, (2) the diversity 

of soil invertebrates and 

their relationships with 

plants, (3) patterns of 

water uptake, and (4) siterelated influences on 

plant morphology and 

physiology. 

would be less hospitable to 

introduced plant species. 

Soil mycorrhizae and 

symbiotic relationships 

would be largely restored 

and maintained. 

Restoration of some areas 

to a near-presettlement 

condition probably would 

not be biologically 

feasible because they 

already are so badly 

degraded. 

PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE 

Coulee woodland edge Coulee woodland edge Fire would be too Same as alternative B, 

would be steadily would be steadily infrequently applied to only the changes apply 

diminished on most of decreased by frequently control expansion of to coulee woodland and 

the refuge. Some areas applied fire, especially coulee woodland edge coulee woodland edge 

would be mostly open near high-priority drift over most of the refuges. across each refuge. 

grassland, sometimes prairie and prairie slope. Woodland edge would 

with mature woodland. Some areas would begin 

to be characterized as 

continue to be a 

widespread, conspicuous Drift prairie and prairie open grassland and part of the landscape. slope would increase in distinct, mature woodland 

area. with an abrupt transition Introduced species of 

Weedy forbs including between the two. shrubs would continue 

to expand, mainly in noxious species (such as Common buckthorn and contiguous woodlands, Canada thistle) would other introduced species and would replace native invade woodland edge of shrub would be shrubs and tree saplings immediately after inhibited by fire away in the understory. burning, but gradually from contiguous would be replaced by woodland. Smooth brome expansion 

grasses over following would not be reduced 

years. Replacement of woody 

cover by smooth bromewith infrequent, imprecisely timed fires

(continued) (continued) (continued) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES

There would be a net 

loss of habitat for 

grassland-dependent 

songbirds and an 

increase in habitat area 

for woodland edge 

species. Security of bird 

nests in grassland 

intermixed with or 

adjoining woodland edge 

would continue to be 

compromised due to 

high predation and 

parasitism rates, although 

these negative affects 

would possibly be 

reduced by annual control 

of mammalian predators. 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 95 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

COULEE WOODLAND—Environmental Consequences 


PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE CONTINUED 

Invasion by smooth 

brome would be 

hastened at the expense 

of western snowberry 

communities. 

Common buckthorn and 

other introduced species 

of shrub would be 

inhibited by fire away 

from contiguous 

woodland. 

Refuge Qualifier 

Upper Souris NWR: The 

net (overall) invasion by 

tall woody vegetation 

would not be reversed 

because fire would be 

too infrequently applied 

on most refuge units 

where coulee woodland 

edge is a prominent 

landscape component. 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE CONTINUED 

dominated types on highpriority areas would be 

markedly slowed by 

carefully timed, frequent 

grazing, and native 

herbaceous plants would 

more successfully 

reinvade. 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE CONTINUED 

and little grazing. Loss 

of western snowberry as 

a nest site habitat would 

be rapid with infrequent 

disturbance. 

Heavy accumulations of 

plant litter in the grass 

understory would inhibit 

light penetration and 

decrease aridity at the 

soil interface, which 

would create inhospitable 

conditions for native 

herbaceous plant species. 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES 

Habitat would increase 

for several common, 

grassland-dependent 

species, especially 

Savannah sparrow and 

bobolink. Habitat would 

decrease for edgegeneralist bird species 

such yellow warbler. 

Occurrence of woodland 

species such as ovenbird 

and black-capped 

chickadee would be 

unaffected, although 

abundance would be 

reduced. 

Parasitism rates would 

decrease among nests of 

grassland birds in 

adjoining drift prairie 

and prairie slope, due to 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES 

Same as alternative A; 

on high-priority areas, 

however, the changes 

would be more rapid— 

reduction of habitat for 

woodland-edge birds 

would proceed quickly, 

while the increase in 

grassland bird habitat 

would be rapid. 

Conversely, the change 

would proceed slowly on 

low-priority areas. There 

would be parallel 

implications for nest 

parasites and nest 

predators. 

-

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES 

Same as alternative A, 

only the changes would be 

more rapid, widespread, 

and complete. Refuge 

uplands would begin to 

be characterized by 

distinctly different 

grassland and woodland 

bird communities, with 

almost no overlap or 

transition. 

(continued) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

50 YEARS HENCE

Same as alternative A; 

reduction of woodland 

edge habitat would be 

thorough on units that 

included high-priority 

drift prairie or prairie 

slope, but less so on 

other units. There would 

be parallel implications 

for the distribution and 

local abundance of bird 

species associated with 

these habitats. 

 

 

 

 

 

96 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

COULEE WOODLAND—Environmental Consequences 


TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES CONTINUED 

decreased occurrence of 

brown-headed cowbirds 

and perches. Predation 

rates would decrease 

among nests of grassland 

birds in adjoining drift 

prairie and prairie slope, 

due to decreased 

occurrence of raccoons, 

great horned owls, deer 

mice, and other predator 

species. 

Refuge Qualifier 

Upper Souris NWR: 

Because there would be 

little change in the overall 

extent of woodland edge, 

change in abundances of 

bird species tied mainly 

to this habitat would be 

small. Nest parasitism 

and predation influences 

indirectly associated with 

prevalence of woodland 

edge would also be 

unchanged. 

50 YEARS HENCE 

Herbaceous cover, 

especially smooth brome, 

would dominate most 

areas that extend from 

coulees and were once 

variably interspersed 

with patches of tall 

shrubs and trees. Most 

areas of refuge uplands 

would be characterized 

by open grassland and 

contiguous woodland, 

with an abrupt transition 

between the two. 

Other than a few species 

of forbs, native 

herbaceous plants would 

seldom be found in areas 

formerly occupied by 

woodland edge. 

(continued) 

50 YEARS HENCE 

Woodland edge would be 

conspicuous across much 

of the upland landscape, 

merging with tall shrub 

and tree patches on 

north- to east-facing 

prairie slope. Almost no 

native herbaceous 

vegetation would remain 

as an understory 

component; the 

herbaceous vegetation 

would be irreversibly 

degraded, especially due 

to prevalence of smooth 

brome. 

Along with Savannah 

sparrows in open 

grassland, brown-headed 

cowbirds, yellow 

(continued) 

50 YEARS HENCE 

Herbaceous cover, 

mainly a mix of native 

species and Kentucky 

bluegrass, would 

dominate areas that 

extend from coulees and 

were once variably 

interspersed with patches 

of tall shrubs and trees. 

Refuge uplands would 

be characterized by open 

grassland and contiguous 

woodland, with an abrupt 

transition between the 

two. 

Several bird species that 

rely on woodland edge 

and that were once 

abundant and widespread 

would be uncommon to 

(continued) 
 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 97 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

COULEE WOODLAND—Environmental Consequences 


50 YEARS HENCE 

CONTINUED 

Several bird species that 

rely on woodland edge 

and that were once 

abundant and widespread 

would be far less 

common. Much more 

habitat would be 

available for grassland 

bird species, especially 

those sensitive to tall 

woody cover in the 

landscape. 

Refuge Qualifier 

Upper Souris NWR: 

Although variable across 

the refuge, habitat for 

shrub-associated and 

habitat-generalist bird 

species would increase 

and that for grasslanddependent species would 

decline. Kentucky 

bluegrass would be the 

dominant grass species 

in woodland edge habitat 

and almost no herbaceous 

native species would be 

found. 

50 YEARS HENCE 

CONTINUED 

warblers, and claycolored sparrow would 

be the most abundant 

songbirds. Despite goals 

for waterfowl production, 

nest survival of ducks 

and songbirds in adjacent 

grasslands would be 

compromised due to 

increased predation and 

parasitism rates. 

50 YEARS HENCE 

CONTINUED 

rare. The area and 

security of habitat 

available for grassland 

bird species, especially 

those sensitive to tall 

woody cover in the 

landscape, would 

measurably support 

levels of reproductive 

success that contribute 

to population levels for 

the respective species. 

RIPARIAN WOODLAND—Management Actions 

Des Lacs NWR—none; J. Clark Salyer NWR—2,470 acres; Upper Souris NWR—609 acres 

GENERAL APPROACH 

Manage in concert with 

adjacent meadow. 

Maintain current extent 

of riparian woodland. 

GENERAL APPROACH 

Manage in concert with 

adjacent meadow. 

Maintain current extent 

of riparian woodland. 

Increase coordination 

among the refuges and 

other water users. 

GENERAL APPROACH 

Same as alternative B, 

except install and 

maintain nesting 

structures to increase 

waterfowl recruitment. 

GENERAL APPROACH 

Manage in concert with 

adjacent meadow. 

Where feasible, restore 

the presettlement extent 

and plant composition of 

riparian woodland. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES

Flooding would be 

periodic, occurring 

mainly in the spring but 

also occurring outside 

the historical natural 

hydroperiod. The 

frequency and duration 

of summer flooding would 

be somewhat reduced by 

better coordination 

among the refuges and 

other water users. 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES

Same as alternative B. 

 

 

98 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

RIPARIAN WOODLAND—Management Actions 


ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

Make minor to modest 

efforts to reduce flooding 

that occurs outside the 

natural hydroperiod. 

Maintain Lake Darling at 

a maximum operational 

elevation of 1,597.0 feet 

above mean sea level. 

Suppress and exclude 

fire. 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

Within existing physical 

and political constraints, 

restore natural 

frequency, timing, and 

duration of flooding. 

Reduce the occurrence 

and duration of summer 

flooding. 

Maintain Lake Darling at 

a maximum operational 

elevation of 1,596.0 feet 

above mean sea level. 

Suppress and exclude 

fire. 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

Same as alternative B. 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

In conjunction with 

management of riverine 

wetlands and meadows, 

strive to fully restore 

natural frequency, timing, 

and duration of flooding. 

Suppress and exclude 

fire. 

PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE 

Maintain current extent Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. Maintain current extent 

of woodland cover. woodland cover. 

Attempt to restore 

American elm as the 

codominant tree species 

in riparian woodland. 

Refuge Qualifier 

Upper Souris NWR: 

Restore some or all 

riparian woodland. 

RIPARIAN WOODLAND—Environmental Consequences 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

Flooding would be 

periodic, occurring 

mainly in the spring but 

also occurring outside 

the historical natural 

hydroperiod. Summer 

flooding would occur 

more frequently than is 

desirable. 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

Within ecological and 

political constraints, 

flooding would be mostly 

confined within the 

historical, natural 

hydroperiod. 
 

 

 

 

 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE

Same as alternative B. 

 

 

 

50 YEARS HENCE

Same as alternative B. 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 99 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

RIPARIAN WOODLAND—Environmental Consequences 


PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE 

The current extent of The current extent of The current extent of 

riparian woodland would riparian woodland would riparian woodland would 

be preserved, except be preserved. be unchanged. 

frequent or prolonged 

summer flooding may American elm would Restoration of American 

slightly reduce woodland persist but be sparsely elm would be contingent 

area. distributed. on development of new 

cultivars (cultivated 

American elm would Tree mortality would be varieties of a plant) 

persist but be sparsely reduced as the frequency resistant to Dutch elm 

distributed. and duration of summer 

flooding were reduced. 

disease. 

Summer flooding Refuge Qualifier 

periodically increases 

tree mortality. Upper Souris NWR: 

Some riparian woodland 

would be restored if the 

area of Lake Darling 

were reduced during 

wetland restoration. 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES 

The current extent of 

riparian woodland 

habitat for woodlanddependent species of 

wildlife would be 

preserved or slightly 

reduced. 

Riparian woodland would 

provide local habitat for 

area-sensitive, forestinterior and woodland 

edge bird species. 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES 

The current extent of 

riparian woodland 

habitat for woodlanddepend species of wildlife 

would be preserved. 

Riparian woodland would 

provide local habitat for 

area-sensitive, forestinterior and woodland 

edge bird species. 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES 

Same as alternative B. 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES 

Same as alternative B, 

except some habitat for 

wetland-dependent 

wildlife species would be 

replaced by habitats for 

woodland-associated 

wildlife species. 

50 YEARS HENCE 50 YEARS HENCE 50 YEARS HENCE 

The current extent of The current extent of Same as alternative B; 

riparian woodland would riparian woodland would composition of riparian 

be preserved or slightly be preserved. woodland would be 

reduced, especially at gradually restored with 

Upper Souris NWR. Riparian woodland would 

provide local habitat for 

reintroduction of 

American elm. 

Riparian woodland would area-sensitive, forestprovide local habitat for interior and woodland Refuge Qualifier 

area-sensitive, forestinterior and woodland 

edge bird species. Veery, 

ovenbird, American 

edge bird species. Veery, 

ovenbird, American 

redstart, hairy 

woodpecker, and 

Upper Souris NWR: The 

current extent of riparian 

woodland may increase. 

(continued) (continued) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

100 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

RIPARIAN WOODLAND—Environmental Consequences 


50 YEARS HENCE 

CONTINUED 

redstart, hairy 

woodpecker, and 

Cooper’s hawk would be 

common. Widely 

scattered nesting 

colonies, mainly of herons, 

would continue to persist. 

50 YEARS HENCE 

CONTINUED 

Cooper’s hawk would be 

common. Widely 

scattered nesting 

colonies, mainly of herons, 

would continue to 

persist. 

MEADOW—Management Actions 

Des Lacs NWR—360 acres; J. Clark Salyer NWR—5,570 acres; Upper Souris NWR—1,570 acres 

GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH 

Reduce tall woody To the extent possible, Reduce tall woody Strive to fully restore 

vegetation and noxious restore a diverse native vegetation and noxious native plant communities 

weeds. flora only on units with weeds. and the ecological 

the greatest potential processes that shaped 

for success (the most Increase coordination them. Emphasize broadfloristically intact). among the refuges and scale management that other water users. affords significant Increase coordination 

among the refuges and 

other water users. 

Control mammalian 

predators and install 

nesting structures to 

increase waterfowl 

production. 

competitive advantages 

to native herbaceous 

plants and that 

discourages tall woody 

plants and introduced 

plant species such as 

quackgrass, reed 

canarygrass, and statelisted noxious weeds. 

ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES PROCESSES PROCESSES PROCESSES 

Make minor to modest Within existing physical Same as alternative B. Strive to fully restore 

efforts to reduce flooding and political constraints, the natural frequency, 

that occurs outside the restore natural timing, and duration of 

historical natural frequency, timing, and flooding. 

hydroperiod. duration of flooding; 

reduce the occurrence Apply fire, grazing, and 

and duration of summer haying extensively to 

flooding. reduce woody vegetation. 

Incorporate frequent, 

extensively applied 

haying on high-priority 

units. 

Reintroduce fire as an 

important defoliation 

disturbance. 

(continued) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 101 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

MEADOW—Management Actions 


ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES CONTINUED 

Account for landscape 

composition, 

interconnectivity, and 

extent when planning 

management to provide 

large, contiguous tracts 

of open grassland; the 

largest grasslands may 

include adjacent drift 

prairie, prairie parkland, 

and private grassland 

tracts. 

PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE 

Use haying to reduce Use haying and fire on Same as alternative B, Use haying, grazing, and 

cover of tall woody high-priority units to except maximize tall and fire extensively to reduce 

vegetation and noxious reduce the cover of tall dense vegetation cover of tall woody 

weeds. Control of tall woody plants and noxious structure attractive to vegetation and restore 

woody vegetation is more weeds. Do not control nesting waterfowl. native plant communities. 

important than trying to woody vegetation in lowmanage vegetation priority units. (Control Emphasize restoration of 

composition. Vegetation of tall woody vegetation native plant communities. 

structure is largely a 

function of biannual 

haying. 

Use an integrated 

is more important than 

trying to manage 

composition of herbaceous 

vegetation.) 

Allow vegetation 

structure to be a function 

of dynamic, frequent 

disturbances restored to 

approach to control Allow vegetation units. 

noxious weeds, especially 

leafy spurge. 

structure to be a function 

of biannual haying and 

periodic use of fire. 

Use an integrated 

approach to control 

noxious weeds, especially 

Use an integrated 

approach to control 

noxious weeds, especially 

leafy spurge. 

leafy spurge. 

MEADOW— Environmental Consequences 

ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES PROCESSES PROCESSES PROCESSES 

Flooding would be Flooding would be Same as alternative B. The timing, frequency, 

periodic, occurring periodic, occurring and extent of flooding 

mainly in the spring but mainly in the spring but would more closely 

also occurring outside also occurring outside approximate the natural 

the historical natural the historical natural condition. Complete 

hydroperiod. Summer hydroperiod. The restoration of the 

flooding would occur frequency and duration historical natural fluvial 

(continued) (continued) (continued) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE

Same as alternative B, 

except meadows would be 

less floristically diverse, 

because controlling 

woody vegetation and 

maximizing tall and 

dense structure would 

be more important than 

increasing cover of native 

species. 

 

102 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

MEADOW— Environmental Consequences 


ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES CONTINUED PROCESSES CONTINUED PROCESSES CONTINUED 

more frequently than of summer flooding processes would be 

desirable. would be somewhat 

reduced by better 

unlikely because of 

continued conflicts among Haying would replace coordination among the water users and 

grazing as an important refuges and other water irreversible humandefoliation disturbance. users. induced physical changes 

Disturbance would be Natural nutrient cycles in river dynamics. 

inadequate for facilitating would be partially Wet–dry cycles, fire, and historical nutrient restored. grazing disturbances cycling. 

Haying would replace 

grazing as an important 

defoliation. 

Fire would be 

reintroduced as a 

defoliation disturbance on 

would approximate 

historical frequency, 

timing, and intensity. 

Haying would continue as 

an important method for 

controlling tall woody 

plants. 

high-priority meadows. 

Soil mycorrhizae, 

invertebrate diversity, 

and symbiotic 

relationships would 

Soil mycorrhizae, 

invertebrate diversity, 

and symbiotic 

relationships would 

gradually recover. 

gradually recover, but 

only in high-priority 

meadows. Elsewhere, 

disturbance would be 

inadequate to restore 

these processes to 

historical levels. 

PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE 

Tall woody vegetation Tall woody vegetation Cover of tall woody plants 

would be controlled in would be controlled in would be widely reduced. 

the largest and most high-priority meadows. 

intact meadows. In low-priority meadows, The diversity of native 

Elsewhere, tall shrubs tall shrubs and trees herbaceous plant species 

and trees would gradually would gradually replace would gradually increase. 

replace herbaceous herbaceous vegetation. Complete restoration to 

vegetation. In intensively managed 

a presettlement condition 

would be unlikely on 

Native herbaceous meadows, cover of native some units that have 

species would gradually herbaceous vegetation been dominated by tall 

decline and be replaced would increase and cover woody plants or 

by introduced species of tall woody plants introduced grasses for 

such as quackgrass, reed would decrease. more than 60 years. 

canarygrass, Canada Elsewhere, native 

thistle, and leafy spurge. herbaceous species would 

(continued) (continued) (continued) 
 

 

 

 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES

Meadow would provide 

important nesting habitat 

for many species of 

grassland and wetlanddependent wildlife. 

Abundance of grassland 

and wetland bird species 

that avoid woody 

vegetation would increase 

in large, contiguous 

meadows where woody 

plants were reduced 

(such as Savannah 

sparrow, sedge wren, 

and Le Conte’s sparrow). 

Wildlife species that are 

associated with woodland 

and shrubland would be 

common in meadows 

dominated by woody 

plants. 

Periodically, bird 

occurrence and nest 

survival would be 

reduced by summer 

flooding. 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 103 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

MEADOW— Environmental Consequences 


PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE CONTINUED 

With haying as the main 

defoliation disturbance, 

meadows would alternate 

between years of talldense cover and 

moderate-dense cover. 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE CONTINUED 

gradually decline and be 

replaced by introduced 

species such as 

quackgrass, reed 

canarygrass, Canada 

thistle, and leafy spurge. 

With haying as the main 

defoliation disturbance, 

meadows would alternate 

between years of talldense cover and 

moderate-dense cover. 

However, use of fire 

would increase structural 

heterogeneity. 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE CONTINUED 

Vegetation structure 

would be variable and 

would be a function of 

dynamic, frequent 

disturbance. 

-

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES 

Same as alternative A, 

except the frequency of 

summer flooding would 

possibly decline, thereby 

increasing bird occurrence 

and nest survival. 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES 

Same as alternative B, 

except waterfowl nest 

survival would be 

enhanced via annual 

removal of mammalian 

nest predators. 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES 

The abundance and 

diversity of grasslandand wetland-dependent 

wildlife species would 

gradually increase as tall 

woody plants were 

reduced and native plant 

diversity increased. 

Wildlife species that are 

associated with woodland 

and shrubland would 

persist but would be 

sparsely distributed. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—

 

 

104 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

MEADOW— Environmental Consequences 


50 YEARS HENCE 50 YEARS HENCE 50 YEARS HENCE 50 YEARS HENCE 

The extent of open, 

treeless meadows would 

be relatively unchanged. 

Meadows would be less 

floristically diverse and 

increasingly dominated by 

introduced plant species. 

Meadow would provide 

important habitat for 

many species of 

grassland- and wetlanddependent wildlife. 

The extent of open, 

treeless meadows would 

gradually increase. Highpriority meadows would 

be more floristically 

diverse, dominated by 

native herbaceous species. 

Remaining meadows 

would be dominated by 

woody and introduced 

plant species. 

Meadow would provide 

important habitat for 

many species of 

grassland- and wetlanddependent wildlife. Some 

wetland-dependent 

species would increase, 

such as sandhill crane 

and yellow rail. 

Same as alternative B, 

except waterfowl nest 

survival would be 

enhanced via annual 

removal of mammalian 

nest predators. 

Compared to alternative 

B, meadows would be 

less floristically diverse, 

because controlling 

woody vegetation and 

maximizing tall and dense 

structure would be more 

important than native 

plant composition. 

Native herbaceous 

plants would dominate 

meadows. 

Grassland- and wetlanddependent wildlife 

diversity and abundance 

would increase. Wildlife 

species that are 

associated with woodland 

and shrubland would 

persist but would be 

sparsely distributed. 

Despite extensive 

restorations, potential 

effects associated with 

70 years of altered river 

hydrology (especially 

hydroperiod) would 

remain poorly understood. 

Meadow would provide 

important habitat for 

grassland- and wetlanddependent wildlife species. 

WETLAND Management Actions 

Des Lacs NWR—6,800 acres; J. Clark Salyer NWR—26,000 acres; Upper Souris NWR—12,175 acres 

GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH 

Under existing To the fullest extent Same as alternative B. Strive to fully restore 

constraints, enhance the possible, prolong the native plant communities 

long-term capacity of capacity of riverine and ecological processes 

riverine wetlands to wetlands to support that shaped them. 

support diverse plant diverse plant and 

and wildlife communities. wildlife communities, 

especially on units with 

Manage nonriverine 

wetlands in concert with 

Manage nonriverine the greatest potential the surrounding habitats 

wetlands in concert with for success. To this end, (such as drift prairie and 

the surrounding habitats increase coordination prairie parkland). 

(such as drift prairie and 

prairie parkland). among refuges and other 

water users. Exclude carp from 

riverine wetlands. 

Exclude carp from 

riverine wetlands. Manage nonriverine 

wetlands in concert with 

the surrounding habitats 

(such as drift prairie and 

prairie parkland). 

Develop effective 

coordination among 

Souris River water users, 

especially among the 

three refuges. Amend or 

Exclude carp from 

riverine wetlands. 

modify existing river 

management plans to 

support restoration of 

the system. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 105 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

WETLAND—Management Actions 


ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES PROCESSES PROCESSES PROCESSES 

To the extent possible, To the extent possible, Same as alternative B. Strive to fully restore 

use water level use water level historical natural fluvial 

management to coarsely management to coarsely dynamics, including 

mimic periodic wet and mimic periodic wet and hydrology and 

dry cycles. dry cycles. hydroperiod. 

When applicable, manage Enhance coordination Where feasible, remove 

impoundments according with all water users dikes, dams, channels, 

to the 1959 interim within the watershed to right-of-way berms, spoil 

agreement (as modified) restore or mimic natural piles, and islands to 

between Canada and the fluvial dynamics of restore processes or 

United States. riverine wetlands. physical habitat features 

locally to sustain long- Obtain remaining Increase water quality term form and function to 

prescriptive water rights monitoring and reduce a riverine marsh system. through North Dakota nonpoint source pollution 

State Water Commission. and sedimentation. Obtain remaining 

prescriptive water rights Continue to monitor Obtain remaining through North Dakota water quantity. prescriptive water rights 

through North Dakota 

State Water Commission. 

Refuge Qualifiers State Water Commission. Enhance water quality 

Des Lacs NWR: Monitor Buy additional water monitoring and work to 

water quality of releases rights. reduce nonpoint source 

from Kenmare sewage 

lagoon. Refuge Qualifier pollution and 

sedimentation. 

Upper Souris NWR: 

Des Lacs NWR: Monitor 

water quality of releases Refuge Qualifier 

Periodically supply water from Kenmare sewage Des Lacs NWR: Monitor 

to marshes at J. Clark lagoon; enforce North water quality of releases Salyer NWR and Upper Dakota standards. from Kenmare sewage Souris NWR. lagoon; enforce North 

Dakota standards. 

PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE 

To the extent possible, In high-priority units, Same as alternative B. Restore fluvial dynamics 

maintain a broad array of emphasize long-term to improve vegetation 

vegetation composition capacity of wetlands to composition, structure, 

and structure, including support diverse wetland and interspersion. 

annual, emergent, and plant communities. 

submergent wetland Restore wetlands to 

plant species. In priority impoundments, 

use periodic disturbance 

improve structure and 

function of wetland plant 

Maintain varied to provide the full communities. 

interspersion of spectrum of wetland 

vegetation and open conditions, including dry Expand detection and 

water (hemi-marsh is marsh, densely vegetated control of invasive species 

50% open water and 50% marsh (regenerative such as purple loosestrife 

emergent vegetation). phase), hemi-marsh, open and salt cedar. 

(continued) (continued) (continued) 
 

 

 

—

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES

Same as alternative B. 

106 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

WETLAND—Management Actions 


PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE CONTINUED STRUCTURE CONTINUED STRUCTURE CONTINUED 

Use an integrated marsh (degenerative Remove created wetlands 

approach to detect and phase), and open water. and restore upland prairie 

control noxious weeds, communities in these sites. 

especially purple Use an integrated 

loosestrife and salt cedar. approach to detect and 

control noxious weeds, 

especially purple 

loosestrife and salt cedar. 

Refuge Qualifiers 

Des Lacs NWR and 

J. Clark NWR: Evaluate 

construction of a bypass 

channel to improve 

wetland management. 

WETLAND Environmental Consequences 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

Disruption of natural 

fluvial dynamics and 

physical attributes of 

the Souris River would 

be extreme, because of 

low-head dams and other 

physical structures that 

have been constructed 

along the rivers. 

Wetlands would be 

semipermanent or lakelike compared to the 

natural, presettlement 

condition. 

Water-level fluctuations 

would be less dynamic 

that the historical 

condition, which would 

hinder soil and wetland 

functions. 

Wetland soils would 

remain perennially moist 

and be infrequently 

oxidized. 

The degree to which 

pollution and 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

Although physically 

altering the Souris River 

system to a further 

extent (especially at Des 

Lacs NWR), attempts to 

restore significant 

ecological processes and 

wetland function would 

potentially prolong the 

functional lifespan of 

riverine wetlands in highpriority units. 

In high-priority wetland 

units, soils would 

periodically dry and 

oxidize during the drymarsh phase. 

The degree to which 

pollution and 

sedimentation threats 

were addressed at the 

watershed level would 

determine their shortand long-term effects on 

riverine wetlands. 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

Wetland processes would 

be widely restored. In 

other units, restorations 

would be biologically 

impossible, politically 

constrained, or cost 

prohibitive. 

The physical disruption 

of hydrologic function 

would gradually decline 

as dikes, dams, channels, 

right-of-way berms, spoil 

piles, and islands were 

removed. 

Wetland soils would dry 

and be frequently oxidized 

during the dry-marsh 

phase. 

The degree to which 

pollution and 

sedimentation threats 

were addressed at the 

watershed level would 

determine their shortand long-term effects on 

riverine wetlands. 

(continued) 
 

 

 

 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE

Same as alternative B. 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 107 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

WETLAND—Environmental Consequences 


ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES CONTINUED 

sedimentation threats 

were addressed at the 

watershed level would 

determine their shortand long-term effects on 

riverine wetlands. 

PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE 

Many wetland units In high-priority units, the Collectively, riverine 

would lack capacity to capacity to provide the wetlands would gradually 

provide the full spectrum full spectrum of wetland shift from a static lakeof wetland conditions, conditions would increase. like system to a dynamic 

including dry marsh, All phases would be riverine system. 

densely vegetated marsh represented including dry 

(regenerative phase), marsh, densely vegetated Wetlands with seasonal 

hemi-marsh, open marsh marsh (regenerative and temporary water 

(degenerative phase), phase), hemi-marsh, open regimes would increase. 

and open water. Some marsh (degenerative The area of 

units would remain static, phase), and open water. semipermanent 

almost perpetually in Elsewhere, units would wetlands would possibly 

either a densely vegetated remain static, almost decrease; the area of 

or an open-water phase. perpetually in either a 

densely vegetated or an 

lakes would markedly 

decrease. 

The critically important 

drawdown (dry marsh) open-water phase. Many wetlands would 

phase would be the most As high-priority wetlands naturally cycle through 

unattainable stage of the were cycled through all the full spectrum of 

wetland cycle. Soils would marsh phases, wetland wetland conditions 

remain relatively moist plant species and including dry marsh, 

during drawdown; structural diversity densely vegetated marsh 

germination of important would increase. Annual, (regenerative phase), 

annual plants would emergent, and hemi-marsh, open marsh 

rarely occur. submergent plant species 

would be common. 

(degenerative phase), 

and open water. 

When wetland units were 

successfully dewatered, 

annual, emergent, and 

submergent plant species 

would be common. 

Remaining units would 

be perennially dominated 

by algae and submerged 

aquatic plants (openwater phase) or robust 

Wetland plant diversity 

would increase, especially 

annual wetland plants 

such as smartweeds. 

Remaining units would 

be perennially dominated 

by algae and submerged 

aquatic plants (openwater phase) or robust 

emergent plant species 

(densely vegetated phase). 

emergent plant species 

(densely vegetated phase). 

The frequency of 

germination of important 

annual wetland plants 

(such as smartweeds) 

and the control of robust 

emergent vegetation 

would increase in highpriority units. 

Complete restoration of 

wetland plant 

communities would be 

unlikely in units with 

significant sediment 

accretion or in units that 

have been dominated for 

more than 40 years by 

robust emergent 

vegetation, especially 

cattail and common reed. 
 

 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES

Wetlands would provide 

important habitat for 

wetland-dependent 

wildlife species. 

The wildlife community 

would be dominated by 

species associated with 

semipermanent wetlands 

(dabbling and diving 

ducks, American coot, 

grebes, and gulls). Less 

common would be species 

associated with seasonal 

and temporary wetlands 

such as ducks, rails, 

songbirds, and shorebirds. 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES

Wetlands would provide 

important habitat for 

grassland and wetlanddependent wildlife species. 

Wildlife diversity would 

increase with more 

diverse wetland 

conditions. 

Dynamic wetland 

conditions would favor 

plant and invertebrate 

foods that attract 

breeding and migrating 

birds such as shorebirds. 

There would be declines 

in local abundances of 

species that rely on 

large, stable wetlands 

(such as white pelican, 

double-crested cormorant, 

western grebe, and 

walleye). 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES

Same as alternative B. 

 

 

 

 

 

108 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

WETLAND—Environmental Consequences 


-

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES 

Wetlands would provide 

important habitat for 

grassland- and wetlanddependent wildlife species. 

Wildlife diversity would 

increase with more 

diverse wetland 

conditions. 

Dynamic wetland 

conditions would favor 

plant and invertebrate 

foods that attract 

breeding and migrating 

birds such as shorebirds. 

Species that use 

temporary, seasonal, and 

semipermanent wetlands 

would increase. 

Species that rely on 

large, stable wetlands 

(such as white pelican, 

double-crested cormorant, 

and western grebe) 

would occur, but would 

not be widespread. Game 

fish, especially walleye 

and perch, would be rare. 

50 YEARS HENCE 

With their limited 

lifespans, riverine 

impoundments would 

continue to decline in 

quality. 

The capacity to manage 

water levels would decline 

significantly because of 

high sedimentation rates 

and accretion of organic 

materials. Robust 

emergent plants would 

increase and dominate 

many wetland units. 

Riverine wetlands would 

remain important nesting 

(continued) 

50 YEARS HENCE 

Same as alternative A; 

however, the rate of 

decline in wetland 

functions would be 

moderately to 

significantly reduced 

dependent on the degree 

to which wetland 

processes were restored. 

Without significant 

reductions in soil erosion 

and wetland destruction 

within the watershed 

(outside the refuges), 

wetland quality would 

continue to decline due 

(continued) 

50 YEARS HENCE 

Same as alternative B. 

50 YEARS HENCE 

Processes that create 

and maintain wetlands 

would be measurably 

enhanced. 

However, successful 

restoration would depend 

on agreement among 

water users within the 

Souris River basin to 

enhance the long-term 

capacity of wetlands to 

remain productive 

(potentially in conflict with 

other objectives that 

govern use of the Souris 

and Des Lacs rivers). 

(continued) 
 

 

50 YEARS HENCE 

CONTINUED

and migration habitat for 

many species of wetlanddependent migratory 

birds. However, wildlife 

abundance and species 

diversity would be 

reduced. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 109 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

WETLAND—Environmental Consequences 


50 YEARS HENCE 

CONTINUED 

to irreversible accretions 

of sediment, organic 

material, and pollution. 

50 YEARS HENCE 

CONTINUED 

Despite extensive 

restorations, potential 

effects associated with 

70 years of altered river 

hydrology (especially 

hydroperiod) would 

remain poorly understood. 

Without significant 

reductions in soil erosion 

and wetland destruction 

within the watershed 

(outside the refuges), 

wetland quality would 

continue to decline due 

to irreversible accretions 

of sediment, organic 

material, and pollution. 

ISLANDS—Management Actions 

Des Lacs NWR—8 islands; J. Clark Salyer NWR—50 islands; Upper Souris NWR—28 islands 

GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH GENERAL APPROACH 

Control predators during Control predators during Annually control Remove all artificial 

drought years to increase drought years to increase predators to maximize islands. 

waterfowl recruitment. waterfowl recruitment. waterfowl production on 

Give priority to islands Give priority to islands all islands. 

that have historically that have historically 

attracted high densities attracted high densities Restore or reconstruct 

of nesting waterfowl. of nesting waterfowl. damaged and poorly 

constructed islands. 

Refuge Qualifier 

Des Lacs NWR: 

Annually control 

Remove islands that 

have perennially low 

waterfowl nest densities. 

Build more islands. 

predators. Refuge Qualifier 

Des Lacs NWR: 

Annually control 

predators. 

ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES PROCESSES PROCESSES PROCESSES 

Use water-level Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A, No longer applies. 

management to attract except periodically 

waterfowl and increase reduce water levels in 

nest survival. Increase impoundments during 

open-water barriers winter to reduce mink 

surrounding islands. survival. 

Periodically use fire to 

rejuvenate vegetation. 
 

 

 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES

In most years, island 

characteristics (such as 

surrounding open-water 

barrier and water depth) 

would be a function of 

natural wet-to-dry cycles 

and management of 

water levels to meet 

wetland objectives. 

Fire would periodically 

reduce plant litter and 

stimulate nutrient cycling. 

Some islands would be 

prone to wind and wave 

erosion during extended 

periods of high water. 

Management of marsh 

water levels to protect 

and enhance islands as 

predator-free nesting 

habitat would possibly 

conflict with management 

goals and objectives for 

marsh units. 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES

Same as alternative A, 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES

Same as alternative A. 

110 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

ISLANDS—Management Actions 


PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE 

Use water-level 

management to reduce 

emergent plant cover 

surrounding islands. 

Enhance island cover to 

attract nesting ducks and 

discourage gull nesting. 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE 

Same as alternative A 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE 

Same as alternative A, 

except use Rodeo® 

herbicide to augment 

water-level management 

to reduce emergent plant 

cover surrounding islands. 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE 

No longer applies. 

ISLANDS—Environmental Consequences 

ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

With islands removed, 

there would no longer be 

potential conflicts 

between their 

management and wetland 

management. 

Soil erosion would be 

reduced. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES

Islands would increase 

local waterfowl 

recruitment, especially 

for gadwall, mallard, and 

Canada geese. Effects 

would be significant 

during drought years 

when wetland habitat 

outside refuges was 

limited and in conjunction 

with predator control. 

Conversely, during high 

water years, mink would 

possibly reduce duck nest 

survival and recruitment. 

 

 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES

Same as alternative A , 

except islands would be 

more frequently and 

extensively managed. 

During high-water years, 

extra effort would be 

required to remove mink. 

When present, mink 

would significantly 

reduce duck nest and 

brood survival. 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 111 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

ISLANDS—Environmental Consequences 


PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE 

Cover of emergent 

vegetation (especially 

cattail and common reed) 

surrounding islands 

would be reduced, making 

islands more attractive 

to nesting waterfowl. 

Planted, dense patches 

of low shrub would 

increase duck nesting 

and reduce gull nesting. 

Leafy spurge, Canada 

thistle, and wormwood 

would be common on 

some islands and would 

be dispersion seed sources 

to mainland shorelines. 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE 

On high-priority islands, 

cover of emergent 

vegetation (especially 

cattail and common reed) 

surrounding islands 

would be reduced, making 

islands more attractive 

to nesting waterfowl. 

On unproductive islands, 

cover would possibly be 

burned annually to 

reduce nesting. Some 

unproductive islands 

would be removed and 

would revert to wetland. 

Leafy spurge, Canada 

thistle, and wormwood 

would be common on 

some islands and would 

be dispersion seed sources 

to mainland shorelines. 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE 

On all islands, surrounding 

and shoreline emergent 

cover (especially cattail 

and common reed) would 

be reduced to make 

nesting islands more 

attractive to waterfowl. 

Opportunities for using 

muskrats to manage 

wetland vegetation 

would be mostly lost 

because water levels 

would be kept 

intentionally low during 

winter to reduce 

occurrence of mink. 

Leafy spurge, Canada 

thistle, and wormwood 

would be common on 

some islands and would 

be dispersion seed sources 

to mainland shorelines. 

PLANT COMMUNITY 

INTEGRITY AND 

STRUCTURE 

About 50–100 acres of 

upland island habitat 

would be converted to 

wetland habitat. 

Islands would no longer 

be seed sources for leafy 

spurge, Canada thistle, 

and wormwood. 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES 

Same as alternative A, 

except perennially 

unproductive islands 

would be removed, 

reducing risk of some 

islands functioning as 

“population sinks.” 

TRUST WILDLIFE 

SPECIES 

Some ducks, geese, 

double-crested 

cormorants, American 

avocets, and other 

waterbirds that nest on 

islands would be displaced 

to upland or overwater 

nest sites. 

Local waterfowl 

production would decline. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

112 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

ISLANDS—Environmental Consequences 


50 YEARS HENCE 

Objectives for wetland 

management and island 

management would 

periodically conflict. 

Island maintenance 

would be expensive. 

Islands would enhance 

local waterfowl 

production. 

50 YEARS HENCE 

Same as alternative A, 

except resources 

expended on islands 

would dilute management 

of other habitats. 

50 YEARS HENCE 

Same as alternative A, 

except waterfowl 

production would be 

greater than for other 

alternatives. 

50 YEARS HENCE 

Local waterfowl 

production would decline. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES—Management Actions 

Continue to protect 

cultural resources as they 

are found. 

Inventory resources 

only for construction 

projects. 

Same as alternative A, 

plus promote 

interpretation of cultural 

resources. 

Same as alternative A, 

plus promote 

interpretation of cultural 

resources. 

Inventory and protect 

cultural resources. 

Enhance the 

understanding of 

cultural resources 

through research and 

interpretation. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES—Environmental Consequences 

Existing and newly Same as alternative A, Same as alternative A, Existing and newly 

discovered cultural plus public and refuge plus public and refuge discovered cultural 

resources would be staff awareness of the staff awareness of the resources would be 

protected. cultural history prior to 

and during refuge 

establishment would be 

enhanced. 

cultural history prior to 

and during refuge 

establishment would be 

enhanced. 

inventoried and protected. 

Public and refuge staff 

awareness of the 

cultural history prior to 

and during refuge 

establishment would be 

enhanced. 

Scientific knowledge 

about the role of human 

habitation in or near 

refuges would increase. 

VISITOR SERVICES, Hunting—Management Actions 

Continue hunting Provide hunting Evaluate opportunities Same as alternative A. 

programs to manage opportunities only when for waterfowl hunting 

wildlife and provide resources needed to (may require 

recreational hunting administer hunting do not congressional approval). 

opportunities. negatively affect the 

ability to carry out habitat 

management. 

Review and evaluate the 

effects of other hunting 

programs on breeding 

and migrating waterfowl. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 113 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

VISITOR SERVICES, Hunting—Environmental Consequences 

There would be no There would be no Waterfowl hunting Similar to alternative A, 

significant change to the significant change to opportunities would except habitat changes 

hunting program. hunting programs that possibly be added or would possibly shift 

do not adversely affect expanded. hunting opportunities 

the ability to carry out from one species group 

habitat management. There would be no to another. For example, significant change to the decreases in tall shrubs 

other hunting programs and trees could affect the 

that do not adversely attractiveness of upland affect waterfowl habitats to game birds management. (for example, sharpWaterfowl hunting would 

possibly disturb or cause 

resting waterfowl to 

leave the refuge, thereby 

negatively affecting 

tailed grouse hunting 

opportunities would 

increase and ruffed grouse 

hunting opportunities 

would decline). 

waterfowl hunting outside 

the refuge boundary. 

Hunting would possibly 

increase refuge visitation. 

Habitat changes would 

possibly shift hunting 

opportunities from one 

species group to another. 

For example, increases 

in tall shrubs and trees 

could affect the 

attractiveness of upland 

habitats to game birds 

(for example, sharptailed grouse hunting 

opportunities would 

decline and ruffed grouse 

hunting opportunities 

would increase). Effects 

on deer populations 

would be negligible. 

VISITOR SERVICES, Fishing—Management Actions 

Continue recreational Provide recreational Review and evaluate the Continue a recreational 

fishing. fishing opportunities 

only when resources 

effects of fish population 

dynamics (for example, 

fishing program, but 

limit stocking to the Refuge Qualifier needed to administer stocking and predators) reintroduction of locally 

Des Lacs NWR: Do not fishing do not negatively and recreational fishing native fish species. 

provide fishing. affect the ability to carry 

out habitat management. 

on breeding and 

migrating waterfowl. Investigate the effects 

of introduced biota not 

native to the Hudson 

Bay headwaters/mixedgrass prairie drainage. 
 

 

 

 

 

Same as alternative B. 

 

 

 

 

 

 —

 

Similar to alternative A,

except improved habitat 

conditions would possibly 

result in more 

opportunities for 

observations and 

photography of waterfowl 

and other wildlife. 

Opportunities for viewing 

endemic grassland birds 

would decline. 

Interpretive and 

education programs 

would enhance awareness 

of waterfowl ecology and 

management. 

 

114 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

VISITOR SERVICES, Fishing—Environmental Consequences 

There would be no 

significant change to the 

fishing program. 

Refuge Qualifier 

Des Lacs NWR: Fishing 

would not be provided. 

Fishing opportunities 

would remain relatively 

unchanged. However, 

populations of yellow 

perch and walleye may 

periodically decline due to 

more frequent winterkill. 

Fish habitat would 

improve in conjunction 

with more dynamic water 

level fluctuations, thereby 

enhancing fish populations 

over the long term. 

Fishing opportunities 

would be dramatically 

reduced. Fishing visits 

would possibly decrease 

drastically. 

Stocking would be limited 

to locally native species. 

VISITOR SERVICES, Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography, Interpretation, 

Environmental Education—Management Actions 

Continue recreational Maintain or increase Maintain or increase Same as alternative B. 

wildlife observation and development of wildlife development of wildlife 

photography. observation and 

photography programs 

observation and 

photography programs Continue minimal and facilities. and facilities. 

interpretation and 

environmental education. Expand interpretation 

and environmental 

education with an 

emphasis on natural 

plant and animal 

communities and habitat 

restoration. 

Expand interpretation 

and environmental 

education with an 

emphasis on waterfowl. 

VISITOR SERVICES, Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography, Interpretation, 

Environmental Education Environmental Consequences 

There would be no Similar to alternative A, Improved habitat 

significant change to except improved habitat conditions would result 

these programs. conditions in some areas 

would possibly result in 

in more opportunities 

for observation and 

Interpretive value would more opportunities for photography of a greater be diminished with the observation and diversity of prairie continued decline of photography of a greater wildlife and plants. native prairie flora. diversity of native wildlife 

and plants. 

Interpretive and 

education programs 

would enhance awareness 

of prairie and wetland 

ecology and management. 

Interpretive and 

education programs 

would significantly 

enhance awareness of 

prairie and wetland 

ecology and management 

and engage the public in 

prairie restoration efforts. 
 

 

—

 Same as alternative A. 

 

 

—

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 115 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

VISITOR SERVICES, Non-wildlife Dependent Recreation—Management Actions 

Permit non-wildlifedependent recreational 

activities (such as 

canoeing and hiking), 

when compatible under 

compatibility guidelines. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. 

VISITOR SERVICES, Non-wildlife Dependent Recreation Environmental Consequences 

Based on compatibility 

guidelines, changes 

would possibly occur in 

some of the non-wildlifedependent uses. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. 

RESEARCH AND SCIENCE Management Actions 

Emphasize inventory and 

applied research over 

short- and long-term 

monitoring. 

Limit research to 

evaluations of strategies 

to enhance native plant 

communities and 

discouraging invasive 

plants. 

Track only broad, longterm vegetation 

succession. 

Focus efforts mainly on 

baseline inventories and 

basic assessments of 

trust wildlife species– 

habitat interactions. 

Collaborate on, cooperate 

with, or otherwise support 

relevant research by 

outside parties. 

Emphasize inventory and 

applied research over 

short- and long-term 

monitoring. 

Limit research to 

evaluations of strategies 

to enhance native plant 

communities and 

discouraging invasive 

plants. 

Intensively assess 

changes in vegetation 

composition and structure 

on high-priority units; 

otherwise, monitor only 

long-term, general 

vegetation changes. 

Focus efforts mainly on 

baseline inventories and 

basic assessments of 

trust wildlife species– 

habitat interactions. 

Collaborate on, cooperate 

with, or otherwise support 

relevant research by 

outside parties. 

Expand research to focus 

on methods that enhance 

waterfowl production, 

especially nest density, 

nest survival, hen 

survival, and brood 

survival. 

Track nest survival as 

an index to recruitment 

rate. 

Assess extent and 

effectiveness of predator 

control. 

Expand research to focus 

on restoration of 

ecological processes (such 

as landscape factors, and 

fire– and grazing–plant 

interactions) important 

in maintaining northern 

prairie and wetland plant 

communities. 

Carry out rigorous, 

experimental approaches 

as well as case history 

studies. 

Expand research to 

predict trust wildlife 

species responses to 

habitat restoration. 

Expand baseline 

assessments to include 

invertebrate communities. 

Collaborate on, cooperate 

with, or otherwise support 

relevant research by 

outside parties. 
 

 

—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

116 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

RESEARCH AND SCIENCE Environmental Consequences 

Many invasive plant 

issues would remain 

unresolved. 

Small, annual changes in 

vegetation composition 

on upland sites would 

continue unrecognized 

until plant communities 

became compromised, to 

the point that future 

restorations would be 

unlikely. 

Knowledge of some 

vegetation management 

strategies would be 

enhanced. 

Limited inventory, 

research, and monitoring 

would be conducted in 

wetland systems, 

resulting in a poor ability 

to defend management 

actions. 

Basic relationships of bird 

species to their habitats 

would be understood, but 

investigations would be 

limited to high-priority 

management issues. 

Inventory and applied 

research would be 

emphasized over 

monitoring. 

Knowledge regarding 

effects of invasive plant 

species; prairie 

management methods; 

and prairie vegetation, 

community dynamics 

would increase. 

Most emphasis would be 

placed on monitoring 

and applied research of 

upland habitat 

restorations. 

Without additional staff, 

limited inventory, 

research, and monitoring 

would be conducted in 

wetland systems, 

resulting in a poor ability 

to defend management 

actions. 

Basic relationships of bird 

species to their habitats 

would be understood, but 

investigations would be 

limited to high-priority 

management issues. 

Methods that attract 

waterfowl and increase 

recruitment would be 

investigated. 

Annual waterfowl 

production would be 

estimated. 

Significant knowledge 

gaps would remain 

regarding invasive plant 

species management; 

prairie management; 

and prairie vegetation, 

community dynamics. 

Important changes in 

vegetation composition 

on upland sites would be 

unrecognized. 

Effects of waterfowl 

habitat and population 

management (such as 

predator control) on 

nontarget wildlife species 

are unknown. 

Extensive inventories, 

short- and long-term 

monitoring and applied 

research would vastly 

increase. 

The adaptive resource 

management process 

would be fully 

implemented. 

There would be a 

significant increase in 

biological staffing to 

support research, 

monitoring, and inventory. 

The Souris River basin 

refuges would serve as 

demonstration sites for 

habitat management and 

restoration. 

OPERATIONS—Management Actions 

Continue the current 

level of operations and 

maintenance for natural 

resources, existing 

visitor service facilities, 

and administrative 

infrastructure. 

Refuge Qualifiers 

Des Lacs NWR: Retain 

current staffing of 13 

full-time equivalent (FTE) 

employees (2 FTEs 

assigned to the refuge; 

11 FTEs assigned to the 

Des Lacs NWR Complex). 

Increase funding to 

support ecological 

restoration efforts. 

Refuge Qualifiers 

Des Lacs NWR: Attain 

target (minimum) staffing 

level to carry out this 

alternative—19 FTEs 

(assign 5 FTEs to the 

refuge; assign 14 FTEs 

to the Des Lacs NWR 

Complex). 

Increase funding for 

waterfowl habitat and 

visitor service facilities. 

Refuge Qualifiers 

Des Lacs NWR: Attain 

target (minimum) staffing 

level to carry out this 

alternative—19 FTEs 

(assign 5 FTEs to refuge; 

assign 14 FTEs to Des 

Lacs NWR Complex). 

Increase funding to 

support ecological 

restoration efforts and 

visitor service facilities. 

Refuge Qualifiers 

Des Lacs NWR: Attain 

target staffing level to 

carry out this 

alternative—29 FTEs 

(assign 8 FTEs to refuge; 

assign 21 FTEs to Des 

Lacs NWR Complex). 

(continued) (continued) (continued) (continued) 
 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 117 

Table 5. Management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota. 

Alternative A Alternative B— Alternative C Alternative D 


(Current Management) (Proposed Action)
 

OPERATIONS—Management Actions
 

J. Clark Salyer NWR: J. Clark Salyer NWR: J. Clark Salyer NWR: J. Clark Salyer NWR: 

Retain current staffing Attain target (minimum) Attain target (minimum) Attain target (minimum) 

of 16 FTEs (12 FTEs staffing level to carry staffing level to carry staffing level to carry 

assigned to the refuge; out this alternative—22 out this alternative—22 out this alternative— 

4 FTEs assigned to the FTEs (assign 18 FTEs FTEs (assign 18 FTEs 33.5 FTEs (assign 25 

J. Clark Salyer NWR to the refuge; assign to refuge; assign 4 FTEs FTEs to refuge; assign 

Complex). 4 FTEs to the J. Clark 

Salyer NWR Complex). 

to J. Clark Salyer NWR 

Complex). 

48.5 FTEs to J. Clark 

Salyer NWR Complex). Upper Souris NWR: 

Retain current staffing Upper Souris NWR: Upper Souris NWR: Upper Souris NWR: 

of 7.0 FTEs. Attain target (minimum) 

staffing level to carry 

out this alternative—9.5 

FTEs. 

Attain target (minimum) 

staffing level to carry 

out this alternative—9.5 

FTEs. 

Attain target (minimum) 

staffing level to carry 

out this alternative— 

18.0 FTEs. 

OPERATIONS—Environmental Consequences 

There would be no Target (minimum) staffing Target (minimum) staffing Target (minimum) staffing 

significant change to levels, with adequate levels, with adequate levels, with adequate 

staffing and funding funding, would carry out funding, would carry out funding, would carry out 

levels. this alternative—only 

priority areas would 

this alternative—certain 

habitats would not receive 

this alternative. 

Target (minimum) staff improve, others would needed restoration. If additional staffing and 

and resources would continue to degrade. funding were provided, 

carry out this alternative, all habitat areas would 

which would be Under triage improve. 

inadequate to conserve management, the 

prairie and wetland amount of conservation 

resources. and restoration work 

done would be 

commensurate with the 

amount of available 

staffing and funding. 

Additional staff and 

resources would ensure 

that a greater range of 

priority areas would 

receive attention. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

118 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE NO- ACTION AND PROPOSED ACTION 

ALTERNATIVES 

This section analyzes the local economic impacts 

associated with current management activities 

(alternative A) at each refuge and the change in 

management activities associated with the proposed 

action (alternative B). 

Impacts from Refuge Administration 

Each year, the refuges purchase a wide variety of 

supplies and services for operations and maintenance 

activities. 

Refuge Spending 

Purchases that are made locally contribute to the 

local economic impacts associated with the refuge. 

Major local expenditures for all refuges include: 

(1) auto repairs, parts, and fuel; (2) equipment; 

(3) supplies and services related to building 

maintenance; (4) miscellaneous supplies; and 

(5) utilities. 

Another major annual local expenditure for J. Clark 

Salyer NWR is easement payments to landowners. 

In 2005, the nonsalary budget was $264,594 for Des 

Lacs NWR, $303,727 for J. Clark Salyer NWR, and 

$372,900 for Upper Souris NWR. According to refuge 

personnel, Des Lacs NWR purchases approximately 

21% of annual nonsalary budget expenditures locally 

in the towns of Kenmare and Bowbells, J. Clark 

Salyer NWR purchases approximately 70% within 

Bottineau and McHenry counties, and Upper Souris 

NWR purchases approximately 47% within Ward 

and Renville counties. Table 6 shows the current 

impacts (alternative A) associated with the nonsalary 

budget purchases made locally for each refuge. 

The local work-related purchases by Des Lacs NWR 

account for $70,500 in local output annually (2005$). 

This generates a total impact of $20,600 in personal 

income and 0.8 of a job annually in the Kenmare and 

Bowbells area (table 6). The local work-related 

Prairie Rose 

purchases by J. Clark Salyer NWR account for 

$243,800 in local output annually, which generates a 

total impact of $40,800 in personal income and 2.1 

jobs annually in Bottineau and McHenry counties. 

The local work-related purchases by Upper Souris 

NWR account for $228,200 in local output annually, 

which generates a total impact of $80,200 in personal 

income and three jobs annually in Ward and Renville 

counties. 

According to refuge personnel, under the proposed 

action (alternative B), annual nonsalary expenditures 

are anticipated to remain similar to alternative A for 

Des Lacs NWR, increase by $108,894 for J. Clark 

Salyer NWR, and increase by $149,100 for Upper 

Souris NWR. It was assumed the proportion spent 

locally would remain the same as for alternative A 

for each refuge. The resulting economic impacts 

associated with nonsalary budget purchases made 

locally for each refuge for alternative B in table 7. 

The change in local nonsalary spending impacts 

between alternative A and alternative B are shown 

in table 8. The local work-related purchases by Des 

Lacs NWR under alternative B are expected to be 

the same as under alternative A. The local workrelated purchases by J. Clark Salyer NWR under 

alternative B are expected to account for $331,100 in 

local output annually, which would generate a total 

impact of $55,400 in personal income and 2.8 jobs 

Gary Eslinger/USFWS 

Table 6. Economic impacts of local nonsalary budget purchases for alternative A for the Souris River basin 

refuges, North Dakota (2005$). 

Local Economic Des Lacs NWR 

J. Clark Salyer NWR 

(Bottineau and McHenry Upper Souris NWR 

Impact Area (Kenmare and Bowbells Area) Counties) (Ward and Renville Counties) 

Local Output ($/year) $70,500 $243,800 $228,200 

Income ($/year) $20,600 $40,800 $80,200 

Jobs 0.8 2.1 3.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 119 

annually in Bottineau and McHenry counties. This 

represents an increase of $87,300 in local output, 

$14,600 in personal income, and 0.7 of a job as compared 

to alternative A (table 8). The local work-related 

purchases by Upper Souris NWR under alternative B 

are expected to account for $319,300 in local output 

annually, which would generate a total impact of 

$112,200 in personal income and 4.2 jobs annually in 

Ward and Renville counties. This represents an 

increase of $91,000 in local output, $32,000 in personal 

income, and 1.2 jobs as compared to alternative A 

(table 8). 

Refuge Employee Spending 

Refuge employees reside and spend their salaries on 

daily living expenses in communities near their refuge, 

thereby generating impacts within the local economy. 

Household consumption expenditures consist of 

payments by individuals/households to industries 

for goods and services used for personal consumption. 

The IMPLAN modeling system contains household 

consumption spending profiles that account for 

average household spending patterns by income 

level. These profiles also capture average annual 

savings and allow for leakage of household spending 

to outside the region. 

In 2005, the salary budget (including benefits) was 

$431,168 for Des Lacs NWR, $820,013 for J. Clark 

Salyer NWR, and $553,500 for Upper Souris NWR. 

Table 9 shows the current impacts (alternative A) 

associated with local staff salary spending for each 

refuge. Spending of salaries by Des Lacs NWR staff 

accounts for $328,200 in local output annually (2005$). 

This generates a total impact of $71,600 in personal 

income and three jobs annually in the Kenmare and 

Bowbells area. Spending of salaries by J. Clark 

Salyer NWR staff accounts for $705,100 in local 

output annually, which generates a total impact of 

$70,400 in personal income and 4.3 jobs annually in 

Bottineau and McHenry counties. 

Table 7. Economic impacts of local nonsalary budget purchases for alternative B for the Souris River basin 

refuges, North Dakota (2005$). 

J. Clark Salyer NWR 

Local Economic 	 Des Lacs NWR (Bottineau and McHenry Upper Souris NWR 

Impact Area (Kenmare and Bowbells Area) Counties) (Ward and Renville Counties) 

Local Output ($/year) $70,500 $331,100 $319,300 

Income ($/year) $20,600 $55,400 $112,200 

Jobs 0.8 2.8 4.2 

Table 8. Change in local nonsalary spending impacts between alternatives A and B for the Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota (2005$). 

Local Economic Des Lacs NWR 

J. Clark Salyer NWR 

(Bottineau and McHenry Upper Souris NWR 

Impact Area (Kenmare and Bowbells Area) Counties) (Ward and Renville Counties) 

Local Output ($/year) $0 +$87,300 +$91,000 

Income ($/year) $0 +$14,600 +$32,000 

Jobs 0 +0.7 +1.2 

Table 9. Local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge personnel for alternative A for the Souris 

River basin refuges, North Dakota (2005$). 

Local Economic Des Lacs NWR 

J. Clark Salyer NWR 

(Bottineau and McHenry Upper Souris NWR 

Impact Area (Kenmare and Bowbells Area) Counties) (Ward and Renville Counties) 

Local Output ($/year) $328,200 $705,100 $600,700 

Income ($/year) $71,600 $70,400 $125,100 

Jobs 3.0 4.3 5.9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

120 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 10. Local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge personnel for alternative B for the Souris 

River basin refuges, North Dakota (2005$). 

J. Clark Salyer NWR 

Local Economic 	 Des Lacs NWR (Bottineau and McHenry Upper Souris NWR 

Impact Area (Kenmare and Bowbells Area) Counties) (Ward and Renville Counties) 

Local Output ($/year) $328,200 $889,000 $917,600 

Income ($/year) $71,600 $89,800 $191,200 

Jobs 3.0 5.5 9.1 

Table 11. Change in salary spending impacts between alternatives A and B for the Souris River basin 

refuges, North Dakota (2005$). 

J. Clark Salyer NWR 

Local Economic 	 Des Lacs NWR (Bottineau and McHenry Upper Souris NWR 

Impact Area (Kenmare and Bowbells Area) Counties) (Ward and Renville Counties) 

Local Output ($/year) $0 +$193,900 +$316,900 

Income ($/year) $0 +$19,400 +$66,100 

Jobs 0 +1.2 +3.2 

Spending of salaries by Upper Souris NWR staff 

account for $600,700 in local output annually, which 

generates a total impact of $125,100 in personal 

income and 5.9 jobs annually in Ward and Renville 

counties. 

According to refuge personnel, under the proposed 

action (alternative B), the annual salary budget is 

anticipated to remain similar to alternative A for 

Des Lacs NWR, increase by $295,181 for J. Clark 

Salyer NWR, and increase by $292,000 for Upper 

Souris NWR. The resulting economic impacts 

associated with local staff salary spending for each 

refuge for alternative B are presented in table 10. 

The changes in salary spending impacts between 

alternative A and alternative B are shown in table 11. 

Spending of salaries by Des Lacs NWR staff under 

alternative B are expected to be the same as 

alternative A. Spending of salaries by J. Clark 

Salyer NWR staff under alternative B are expected 

to account for $889,000 in total output annually, 

which would generate a total impact of $89,800 in 

personal income and 5.5 jobs annually in Bottineau 

and McHenry counties. This represents an increase 

of $193,900 in total output, $19,400 in personal 

income, and 1.2 jobs as compared to alternative A. 

Spending of salaries by Upper Souris NWR staff 

under alternative B are expected to account for 

$917,600 in total output annually, which would 

generate a total impact of $191,200 in personal 

income and 9.1 jobs annually in Ward and Renville 

counties. This represents an increase of $316,900 in 

local output, $66,100 in personal income, and 3.2 jobs 

as compared to alternative A. 

Visitors of all ages enjoy the refuges. 

Visitor Spending 

Spending associated with recreational visits to 

national wildlife refuges generates considerable 

economic activity. A visitor usually buys a wide 

range of goods and services while visiting an area. 

Major expenditure categories include lodging, 

restaurants, supplies, groceries, and recreational 

equipment rental. The recent Service report, 

“Banking on Nature: The Economic Benefits of 

National Wildlife Refuges Visitation to Local 

Communities,” estimated the impact of national 

wildlife refuges on their local economies (Caudill 

and Henderson 2003). According to the report, more 

than 35.5 million visits were made to national wildlife 

refuges in fiscal year 2002, which generated $809 

million of sales in regional economies. Spending by 

national wildlife visitors generated nearly 19,000 

USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jobs and more than $315 million in employment 

income (Caudill and Henderson 2003). 

In fiscal year 2002, hunting- and fishing-related 

visitors typically spent longer amounts of time at 

national wildlife refuges than nonconsumptive users, 

but nonconsumptive users generated approximately 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 121 

30% more economic activity because the numbers of 

nonconsumptive use of wildlife at many refuges far 

exceeded the number of hunters and anglers (Caudill 

and Henderson 2003). Table 12 summarizes estimated 

current refuge visitation (alternative A) by type of 

visitor activity. 

Table 12. Estimated annual refuge visitation for alternative A for the Souris River basin refuges, North 


Dakota. 

Visitor Activity 

Number 

of Visits 

Percentage (%) 

of Nonlocal 

Visits1 

Number 

of Nonlocal 

Visits 

Number 

of Hours Spent 

at the Refuge1 

Number 

of Nonlocal 

Visitor Days2 

Des Lacs NWR

 Nonconsumptive use 9,400 75 7,050 2.7 2,379 

 Fishing 0 0 0 0 0 

 Big game hunting 800 25 200 8.0 200 

 Waterfowl and 

 migratory bird 300 80 240 8.0 240 

 hunting 

 Upland game hunting 175 252 44 8.0 44 

 Total 10,675 — 7,534 — 2,863 

J. Clark Salyer NWR 

 Nonconsumptive use 10,030 75 7,523 4.8 4,514 

 Fishing 400 0 0 0 0 

 Big game hunting 2,000 65 1,300 8.0 1,300 

 Waterfowl and 

 migratory bird 1,800 97 1,746 8.0 1,746 

 hunting

 Upland game hunting 600 50 300 8.0 300

 Total 14,830 — 10,873 — 7,860 

Upper Souris NWR 

 Nonconsumptive use 12,462 16 1,994 3.3 822 

 Fishing 53,000 15 7,950 8.0 7,950 

 Big game hunting 2,200 21 462 8.0 462 

 Waterfowl and 

 migratory bird 0 0 0 0 0 

 hunting 

 Upland game hunting 50 34 17 8.0 17

 Total 67,712 — 11,489 — 9,256 

1

 Estimates were based on visitor survey results conducted by Sexton et al. (2005). 2

 One visitor day = 8 hours. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

122 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Results from USGS visitor surveys provided the 

average spending estimates for most visitor activities. 

The visitor survey asked respondents to report the 

amount spent in the categories of lodging, food and 

drink, transportation, and other expenses during 

their most recent visit to the refuge. Total nonlocal 

visitor spending per day by visitor activity for each 

refuge is reported in table 13. The average spending 

for upland game hunters was $129 per person per 

day, as reported in the “2001 National Survey of 

Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-associated 

Recreation” (U.S. Department of the Interior and 

U.S. Department of Commerce 2002). 

Current Visitation Levels (Alternative A) 

For each refuge, the resulting economic impacts 

associated with current visitation (alternative A) are 

shown in table 14. Nonlocal Des Lacs NWR visitor 

spending accounts for $156,000 in local output 

annually (2005$). This generates a total impact of 

$50,000 in personal income and 2.6 jobs annually in 

the Kenmare and Bowbells area (table 14). Nonlocal 

J. Clark Salyer NWR visitor spending accounts for 

$561,600 in local output annually, which generates a 

total impact of $144,900 in personal income and 9.9 

jobs annually in Bottineau and McHenry counties. 

Nonlocal Upper Souris NWR visitor spending 

accounts for approximately $1.16 million in local 

output annually, which generates a total impact of 

more than $317,500 in personal income and 16.7 jobs 

annually in Ward and Renville counties. 

Visitation Levels Associated with the 

Proposed Action (Alternative B) 

According to refuge personnel, under the proposed 

action (alternative B), the total number of refuge 

visits is anticipated to decrease at Des Lacs NWR, 

and increase at J. Clark Salyer NWR and at Upper 

Souris NWR. Table 15 shows the estimated annual 

number of visits by activity for each refuge and the 

conversion of nonlocal visits to visitor days. At Des 

Lacs NWR, visits related to hunting activities are 

anticipated to remain similar to alternative A while 

nonconsumptive activities are expected to decline 

by 900 visits annually because of an increased focus 

on habitat rather than visitor services under 

alternative B. At J. Clark Salyer NWR, all visitor 

activities are anticipated to increase as compared to 

alternative A, from 14,830 to 22,930 total annual 

visits (tables 12 and 15). At Upper Souris NWR, 

visits related to big game hunting are anticipated to 

remain similar to alternative A while all other visitor 

activities are expected to increase, from 67,712 to 

88,200 total annual visits (tables 12 and 15). 

Table 13. Average nonlocal visitor spending per person per day for the Souris River basin refuges, North 

Dakota. 

Visitor Activity Des Lacs NWR J. Clark Salyer NWR Upper Souris NWR 

Nonconsumptive use $35.89 $31.23 $94.42 

Fishing (not an activity) (no nonlocal visitors) $81.00 

Big game hunting $24.15 $24.15 $88.95 

Waterfowl and migratory bird $111.94 $111.94 (not an activity) hunting 

Upland game hunting $129.00 $129.00 $129.00 

Table 14. Annual local economic impacts of nonlocal visitor spending for alternative A for the Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota (2005$). 

Local Economic Des Lacs NWR 

J. Clark Salyer NWR 

(Bottineau and McHenry Upper Souris NWR 

Impact Area (Kenmare and Bowbells Area) Counties) (Ward and Renville Counties) 

Local Output ($/year) $156,000 $561,600 $1,160,000 

Income ($/year) $50,000 $144,900 $317,500 

Jobs 2.6 9.9 16.7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 123 

Table 15. Estimated annual refuge visitation for alternative B for the Souris River basin refuges, North 

Dakota. 

Percentage (%) Number Number Number 

Number of Nonlocal of Nonlocal of Hours Spent of Nonlocal 

Visitor Activity of Visits Visits1 Visits at the Refuge1 Visitor Days2 

Des Lacs NWR

 Nonconsumptive use 8,500 75 6,375 2.7 2,152 

 Fishing 0 0 0 0 0 

 Big game hunting 800 25 200 8.0 200 

 Waterfowl and 

 migratory bird 300 80 240 8.0 240 

 hunting

 Upland game hunting 175 25 44 8.0 44

 Total 9,775 — 6,859 — 2,635 

J. Clark Salyer NWR 

 Nonconsumptive use 16,130 75 12,098 4.8 7,259 

 Fishing 1,400 0 0 0 0 

 Big game hunting 2,500 65 1,625 8.0 1,625 

 Waterfowl and 

 migratory bird 2,050 97 1,989 8.0 1,989 

 hunting

 Upland game hunting 850 50 425 8.0 425

 Total 22,930 — 16,136 — 11,297 

Upper Souris NWR 

 Nonconsumptive use 21,850 16 3,496 3.3 1,442 

 Fishing 64,000 15 9,600 8.0 9,600 

 Big game hunting 2,200 21 462 8.0 462 

 Waterfowl and 

 migratory bird 0 0 0 0 0 

 hunting 

 Upland game hunting 150 34 51 8.0 51

 Total 88,200 — 13,609 — 11,555 

1

 Estimates were provided by refuge personnel.
 

2

 Estimates were based on visitor survey results conducted by Sexton et al. (2005). 
 3 One visitor day = 8 hours. 


The economic impacts associated with refuge annually (2005$). This would generate a total impact 

visitation for alternative B are presented in table 16. of $46,600 in personal income and 2.4 jobs annually 

The change in impacts between alternative A and in the Kenmare and Bowbells area (table 16). This 

alternative B are shown in table 17. Nonlocal Des represents a decrease of $10,300 in local output, 

Lacs NWR visitor spending under alternative B is $3,400 in personal income, and less than half of a job 

anticipated to account for $145,700 in local output as compared to alternative A (table 17). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

124 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 16. Annual local economic impacts of nonlocal visitor spending for alternative B for the Souris River 

basin refuges, North Dakota (2005$). 

J. Clark Salyer NWR 

Local Economic 	 Des Lacs NWR (Bottineau and McHenry Upper Souris NWR 

Impact Area (Kenmare and Bowbells Area) Counties) (Ward and Renville Counties) 

Local Output ($/year) $145,700 $749,900 $1,458,100 

Income ($/year) $46,600 $197,200 $399,100 

Jobs 2.4 13.2 21.0 

Table 17. Change in visitor-spending impacts between alternatives A and B for the Souris River basin 

refuges, North Dakota (2005$). 

J. Clark Salyer NWR 

Local Economic 	 Des Lacs NWR (Bottineau and McHenry Upper Souris NWR 

Impact Area (Kenmare and Bowbells Area) Counties) (Ward and Renville Counties) 

Local Output ($/year) -$10,300 +$188,300 +$298,100 

Income ($/year) -$3,400 +$52,300 +$81,600 

Jobs -0.2 +3.3 +4.3 

Nonlocal J. Clark Salyer NWR visitor spending under 

alternative B is expected to account for $749,900 in 

local output annually, which would generate a total 

impact of $197,200 in personal income and 13.2 jobs 

annually in Bottineau and McHenry counties. This 

represents an increase of $188,300 in local output, 

$52,300 in personal income, and 3.3 jobs as compared 

to alternative A (table 17). Nonlocal Upper Souris 

NWR visitor spending under alternative B is 

expected to account for $1.46 million in local output 

annually, which would generate a total impact of 

$399,100 in personal income and 21 jobs annually in 

Ward and Renville counties. This represents an 

increase of more than $298,100 in local output, $81,600 

in personal income, and 4.3 jobs as compared to 

alternative A (table 17). 

Summary and Conclusions 

Table 18 summarizes the total economic impacts for 

all refuge management activities at Des Lacs NWR 

for alternative A and for alternative B and the change 

in impacts between alternatives. All refuge activities 

would account for $607,700 in total output, $142,200 

in personal income, and 6.4 jobs in the Kenmare and 

Bowbells area (table 18). Current refuge management 

activities account for 0.44% of local employment and 

1.44% of local income. Alternative B would slightly 

decrease total employment by 0.2 of a job and total 

personal income by $3,400 because of anticipated 

decreases in refuge visitation. 

Table 19 summarizes the total economic impacts for 

all refuge management activities at J. Clark Salyer 

NWR for alternative A and for alternative B and the 

change in impacts between alternatives. All refuge 

activities would account for $1.51 million in total 

output, $256,100 in personal income, and 16.3 jobs in 

Bottineau and McHenry counties (table 19). Current 

refuge management activities account for 0.29% of 

local employment and 0.08% of local income. 

Alternative B would increase total employment by 

5.2 jobs and total personal income by $86,300 because 

of anticipated increases in refuge staffing, local 

nonsalary spending, and visitation. 

Table 20 summarizes the total economic impacts for all 

refuge management activities at Upper Souris NWR 

for alternative A and for alternative B and the change 

in impacts between alternatives. All refuge activities 

would account for $1.99 million in total output, 

$522,800 in personal income, and 25.6 jobs in Ward 

and Renville counties (table 20). Current refuge 

management activities account for 0.03% of local 

employment and 0.07% of local income. Alternative B 

would increase total employment by 8.7 jobs and 

total personal income by $179,700 because of 

anticipated increases in refuge staffing, local 

nonsalary spending, and visitation. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 125 

Table 18. Summary of the economic impacts of all refuge management activities for alternatives A and B 

for Des Lacs NWR (Kenmare and Bowbells area), North Dakota. 

 Alternative A Alternative B Difference 

Local Output ($/year) $607,700 $597,400 -$10,300 

Income ($/year) $142,200 $138,800 -$3,400 

Jobs 6.4 6.2 -0.2 

Percentage of total local 1.14% 1.13% -0.02% income 

Percentage of total local 0.44% 0.42% -0.01% employment 

Table 19. Summary of the economic impacts of all refuge management activities for alternatives A and B 

for J. Clark Salyer NWR (Bottineau and McHenry counties), North Dakota.

 Alternative A Alternative B Difference 

Local Output ($/year) $1,510,500 $1,980,000 +$469,500 

Income ($/year) $256,100 $342,400 +$86,300 

Jobs 16.3 21.5 +5.2 

Percentage of total local 0.08% 0.10% 0.02% income 

Percentage of total local 0.29% 0.35% 0.07% employment 

Table 20. Summary of the economic impacts of all refuge management activities for alternatives A and B 

for Upper Souris NWR (Ward and Renville counties), North Dakota. 

 Alternative A Alternative B Difference 

Local Output ($/year) $1,988,900 $2,695,000 $706,000 

Income ($/year) $522,800 $702,500 $179,700 

Jobs 25.6 34.3 8.7 

Percentage of total local 0.03% 0.04% 0.01% income 

Percentage of total local 0.07% 0.08% 0.01% employment 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 Implementation of the Proposed Action 
Dave Menke/USFWS 

Northern Pintail 

Once a management alternative has been selected 

and finalized, the CCP has been approved, and the 

Service has notified the public of its decision, the 

implementation phase of the CCP process begins. 

During the next 15 years, the objectives and 

strategies presented below would be realized. The 

final CCP will serve as the primary management 

document for the Souris River basin refuges until it 

is formally revised. The Service will carry out the 

final CCP with assistance from existing and new 

partner agencies and organizations, and the public. 

Although a number of needs were identified during 

the planning process, there are no assurances that 

projects identified in this draft 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. 

DETERMINATION OF THE 

PROPOSED ACTION (DRAFT CCPS) 

The planning team for the Souris River basin refuges 

developed four unique management alternatives 

based on the issues, concerns, and opportunities 

expressed during the scoping process (see chapter 1). 

The issues discussed throughout this EA and draft 

CCP were derived from the collective input of local 

citizens and communities, cooperating agencies, 

conservation organizations, and refuge staff. 

In identifying the alternative for proposed action, the 

team determined probable effects of each alternative 

on five program areas: (1) habitats and wildlife 

populations; (2) cultural resources; (3) visitor services; 

(4) research and science; and (5) refuge operations. 

Effects on habitats and wildlife populations received 

stronger consideration than effects projected for 

other program areas. Below is a brief discussion of 

the determination of the proposed action alternative, 

as well as the other three alternatives, in ranked 

order of desirability. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

128 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

1. Alternative B—Proposed Action, 

Draft CCP 

Alternative B is ranked first of four alternatives as 

the proposed action (draft CCP) for best addressing 

the vision and goals for the Souris River basin refuges. 

The proposed action is fully developed under “Draft 

CCP” for each refuge, later in this chapter. 

This alternative would emphasize restoration of 

ecological processes important in the evolution and 

maintenance of native plant communities and wildlife 

populations in the northern Great Plains. This 

ecological triage theme would require assessment of 

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, triage would require careful and deliberate 

consideration of management priorities (especially 

allocation of funding and staffing) relative to expected 

ecological resource benefits. The ecological triage 

theme would allow adjustments to management effort 

equal to changes in staff and funding. 

Cultural resources would be protected when found. 

Some visitor services would likely decrease as some 

staff and funding shift to habitat restoration, while 

others would remain at current levels. Research and 

science would support habitat restoration. 

2. Alternative D 

Alternative D ranked second of four alternatives as 

the proposed action. This alternative ranked below the 

proposed action, alternative B, because (1) many 

habitats would likely decline; and (2) required funding 

would not likely be available. 

This alternative would emphasize restoration of 

ecological processes important in the evolution and 

maintenance of native plant communities and wildlife 

populations in the northern Great Plains. Unlike 

alternative B, this alternative would require that all 

habitats be restored, regardless of biological, 

economic, or political feasibilities for restoration. 

Given current or modest increases in funding, many 

or all habitats would likely decline because limited 

resources would be too diluted to recover or restore 

any habitats. 

Cultural resource, interpretation, environmental 

education, and research and science programs would 

be expanded in support of ecological restoration. 

This alternative would require significant increases 

in staff and operational funding. Based on past and 

current budgets, such increases are unlikely. 

3. Alternative C 

Alternative C ranked third of four alternatives for 

desirability as the proposed action. This alternative 

ranked below the proposed action, alternative B, 

because (1) native plant communities and associated 

native wildlife other than waterfowl would be 

negatively affected; and (2) the variety of visitor 

services would be reduced. 

From 1965 to 1995, management at the Souris River 

basin refuges emphasized waterfowl production over 

other programs, giving the team a good basis for 

evaluating potential effects associated with 

alternative B. 

Past history suggests that management to maximize 

habitat use and nest survival for a narrow group of 

species, such as waterfowl, would have unforeseen 

negative consequences for plant and wildlife 

community ecology, health, and integrity. 

Past waterfowl management emphasized tall and 

dense vegetation structure, with little regard to longterm changes in native plant communities. This 

resulted in unintended expansions of introduced coolseason grasses (for example, smooth brome, Kentucky 

bluegrass, and reed canarygrass) and tall woody 

plants (for example, aspen and willow). Ironically, 

despite short-term (20 years) increases in waterfowl 

production, long-term (50 years) waterfowl production 

would be expected to decline as biological integrity 

of native plant communities declined. 

Cultural resources would be protected when found. 

Visitor services not oriented toward waterfowlrelated activities would be reduced. Research and 

science would be specific to waterfowl population 

and habitat management. 

4. Alternative A—Current Management 

Alternative A ranked last of four alternatives because 

management issues would not be adequately addressed. 

The CCP process offers an opportunity for the Souris 

River basin refuges to assess effects of past and 

current management. This timely and introspective 

analysis encouraged development, consideration, and 

selection of alternatives to current management that 

better address old and emerging management issues. 

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION 

The planning team developed objectives in support of 

goals identified in chapter 2 to carry out the proposed 

action (alternative B) for management of the Souris 

River basin refuges, North Dakota. Strategies to 

achieve objectives are suggested. Rationale is included 

that supports goals, objectives, and strategies. 

Assumptions are discussed. 
 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, Des Lacs NWR 129 

Biological goals and objectives emphasize 

management of plant communities as habitat for 

wildlife, especially migratory birds, and are organized 

by major habitat types represented at the three 

refuges. 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 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. 

Management practices such as grazing, haying, and 

farming are compatible with the mission of the 

Service as applied on the Souris River basin refuges 

(approved compatibility determinations are found in 

appendixes L–N). In addition, appendix O describes 

the fire management program for the refuges. 

Additional goals, objectives, and strategies are 

developed for visitor services, cultural resources, 

research and science, and refuge operations. 

Management direction to achieve the vision for the 

Souris River basin refuges is presented separately 

for each refuge: 

 Des Lacs NWR (pages 129–146) 

 J. Clark Salyer NWR (pages 146–168) 

 Upper Souris NWR (pages 168–189) 

Horned Lark 

Tim Bowman/USFWS 

DRAFT CCP—DES LACS NWR 

The following goals, objectives, and strategies for Des 

Lacs NWR outline the actions needed to achieve the 

vision of the Souris River basin 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. 

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 E) 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 bromedominated 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 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, that is, <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 herbaceous-dominated vegetation 

with Kentucky bluegrass as the main 

subdominant (plant group 53). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

130 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Floristic Potential. Vegetation is characterized 

by >20% mean frequency of smooth bromedominated types (plant groups 61 and 62). 

Landscape Context. The unit is neither 

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 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 of 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 G) in North 

America. 

This approach would shift investment to manage more 

intensively (than under current management) select 

units. This would improve the chances of restoring 

at least some 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 

would 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). 

 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 bromedominated 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, per 

Grant et al. 2004b). 

 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. 

 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 would 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 

(7–10) relatively small grazing cells (for example, 

40–60 acres) 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, Des Lacs NWR 131 

intensively, in concert with the high-priority 

drift prairie units they adjoin, to sustain a nativedominated 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 understory native 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. 

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 

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 on 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

132 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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, and 

to improve the attractiveness and security of the 

habitat for a variety of grassland breeding bird species. 

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. 

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 

Gary Kramer/USFWS 

Killdeer 

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 and 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 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 shrub 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, Des Lacs NWR 133 

(including off-refuge lands) to satisfy needs of 

several area-sensitive, native grassland bird species. 

This would also reduce predation and nest (brood) 

parasitism incidence 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). 

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. 

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. 

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 

—	 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 units 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. 

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. 

 Composition on the slope in each unit includes 

(1) >65% pristine, native herbaceous types 

(plant groups 41–43 and 46–48); (2) <10% smooth 

brome-dominated 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). 

 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. 

 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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

134 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 would 

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 (for example, 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 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 primarily distributed here. 

Thus, restoration management should primarily 

target these mesic areas of slopes. The management 

approach is somewhat similar to that on high-priority 

drift prairie units, but is more flexible and less 

frequent and intensive—disturb 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. 

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 

 distinct field edges, especially deep furrows 

and linear piles of wind-borne topsoil that had 

been deposited along preexisting fence lines 

and subsequently vegetated; 

 rock piles or rocks strewn linearly along what 

appears to be a field edge (although rock 

sometimes was cleared for native hay 

harvests); 

 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); 

 no partly buried rocks with profuse lichens; 

 no clubmoss or cryptogamic crust. 

—	 Use acquisition records, old refuge narratives, 


1938–1939 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 Ahorizon disturbance due to cultivation may be 

determined by NRCS staff. Some areas with signs 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, Des Lacs NWR 135 

of farming disturbance (for example, furrows) may vegetation on cool-season-dominated cover on the 

have been cropped only for a few years circa 1900– drift prairie by late May); 

1930 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 on the refuge that 

are considered native sod. 

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 

—	 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; 

—	 native grasses reduce local habitat fragmentation 

and eliminate “edge” associated with the farming 

cycle; 

—	 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; 

—	 there is improved opportunity for prescribed 

burning in late spring compared to high-priority 

drift prairie units because the warm-seasondominated cover has relatively high fuel value 

through early June (versus mostly green 

—	 there is a broader window (later in summer) for 

harvest of hay that still has forage value; 

—	 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); 

—	 native grasses reduce “source sites” from which 

introduced and weedy plants invade adjoining 

native prairie; native grasses have improved and 

longer-lasting structural diversity within stands. 

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 would 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 herbaceous-dominated vegetation 

with Kentucky bluegrass as the main 

subdominant (plant group 53). 

Floristic Potential. Vegetation is characterized 

by >20% mean frequency of smooth bromedominated 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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

136 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 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—that may have been reinvaded 

by native herbaceous plants. These areas may have 

restoration potential that at least equals that of 

adjoining, high-quality drift prairie or prairie slope. 

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. 

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 follow 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. 

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, Des Lacs NWR 137 

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 this 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 this criteria for identifying units with 

significant tree and tall shrub cover as coulee 

woodland edge units: The uppermost vegetation 

strata of a unit comprises 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 triage management approach. Coulee woodland 

at Des Lacs 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 forest-interior bird species, such 

as veery and ovenbird, without slowing widespread 

improvement in grassland bird habitat elsewhere at 

the refuge. 

Ovenbird 

 Maslowski/USFWS S.

In contrast, coulee woodland edge is a widespread 

habitat type that, in the absence of fire, would 

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 would 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 among 

grassland bird nests. 

Objective 2 

Minimally manage several green ash-dominated, 

contiguous coulee woodland that covers a total of 

about 800 acres and that presents the following 

characteristics within 15 years: 

 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). 

 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 data]). 

 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 any other, newly appearing 

species of noxious weed are detected and 

eliminated. 

Strategies 

—	 Except for active control of noxious weeds, rely 

mainly on passive management, that is, 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.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

138 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Leafy spurge occurs uncommonly in woodland 

(<3% frequency, 1996 data). 

—	 Within woodland, control common buckthorn by
 

combinations of mechanical (hand-cutting) and 


chemical means (via herbicides applied on stumps 


freshly exposed by cutting). Common buckthorn 


was fairly 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 veery and 


ovenbird, in addition to other undesirable impacts.
 

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 also 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
 © Cindie Brunner 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. 

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: 

 Tree and tall shrub cover are reduced by >50% 

(measured via remote imagery). 

 Plant litter is removed and herbaceous plant 

vigor and structural diversity are restored by 

management treatment applied every 5–6 years 

(these responses would be unmeasured and 

instead would be assumed to coincide with 

disturbance events). 

 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. 

 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 (0.1–2.0 acre) patches 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, would 

continue to fragment drift prairie and some 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, would 

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 among grassland bird nests. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, Des Lacs NWR 139 

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. 

Objective 1 

Manage meadows to present a mosaic of short– 

sparse 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 imbedded 

(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 (<40-acre), isolated, often long, 

narrow patches. 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, Baltic rush/saltgrass/sedge community, 

including several unique species of sedge; 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 would 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. 

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 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 compiling past and current 

data regarding 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 

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 

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. 

A biological assessment of wetland conditions for the 

Souris River basin refuges was completed recently 

by Laubhan and others (2003); this report provides 

a start in meeting this objective and those that follow. 

Unit 2 at Des Lacs NWR 

USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

140 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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, 

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. 

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 impacts 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.
 

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: 

—	 misunderstandings about the biological
 

significance of drought and of complete 


drawdown, dating back to the original 


construction of wetland impoundments; 


—	 limited knowledge of long-term impacts of lowhead dams on rivers in the northern Great 

Plains; 

—	 significant physical limitations of constructed 


impoundments, especially inability to
 

manipulate water levels of adjacent 


impoundments independently; 


—	 inherent difficulties in conducting basic 


inventory, long-term monitoring, or applied 


research in wetlands relative to upland sites.
 

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 wetland-dependent 

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 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, Des Lacs NWR 141 

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 (1) boost vegetation and 

invertebrate response during the regenerative 

phase and (2) to control robust emergent 

vegetation. Refer to appendices K, L, and M 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 

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 

would become more opportunistic. Periodic 

drawdowns would be emphasized, typically working 

in conjunction with wet-to-dry cycles to achieve 

management objectives. 

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. 

—	 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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

142 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

—	 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 would decline. This would 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 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. 

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. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Island management would 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. 

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 lateApril or May to discourage waterfowl nesting. 

Strategies 

—	 Allow islands to slowly deteriorate through 


erosion. 


—	 Level islands by bulldozing during drought or 


drawdown periods. 


Rationale and Assumptions 

Islands that consistently support low levels of 

waterfowl nest success detract from species 

population goals. 

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.
 

Raccoon 

Dave Menke/USFWS 

—	 Except for poisoning (currently not an approved 

strategy), the best mink control is attained by 

limiting winter muskrat populations that maintain 

survival of mink during winter months.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, Des Lacs NWR 143 

—	 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. 

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 

would 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 

would be complied with to prevent the destruction of 

known and unknown sites. 

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 

would enhance visitors’ appreciation and knowledge 

of the role of refuges to protect native habitats and 

wildlife. In addition, visitors would be taught to 

respect, value, and protect cultural resources. 

Creating replicas of cultural resource sites would 

convey the message that is learned from cultural 

resource sites without risking damage to actual sites. 

Replicas would 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. 

Hunting Objective 

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) would 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 would be allocated 

yearly to the refuge. The priority for these resources 

is to protect and manage upland and wetland habitats. 

Hunting programs would be allowed if resources 

needed to administer hunting would not materially 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

144 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 draft compatibility determination for recreational 

hunting is in appendix P. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Objective 

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. 


Scenic Byway at Des Lacs NWR 

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 wildlife-dependent 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 would provide a greater diversity of 

wildlife available for observing and photographing. 

The draft compatibility determination for wildlife 

observation and wildlife photography is in appendix Q. USFWS 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Objective 

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 percent 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 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 would be continued, 

but less frequently, and would rely on volunteers 

and other groups to contribute more time. 

The draft compatibility determination for 

environmental education and interpretation is in 

appendix Q. 

Non-wildlife-dependent Public Use Objective 

Objectives and strategies would not be developed 

for non-wildlife-dependent public use activities. 

Examples of these activities are canoeing, boating, 

berry picking, horseback riding, walking, hiking, 

bicycling, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, fourwheeling, swimming, water skiing, sailing, and 

snowmobiling. 

These types of activities may be compatible when 

associated with wildlife-dependent public use. For
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, Des Lacs NWR 145 

example, berry picking along a trail might be allowed 

as a compatible activity incidental to the wildlifedependent public use of wildlife observation. 

Compatibility of activities would be determined on 

an individual basis by the refuge manager as needed 

in the future. 

Refuge staff measure vegetation. 

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. 

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. 


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. 

Objective 1 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, hire three 

additional personnel to restore native prairie habitat 

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 would be achieved. 

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.
 

 

 

 

 

146 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

—	 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 would be 

targeted to work on the 

highest priority habitats 

and habitat units at the 

refuge. Management 

intensity would be 

increased on those 

habitats and units and 

would require 

additional personnel 

and funding to restore 

native prairie. 

 Blue-eyed Grass

 © Cindie Brunner 

DRAFT CCP—J. CLARK SALYER NWR 

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. 

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 would be managed in conjunction with 

the refuge’s drift prairie, through application of the 

below drift prairie objectives. 

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 of 

pristine, native herbaceous types (plant 

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

see appendix E), 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 bromedominated 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, that is, <40 acres). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, J. Clark Salyer NWR 147 

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 herbaceous-dominated vegetation 

with Kentucky bluegrass as the main 

subdominant (plant group 53). 

Floristic Potential. Vegetation is characterized 

by >30% mean frequency of smooth bromedominated 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 highpriority 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 management 

units of J. Clark Salyer 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 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 G) in North 

America. 

A major assumption is that, under current 

management, native herbaceous flora would continue 

to decline and disappear on drift prairie units. This 

approach would improve the chances that some drift 

prairie would be restored. 

Highbush Cranberry 

Objective 2 

On high-priority drift prairie units, apply frequent 

and precisely timed disturbance (principally fire and 

grazing) to restore vegetation to the following 

standards within 15 years of CCP approval. This 

would 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). 

 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 bromedominated 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, per 

Grant et al. 2004b). 

 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. 

 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; then R=rest), 

then reinitiate the sequence. The area covered 

Gary Eslinger/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

148 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

by trees, tall shrubs, and low shrubs would 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 grazing cells (for example, 

40–60 acres) 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 nativedominated 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 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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, J. Clark Salyer NWR 149 

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 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 on 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 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 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: woodland Å tall 

shrubland Å leafy spurge Å smooth brome Å low 

shrub Å Kentucky bluegrass Å native 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. 

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. 

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 Short-eared Owl predict habitat conditions © Cindie Brunner 

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 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 and when 

doing so will not detract from management of 

high-priority 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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

150 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

—	 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 shrub can be managed to provide a 

mix of postdisturbance structural types attractive 

to a broad array of 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 

would also reduce predation and nest (brood) 

parasitism incidence 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). 

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. Conserving 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. 

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 shrubland). 

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 shrubland); many tracts may 

be medium to large (40–600 acres) grasslands 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, J. Clark Salyer NWR 151 

vegetation with Kentucky bluegrass as main 

subdominant (plant group 53). 

Degree of connectivity to treeless grassland. 

By default, moderate-priority 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 aspen–oak woodland 

and chokecherry shrubland). 

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, and 

(2) woody plants are detrimental to grassland birds 

as an ecological group, and (3) intact native-dominated 

plant communities are more likely to be restored 

than units invaded by woody and introduced plants. 

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, chestnut-collared 

longspur, western meadowlark, and upland sandpiper. 

 Aspen woodland on a unit has <10% coverage 

by 15 years after CCP approval. 

 Vegetation composition is >40% pristine native 

and native-dominated/bluegrass subdominant 

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

2004b]). 

Western Meadowlark 

 John and Karen Hollingsworth/USFWS 

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 midto 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 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 coolseason plants, especially Kentucky bluegrass and 

leafy spurge, compromise integrity of native prairie. 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

152 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 growing 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 

woodland Å early successional woodland/tall 

shrubland Å leafy spurge Å smooth brome Å low 

shrub Å Kentucky bluegrass Å native herbaceous 

vegetation. With management, less desirable plant 

species are replaced by more desirable plants. 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. 

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 grassland– 

woodland edges. These grasslands attract Sprague’s 

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

sparrow. Additionally, restore prairies to the following 

standards. 

 Plant composition includes >50% pristine native 

and native dominant/bluegrass subdominant 

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

[Grant et al. 2004a]). 

 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 objective 2. 

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) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, J. Clark Salyer NWR 153 

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 lowpriority units, woodland patches will continue to 

expand, further displacing small, scattered prairies. 

Aspen woodland is an early successional forest type 

maintained by periodic disturbance, usually fire. 

Large woodlands provide important habitat for areasensitive, 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. 

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 

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 (for example, 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. 

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 shrubland). 

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, 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. 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

154 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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. 

Aspen in the 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 imbedded 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 aspen–oak 

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-and-white warbler, 

orange-crowned warbler, pocket gopher, and 

American badger. 

Gary Eslinger/USFWS 

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 

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, limiting 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. 

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 

 distinct field edges, especially deep furrows 

and linear piles of wind-borne topsoil that had 

been deposited along preexisting fence lines 

and subsequently vegetated; 

 rock piles or rocks strewn linearly along what 

appears to be a field edge (although rock 

sometimes was cleared for native hay 

harvests); 

 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); 

 no partly buried rocks with profuse lichens; 

 no clubmoss or cryptogamic crust. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, J. Clark Salyer NWR 155 

—	 Use acquisition records, old refuge narratives, 


1938–1939 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 Ahorizon 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– 

1930 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 on the refuge that 

are considered native sod. 

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 

—	 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; 

—	 native grasses reduce local habitat fragmentation 

and eliminate “edge” associated with the farming 

cycle; 

—	 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; 

—	 there is improved opportunity for prescribed 

burning in late spring compared to high-priority 

drift prairie units because the warm-seasondominated 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); 

—	 there is a broader window (later in summer) for 

harvest of hay that still has forage value; 

—	 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); 

—	 native grasses reduce “source sites” from which 

introduced and weedy plants invade adjoining 

native prairie; 

—	 native grasses have improved and longer-lasting
 

structural diversity within stands.
 

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 would be managed with adjoining 

habitats. 

Spiderwort in a Hay Meadow 

Gary Eslinger/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

156 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 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 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. 

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 islands of introduced grasses and forbs are 

most typically degraded—mainly by affording 

broader and more effectively timed management 

opportunities. 

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 follow by broadly applied 

herbicide, rotary mowing, and/or prescribed 

burning of resprouting vegetation wherever 

necessary. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, J. Clark Salyer NWR 157 

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. 

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: 

 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). 

 Native trees and tall shrubs compose <0.2% 


land cover on each old cropland area. 


 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 avenues for sustainably converting these 

areas to more desirable stands of native herbaceous 

vegetation. There are, however, 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 would 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, wind-borne 

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 that would 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. 

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

158 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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. 

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 shrubland, which may succeed 

to ash–elm woodland, thereby expanding riparian 

woodland cover. 

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. 

Black-crowned Night-heron 

 Lee Karney/USFWS 

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. 

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 

shrubland). 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, a highpriority 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 shrubland). 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, 

a high-priority prairie parkland unit, or native 

prairie grassland. 

NOTE: The remainder low-priority meadows 

occur when willow and aspen have mostly 

replaced herbaceous plants; these units have 

little restoration potential. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, J. Clark Salyer NWR 159 

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 native-dominated 

plant communities are more likely to be restored than 

meadows invaded by woody and introduced plant 

species. 

Objective 2 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, restore vegetation 

to the following standards on high-priority meadows, 

mainly as habitat for grassland- and wetlanddependent bird species. Meadow units include 

 <10% cover of woody vegetation taller than
 

3 feet; 


 >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 to control isolated 

patches of Canada thistle and reed canarygrass. 

(such as chemical, biological, and “interseeding” 

methods). 

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 on 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. Proposed 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 woodland Å willow 

shrubland Å leafy spurge or Canada thistle Å reed 

canarygrass Å smooth brome or quackgrass Å low 

shrubs Å native herbaceous vegetation. With 

management, less desirable plant species are replaced 

by more desirable plants. For example, it is 

acceptable in the short term to increase quackgrass 

cover in areas where willow shrubland has been 

reduced. Conversely, it is undesirable to replace 

quackgrass with leafy spurge. 

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 moderatepriority 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. 

 

 

 

 

160 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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. 

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 

shrubland to provide structural diversity in willow 

shrubland. 

Strategies 

—	 Under certain circumstances, fire or mechanical 

treatments may be used to rejuvenate willows 

in low-priority meadows adjacent to moderateor 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 widescale releases to control leafy spurge. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Large patches of shrubland–woodland have 

irreparably replaced grass–sedge–rush communities 

such that restoration of these meadows is unlikely. 

Willow shrubland 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. 

Yellow Warbler 

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. 

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 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. 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, J. Clark Salyer NWR 161 

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 wetlanddependent 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. 

A biological assessment of wetland conditions for 

the Souris River basin refuges was completed 

recently by Laubhan and others (2003); this report 

provides a basic start in meeting this objective and 

those that follow. 

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, 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. 

—	 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. 

 Pool 320 at J. Clark Salyer NWR 

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” 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. 

USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

162 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Relative to upland habitats, managers have less 

effective control over wetland systems, due in part 

to the following: 

—	 misunderstandings about the biological 

significance of drought and complete drawdown, 

dating back to the original construction of 

wetland impoundments; 

—	 significant physical limitations of constructed 


impoundments, especially the lack of 


independence among adjacent wetland units 


when manipulating water levels; 


—	 inherent difficulties in conducting basic 


inventory, long-term monitoring, or applied 


research in wetlands relative to upland sites.
 

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 “hemi-marsh” 

conditions. 

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) hemimarsh, (4) open marsh (degenerative phase), and 

(5) 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 

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 

(1) during extended or extreme drought, or 

(2) during the regenerative marsh phase 

following drawdown of priority 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 sheepfoot packer), and defoliation (haying or grazing) 

to (1) increase vegetation and invertebrate 

response during the regenerative phase, and 

(2) 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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, J. Clark Salyer NWR 163 

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 

management capability has already been 

reduced, explore the feasibility of dredging to 

reduce accumulated sediment in certain 

impoundments. 

(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 dense-vegetated 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 would 

become more opportunistic, often working in 

conjunction with wet and dry cycles to achieve 

management objectives. 

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. 

—	 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 

—	 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 would decline. This 

would 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 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. 

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 (1992–1994) 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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

164 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Island management would 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. 

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) herbicide 

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. 


—	 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 lateApril or May to discourage waterfowl nesting. 

Mink 

© Cindie Brunner 

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. 

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 

would 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 

would be complied with to prevent the destruction 

of known and unknown sites. 

Objective 2 

Within 10 years of CCP approval, promote 

interpretation and protection of cultural resources 

and their importance to refuge wildlife and habitat 

resources. 
 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, J. Clark Salyer NWR 165 

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, would 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 

would allow visitors to understand the importance 

of habitat management and restoration. The Steven’s 

Ranch would 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. 

Hunting White-tailed Deer at J. Clark Salyer NWR 

Hunting Objective 

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. 

USFWS 

Strategies 

—	 Annually determine whether resources (funding 

and staff) would 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. 


—	 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 would be allowed if resources 

needed to administer hunting would 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 draft compatibility determination for 

recreational hunting is in appendix P. 

Fishing Objective 

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) would be available to provide fishing 

opportunities at the current level. 

—	 Provide anglers with disabilities with the current 

level of fishing opportunities 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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

166 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

—	 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 would 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 would not be expanded. However, 

partnerships with local sporting groups and outdoor 

clubs could be used to enhance access for shore 

anglers. 

The draft compatibility determination for 

recreational fishing is in appendix R. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Objective 

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 ample opportunities to see a wide 

diversity of waterbirds swimming or flying overhead. 

The Scenic and Grassland trails, grouse-dancing 

photo blinds, and viewing platforms near refuge 

headquarters are the only facilities developed for 

wildlife observation and photography. Wildlife 

observation and photography goes hand-in-hand 

with interpretation and environmental education 

programs. Although the Service does not plan to 

expand these facilities, a greater diversity of 

wildlife would be available for watching and 

photographing as the habitat improves. 

The draft compatibility determination for wildlife 

observation and wildlife photography is in appendix Q. 

Sunset at the Redhead Unit 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 

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 percent 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.
 

Gary Eslinger/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, J. Clark Salyer NWR 167 

—	 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 would create more 

environmental education opportunities for visitors 

to learn, appreciate, and support management efforts. 

The draft compatibility determination for 

environmental education and interpretation is in 

appendix Q. 

Non-wildlife-dependent Public Use 

Objectives and strategies would not be developed 

for non-wildlife-dependent public use activities. 

Examples of these activities are canoeing, boating, 

berry picking, horseback riding, walking, hiking, 

bicycling, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, fourwheeling, 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 would 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. 

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 

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. 

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

168 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

—	 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 would be achieved. 

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 would be targeted 

to work on the highest priority habitats and habitat 

units at the refuge. Management intensity would be 

increased on those habitats and units and would 

require additional personnel and funding to restore 

native prairie. 

DRAFT CCP—UPPER SOURIS NWR 

The following goals, objectives, and strategies for 

Upper Souris NWR outline the actions needed to 

achieve the vision of the Souris River basin refuges. 

Upper Souris NWR 

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: For Upper Souris NWR, drift prairie and 

prairie slope habitats would be managed concurrently, 

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 would also 

include adjoining prairie slope habitat. 

Objective 1 

By 1 year after CCP approval, delineate management 

units on uplands. 

Strategies 

—	 Divide refuge uplands into landscape units 


based on
 

 borders of native-sod prairie wherever clearly 

evident;

 USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, Upper Souris NWR 169 

 management history (for example, the area 

that consistently encompasses a general 

grazing rotation or a prescribed burn); 

 obvious boundaries such as permanent fence 

lines;anticipated future management actions. 

—	 Assign a logical sequence of identifiers for units 

(for example, sequential numbering, 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-theground experience on the refuge and who are familiar 

with its management history. 

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. 

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 E), 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 bromedominated 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 herbaceous-dominated vegetation 

with Kentucky bluegrass as the main 

subdominant (plant group 53). 

Floristic potential. Vegetation is characterized 

by >20% mean frequency of smooth bromedominated 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 high-priority, 

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 considered 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 (figure 9). 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 

—	 drift prairie is relatively limited in area yet not 

significantly invaded by smooth brome; 

—	 Kentucky bluegrass is prevalent on both drift 

prairie and prairie slope; management to reduce 

this introduced grass and increase native 

herbaceous vegetation would logically target 

both site types simultaneously where both occur 

within a management unit. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

170 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Objective 3 

On high-priority units of prairie slope or high-priority 

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. 

 Mean frequency composition on each unit 

includes (1) >40% pristine-native and nativedominated/bluegrass subdominant vegetation 

(plant groups 41–43, 46–48, and 53); (2) <10% 

smooth brome-dominated vegetation (plant 

groups 54, 61, and 62); and (3) <15% low shrubdominated vegetation (plant groups 11–17) 

(based on percentage frequency of occurrence 

on belt transects, per Grant et al. 2004b). 

 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. 

 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; then R=rest), 

then reinitiate the sequence. The area covered 

by trees, tall shrubs, and low shrubs would 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 grazing cells (for 

example, 40–60 acres) 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 

redistributing 

beetles among leafy 

spurge patches as 

needed. Use 

herbicides as needed 

along boundaries 

with private lands. 

—	 Establish native vegetation dominated by warmseason 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 low-


priority prairie units, with new or high-risk 


restoration methods that may have application 


for restoration of old cropland within high-


priority 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. 

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, 

however, 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 

Deb Parker/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, Upper Souris NWR 171 

to focus on reduction of Kentucky bluegrass while 

keeping smooth brome in check. This is a challenging 

task, however, as a reduction of one of these grass 

species often is accompanied by 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 would 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 would 

be increased area in early successional stages. 

Trees and tall shrubs increased significantly in area 

at the refuge during the past century (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. 

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. 

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, 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 would 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 

postdisturbance (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 one-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 weeds that pose a threat to 

the drift prairie are eliminated within 5 years 

of initial detection. 

Mallard Hen 

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. 

Donna Dewhurst/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

172 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

—	 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 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 

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). 

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. 

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 

 distinct field edges, especially deep furrows 

and linear piles of windborne topsoil that had 

been deposited along preexisting fence lines 

and subsequently vegetated; 

 rock piles or rocks strewn linearly along what 

appears to be a field edge (although rock 

sometimes was cleared for native hay harvests); 

 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); 

 no partly buried rocks with profuse lichens; 

 no clubmoss or cryptogamic crust. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, Upper Souris NWR 173 

—	 Use acquisition records, old refuge narratives, 


1938–1939 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. Evidence of soil Ahorizon 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– 

1930 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 on the refuge that 

are considered native sod. 

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 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 

—	 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; 

—	 native grasses reduce local habitat fragmentation 

and eliminate “edge” associated with the farming 

cycle; 

—	 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; 

—	 there is improved opportunity for prescribed 

burning in late spring compared to high-priority 

drift prairie units because the warm-seasondominated 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); 

—	 there is a broader window (later in summer) for 

harvest of hay that still has forage value; 

—	 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); 

—	 native grasses reduce “source sites” from which 

introduced and weedy plants invade adjoining 

native prairie; 

—	 native grasses have improved and longer-lasting
 

structural diversity within stands.
 

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. 

Rainbow over Upper Souris NWR 

Darla Leslie/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

174 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

NOTE: There are no goals and objectives for 

remaining old cropland areas in uplands. They are 

low priority and would 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 herbaceous-dominated vegetation 

with Kentucky bluegrass as the main 

subdominant (plant group 53). 

Floristic Potential. Vegetation is characterized 

by >20% mean frequency of smooth bromedominated 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 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 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, highquality drift prairie or prairie slope. 

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 warmseason-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, springgrazing window afforded by the warm-seasondominated community. 

—	 Integrate management with that of surrounding 

prairie slope and drift prairie while focusing on 

treatment approaches that promote native warmseason 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 (which typically 

degrades seeded introduced stands), mainly by 

affording broader and more effectively timed 

management opportunities. 

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 

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 follow by herbicide 


treatment, rotary mowing, and/or prescribed 


burning of resprouting vegetation wherever 


necessary.
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, Upper Souris NWR 175 

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. 

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. 

 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). 

 Native trees and tall shrubs compose <0.2% 


land cover on each old cropland area. 


 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 

avenues for sustainably converting these areas to 

more desirable stands of native herbaceous 

vegetation. There are, however, 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 

In addition to removing litter, periodic prescribed 

fire would 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, wind-borne 

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 that would 

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). 

Maslowski/USFWS S.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

176 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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. 

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 this 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 this criteria for identifying units with 

significant tree and tall shrub cover as coulee 

woodland edge units: The uppermost vegetation 

strata of a unit comprises 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 triage 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, would 

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 would 

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 among grassland bird nests. 

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 would provide critical 

insight on the status of American elm recruitment 

and the occurrence of noxious weed species. These 

data would provide a base for quantifying habitat 

relationships of bird species that breed in the refuge’s 

woodland. 

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 

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 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, would threaten habitat values for forest­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, Upper Souris NWR 177 

interior bird species such as veery and ovenbird, 

in addition to 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 on 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 on the refuge. 

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: 

 Tree and tall shrub cover are reduced by
 

>50% (measured via remote imagery). 


 Plant litter is removed and herbaceous plant 

vigor and structural diversity are restored by 

management treatment applied every 5–6 

years (these responses would be unmeasured 

and instead would be assumed to coincide with 

disturbance events). 

 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 would 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. 

 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, 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 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 would 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. 

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

178 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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. 

Great Blue Heron 

Lee Karney/USFWS 

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 

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

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 widescale releases to control leafy spurge. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

Meadow is a transitional habitat on 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 
 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, Upper Souris NWR 179 

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. 

Waterfowl congregate at an Upper Souris NWR 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 within each impoundment
 

that are expected to respond to management. 


—	 Develop and prioritize a list of knowledge gaps 

and research needs. 

USFWS 

—	 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 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 Upper Souris NWR, site-specific 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 managing 

riverine marshes at the Souris River basin refuges, 

primarily because three impoundments include flowthrough 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. A 

biological assessment of wetland conditions for the 

Souris River basin refuges was completed recently 

by Laubhan and others (2003); this report provides 

a basic 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 all 

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. 

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, 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 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

180 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 

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 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, 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: 

—	 misunderstandings about the biological
 

significance of drought and of complete 


drawdown, dating back to the original 


construction of wetland impoundments; 


—	 limited understanding of long-term impacts of 


low-head dams constructed in rivers in the 


northern Great Plains; 


—	 significant physical limitations of constructed 


impoundments, especially the lack of 


independence among adjacent wetland units 


when manipulating water levels; 


—	 inherent difficulties in conducting basic 


inventory, long-term monitoring, or applied 


research in wetlands relative to upland sites.
 

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 “hemi-marsh” 

conditions. 

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) hemimarsh, (4) open marsh (degenerative phase), and 

(5) 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, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, Upper Souris NWR 181 

(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 sheepfoot packer), and defoliation (haying or grazing) 

to (1) increase vegetation and invertebrate 

response during the regenerative phase, and 

(2) 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 

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 would 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: 

(1) during extended or extreme drought, or 

(2) 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, 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 would 

become more opportunistic, often working in 

conjunction with periodic wet-to-dry cycles to achieve 

management objectives. 

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.
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

182 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

—	 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 would decline. This 

would 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 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 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. 

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. 

Lake Darling from the Fire Lookout Tower 

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 on the Souris River 

in Saskatchewan and Lake Darling. 

Darla Leslie/USFWS 

—	 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 1,596.0 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 cfs, measured at Minot, 

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% (1 in 10 years) event and water 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, Upper Souris NWR 183 

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. 

Rationale and Assumptions 

This objectives 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, the Saskatchewan Water 

Corporation (now the Saskatchewan Watershed 

Authority), the Service, and the 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. During some years, 

however, 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 would, 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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

184 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 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. 

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 would 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. 

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 lateApril or May to discourage waterfowl nesting. 

Muskrat 

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 

located in shallowly flooded pools, are spaced close 

together, are located close to shore, or are surrounded 

by emergent vegetation. 

Dave Menke/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, Upper Souris NWR 185 

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. 

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 

would 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 

would be complied with to prevent the destruction 

of known and unknown sites. 

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 

would enhance visitors’ appreciation and knowledge 

of the role of refuges to protect native habitats and 

wildlife. In addition, visitors would 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. 

Hunting Objective 

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) would 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 providing 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,” 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

186 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

(Sexton et al. 2005). However, there are limited 

resources (funding and staff) that would be allocated 

yearly to the refuge. The priority for these resources 

is to manage upland and wetland habitat. Hunting 

programs would be allowed if resources needed to 

administer hunting would 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 draft compatibility determination for 

recreational hunting is in appendix P. 

Fishing Objective 

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) would be available and make 

adjustments as needed. 

—	 Provide anglers with disabilities and elderly 

anglers with at least the current level of fishing 

opportunities and explore ways to expand access. 

—	 Discuss enhancement of fishing opportunities 


with the NDGF. 


—	 Continue providing 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. 

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). 

Fishing is popular on the refuge.

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 would be allowed if resources 

needed to administer them do not materially detract 

from habitat management. Program expenses include 

(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 updating. 

The Service does not intend (1) to add additional 

areas for boat or shore fishing, or (2) 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 draft compatibility determination for 

recreational fishing is in appendix R. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Objective 

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. 


USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, Upper Souris NWR 187 

—	 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 wildlife 

photography to be important activities. Wildlife 

observation was ranked the third-largest use by 

visitors, 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. Forty-nine to 

sixty percent of consumptive users rated viewing 

waterbirds and other wildlife as important. Sixtyeight percent of nonconsumptive users rated wildlife 

photography important and approximately 76–93% 

of nonconsumptive users rated wildlife observation 

as important (viewing songbirds, waterbirds, and 

other wildlife) (Sexton et al. 2005). 

The Prairie–Marsh Scenic Drive, nature trails, and 

grouse-dancing photo blinds 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 would be available for 

watching and photographing as the habitat improves. 

Entry Point to the Prairie–Marsh Scenic Drive 

The draft compatibility determination for wildlife 

observation and wildlife photography is in appendix Q. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 

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 percent of visitors per year. 

Emphasize learning about natural plant and animal 

communities, ecological processes, refuge 

management, and restoration of upland and wetlands. Deb Parker/USFWS 

Strategies 

—	 Build a learning center and hire an environmental 

education coordinator that would provide 

programs on and off the refuge to diverse citizens 

of all ages. 

—	 Build an interactive education and interpretive 

website. 

—	 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. 


—	 Educate students and families of a transient Air 

Force workforce so they can advocate protecting 

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/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.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

188 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Refuge visitor survey results (Sexton et al. 2005) 

indicate the following: 

—	 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; 

—	 environmental education programs, interpretive 

exhibits, and interpretive trails are important to 

46–75% of visitors drawn to the refuge for 

nonconsumptive activities; 

—	 56% of visitors surveyed stated that special
 

events (environmental education, open houses, 


Migratory Bird Day) at the refuge are
 

important to their decision to visit the refuge; 


—	 33% of respondents indicated that having more 


education and interpretive programs would 


maximize their experience while visiting the 


refuge; 


—	 76% of nonconsumptive users stated they would 

like to see more hiking/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 would likely be more ability to 

create increased environmental education 

opportunities for visitors to learn about, appreciate, 

and become supporters of refuge management efforts. 

The draft compatibility determination for 

environmental education and interpretation is in 

appendix Q. 

Non-wildlife-dependent Public Use 

Objectives and strategies would not be developed 

for non-wildlife-dependent public use activities. 

Examples of these activities are canoeing, boating, 

berry picking, horseback riding, walking, hiking, 

bicycling, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, fourwheeling, 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 would 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. 

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. 

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action, Upper Souris NWR 189 

Strategies 

—	 Hire a public use specialist with 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 would be achieved. 

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, 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 would be targeted 

to work on the highest priority habitats and habitat 

units at the refuge. Management intensity would be 

increased on those habitats and units and would 

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 21–23 present stepdown management plans for each refuge that are 

anticipated to be needed, along with their current 

status and next revision date. 

PERSONNEL 

Currently, the Des Lacs NWR has a staff of 13 fulltime employees. Two employees are directly 

assigned to Des Lacs NWR, and the remaining 11 

employees work in the Des Lacs NWR Complex 

with duties at Des Lacs NWR in addition to duties 

at three other stations in the refuge complex. Table 24 

lists these positions along with six new positions 

(three specifically assigned to Des Lacs NWR) that 

are needed for full implementation of the CCP. 

Currently, the J. Clark Salyer NWR Complex has a 

staff of 16 full-time employees to manage the refuge, 

seven easement refuges, and the J. Clark Salyer WMD. 

Table 25 lists these positions along with six new 

positions that are needed for full implementation of 

the CCP (those positions needed only for the refuge). 

Currently, the Upper Souris NWR has a staff of 

seven full-time employees. Table 26 lists these 

positions along with four new positions that are 

needed for full implementation of the CCP. 
 

 

190 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 21. Step-down management plans for Des Table 22. Step-down management plans for J.
 

Lacs NWR, North Dakota. Clark Salyer NWR, North Dakota.
 

New or New or 

Step-down Completed Revised Plan, Step-down Completed Revised Plan, 

Management Plan, Year Completion Management Plan, Year Completion 

Plan Approved Year Plan Approved Year 

Fire management Cropland 2003 2007 1997 2008 plan management plan 

Habitat Development 1985 — 2010 management plan plan (obsolete) 2009 

Habitat Duck viral 1973 

management plan 2006 2007 enteritis 2012 (obsolete) (annual) contingency plan 

Fire management 2001 Hunting plan 1993 2010 2006 plan 

Habitat Integrated pest 2005 2010 management plan 2006 2006 management plan (annual) 

Law enforcement Hunting and — 2010 1986 1993 plan fishing plan 

Predator Integrated pest 1985 2010 2005 2010 management plan management plan 

Law enforcement Safety plan 1995 2007 — 2011 plan 

Visitor service Predator 1990 2010 1985 2012 plan management plan 

Water 2006 2007 Safety plan 1998 2008 management plan 

Trapping plan 1968 2010 

Visitor service — 2014 plan 

Water 

management plan 2006 

(annual) 

2006 
 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action 191 

Table 23. Step-down management plans for 

Upper Souris NWR, North Dakota. 

Step-down 

Management 

Plan 

Fire management 

plan 

Completed 

Plan, Year 

Approved 

1999 

New or 

Revised Plan, 

Completion 

Year 

2007 

Grassland 

management plan 1995 2008* 

Habitat work 

plan (annual) 2006 2007 

Hunting plan 1993 2009 

Integrated pest 

management plan 2000 2006 

Law enforcement 

plan — 2006 

Predator 

management plan 1985 2006 

Safety plan 2005 2006 

Sign plan 1986 2012** 

Visitor service 

plan — 2006 

Water 

management plan 

(annual) 

Water 

management plan 

(long-range) 

2006 

1968 

2007 

2010*

 * Year dependent on hiring a biologist. 

** Year dependent on hiring a public use specialist. 
192 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Table 24. Current and proposed staff for Des Lacs NWR, North Dakota. 

Current Positions Additional Proposed Positions GS=General Schedule Position (Unfunded Staffing) WG=Wage Grade Position 

Management Staff Refuge project leader, GS-14* 

Deputy project leader, GS-13* 

Refuge operations specialist, GS-11 

Resource specialist, GS-11* 

Biological Staff Wildlife biologist, GS-12* Wildlife biologist, GS-11 

Biological science technician, GS-7* 

Visitor Service Staff None None 

Administrative Staff Administrative officer, GS-9* 

Administrative support assistant, GS-5* No additional positions 

Maintenance Staff Engineering equipment operator, WG-10 

Maintenance worker, WG-8 Tractor operator, WG-7 

Fire Management 

Staff 

Fire management officer, GS-11* 

Supervisory range technician, GS-7* 

Prescribed fire specialist, GS-7* 

Range technician, GS-6* 

Range technician, GS-5* 

Dispatcher, GS-6* 

No additional positions 

Law Enforcement 

Staff None Park ranger, GS-9* 

* This position supports the refuge but is assigned to the Des Lacs NWR Complex, working at all four stations. 

Table 25. Current and proposed staff for J. Clark Salyer NWR, North Dakota. 

Current Positions Additional Proposed Positions GS=General Schedule Position (Unfunded Staffing) WG=Wage Grade Position 

Refuge complex project leader, GS-14
 

Deputy project leader, GS-13 
 Refuge operations specialist, GS-9/11 Management Staff 	 Supervisory refuge operations specialist, Refuge operations specialist, GS-9/11 GS-12* 


Refuge operations specialist, GS-5/7/9
 

Refuge complex biologist, GS-12 Wildlife biologist, GS-11 Biological Staff Private lands biologist, GS-11* Resource specialist, GS-11 

Visitor Service Staff None 	 Law enforcement officer, GS-9 

Administrative officer, GS-9 Administrative Staff 	 Clerk, GS-5 Administrative support assistant, GS-6 

Auto mechanic, WG-10 

Engineering equipment operator, WG-8 Maintenance Staff 	 No additional positions Engineering equipment operator, WG-8* 

Biological science technician, GS-8* 

Fire management officer, GS-11 

Fire Management Prescribed fire specialist, GS-9 No additional positions Staff 	 Fire program technician, GS-7 

Range technician, GS-5 

Law Enforcement None 	None Staff 

* This position supports the refuge, but primary duties are within the wetland management district. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action 193 

Table 26. Current and proposed staff for Upper Souris NWR, North Dakota. 

Current Positions Additional Proposed Positions GS=General Schedule Position (Unfunded Staffing) WG=Wage Grade Position 

Management Staff Refuge project leader, GS-13 

Deputy project leader, GS-12 No additional positions 

Biological Staff Wildlife biologist, GS-11* Biological science technician, GS-9 

(permanent career-seasonal, 0.5 FTE) 

Visitor Service Staff None Outdoor recreation planner, GS-11 

Administrative Staff Administrative support assistant, GS-7 Clerk, GS-5 (permanent career-seasonal, 

0.5 FTE) 

Maintenance Staff Maintenance worker, WG-8 

Biological technician (wildlife), GS-9 No additional positions 

Fire Management 

Staff Fire program technician, GS-7 No additional positions 

Law Enforcement 

Staff Park ranger, GS-9 Park ranger, GS-9 (permanent careerseasonal, 0.5 FTE) 

*Refuge operations needs system (RONS) position: currently unfunded (transferred to Lost Trail NWR in 2004). 

FUNDING PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES 

Projects required to carry out the CCP are funded 

through two separate systems, as follows: 

 The refuge operations needs system (RONS) 

is used to document requests to Congress for 

funding and staffing needed to carry out 

projects above the existing base budget. 

 The Service asset maintenance management 

system (SAMMS) is used 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 draft CCP (including maintenance 

of structures and equipment to a safe and productive 

standard for the 15 years of the CCP) are in the 

following appendices: Des Lacs NWR (appendix S), 

J. Clark Salyer NWR (appendix T), and Upper 

Souris NWR (appendix U). 

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. 
 

 

 

194 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to longterm management of biotic resources. 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 would be adopted 

for the Souris River basin refuges. The habitat 

management strategies would be systematically 

evaluated to determine management effects on 

wildlife populations. This information would be used 

to refine approaches and determine how effectively 

the objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations 

would 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 would be 

made. Subsequently, the CCP would be revised. 

Specific monitoring and evaluation activities will be 

described in the step-down management plans (tables 

21–23). 

PLAN AMENDMENT AND 

REVISION 

The final CCP will be reviewed annually to determine 

the need for revision. A revision would occur if and 

when significant information becomes available. The 

final CCP will be supported by detailed step-down 

management plans to address the completion of 

specific strategies in support of the Souris River 

basin refuges’ goals and objectives. Revisions to the 

CCP and the step-down management plans will be 

subject to public review and NEPA compliance. 

At a minimum, the final CCP will be evaluated every 

5 years and revised after 15 years. 

Figure 16. The adaptive management process. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

Glossary
 

(“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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

196 Draft CCP and EA, 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 semi-arid 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. 

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–forb 

through aspen forest to mixed-conifer forest. 

ecological triage— Ecological triage is the assignment 

of priority order 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. 

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 

Glossary 197 

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

198 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 

of individuals or genetic information between parcels 

difficult or impossible. 

FTE—Full-time equivalent employee. 

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 fasion 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). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glossary 199 

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. 

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, wildlife 

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

200 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glossary 201 

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. 

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). 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 a 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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

202 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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. 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glossary 203 

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 

population decline or habitat degradation or loss 

continue. 

triage—See ecological triage. 

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

204 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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

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 

Key Legislation and Policies
 

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 (16 U.S.C. 431–433): The act of June 8, 

1906 (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. The act required 

that 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. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 

470aa–470ll): Public Law (PL) 96-95, approved 

October 31, 1979 (93 Stat. 721): Largely supplants 

the resource protection provisions of the Antiquities 

Act for archaeological items. This act establishes 

detailed requirements for issuance of permits for any 

excavation for or removal of archaeological resources 

from federal or Indian lands. It also 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. 

PL 100-588, approved 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. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 

469–469c): PL 86-523, approved June 27, 1960 (74 

Stat. 220) as amended by PL 93291, approved May 24, 

1974 (88 Stat. 174) to carry 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. The act authorizes use of 

appropriated, donated, and transferred funds for the 

recovery, protection, and preservation of such data. 

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with 

the USACE for major wetland modifications. 

Criminal Code of Provisions of 1940, as amended, 

(18 U.S.C. 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. The act also 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 U.S.C. 1531–1543; 87 Stat. 884), as 

amended: This 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 listing and determination of critical habitat 

for endangered and threatened species and 

consultation with the 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

208 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 (20 U.S.C. 

5501–5510; 104 Stat. 3325): PL 101-619, signed 

November 16, 1990, established 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. 

EO 11644—Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands 

(1972): Provides policy and procedures for regulating 

off-road vehicles. 

EO 11988—Floodplain Management: This executive 

order, signed May 24, 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 “shall 

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.” 

EO 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. 

EO 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, Section 

401 (PL 92-500; 86 Stat. 816, 33 U.S.C. 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. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 

404 (PL 92-500, 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 U.S.C. 

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. 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (PL 96­

366, September 29, 1980, 16 U.S.C. 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policies 209 

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. It authorizes the Secretary to accept gifts 

and bequests of real and personal property on behalf 

of the United States. It also authorizes the use of 

volunteers for Service projects and appropriations 

to carry out volunteer programs. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (16 

U.S.C. 461–462, 464–467): The act of August 21, 1935 

(49 Stat. 666), popularly known as the “Historic Sites 

Act,” as amended by PL 89-249, approved October 9, 

1965 (79 Stat. 971), declares it a national policy to 

preserve historic sites and objects of national 

significance, including those located at refuges. It 

provides procedures for designation, acquisition, 

administration, and protection of such sites. Among 

other things, National Historic and Natural 

Landmarks are designated 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, the USDA Forest Service, the 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 U.S.C. 

715–715d, 715e, 715f–715r): Establishes the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Commission, which consists of 

the Secretaries of the 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. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 

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 U.S.C. 718–718h; 48 Stat. 51), as amended: 

The “Duck Stamp Act,” as this March 16, 1934 

authority is commonly called, requires each waterfowl 

hunter 16 years of age or older to possess a valid 

federal hunting stamp. The act authorized 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 U.S.C. 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. The act provides for regulations 

to control taking, possession, selling, transporting, 

and importing of migratory birds and provides 

penalties for violations. This act 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 (42 U.S.C. 

12401; 104 Stat. 3127): PL 101-610, signed November 16, 

1990, 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. The act will make grants to 

states for the creation of programs for citizens over 

17 years of age. Programs must be designed to fill 

unmet educational, human, environmental, and public 

safety needs. Initially, participants will receive 

postemployment benefits of up to $1,000 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

210 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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, 

42 U.S.C. 4321–4347, January 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852) as 

amended by PL 94-52, July 3, 1975, 89 Stat. 258, and PL 

94-83, August 9, 1975, 89 Stat. 424: Requires all 

agencies, including the Service, to examine the 

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public 

participation in the planning and the implementation 

of all actions, federal agencies must integrate the 

act with other planning requirements, and to 

prepare appropriate documents to facilitate better 

environmental decision making (40 CFR 1500). The 

act declares national policy to encourage a productive 

and enjoyable harmony between humans and their 

environment. 

Section 102 of that act directs that “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 of the NEPA 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 short-term uses 

of the environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term 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 (16 U.S.C. 

470–470b, 470c–470n): PL 89-665, approved October 15, 

1966 (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. It establishes the National 

Register of Historic Places and a program of matching 

grants under the existing National Trust for Historic 

Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468–468d). The act 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). That act also 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; 80 Stat. 929; 16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee), 

as amended: This act 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 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. The act requires an act of 

Congress for the divestiture of lands in the system, 

except for (1) lands acquired with Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission funds, and (2) lands that can 

be removed from the system by land exchange, or if 

brought into the system by a cooperative agreement, 

then 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, 

wildlife 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; and requires a CCP for each refuge by the 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policies 211 

year 2012. This act 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 wildlife-dependent 

recreation as “legitimate and appropriate 

general public use of the [National Wildlife 

Refuge] System”; 

the establishment of hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife 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 Regulations (50 CFR 25-35, 

43 CFR 3103.2 and 3120.3–3): Provides regulations for 

administration and management of national wildlife 

refuges including mineral leasing, exploration, and 

development. 

Rights-of-way General Regulations (50 CFR 

29.21; 34 FR 19907, December 19, 1969): 

Provides for procedures for filing applications. 

Provides 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; 78 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1131-1136; 

43 U.S.C. 1201): 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: 

The purposes of this act are: (1) to encourage the 

use of volunteers to assist the Service in the 

management of refuges within the Refuge System; 

(2) to facilitate 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; and (3) to encourage donations and other 

contributions by persons and organizations to the 

Refuge System (PL 105-242; 112 Stat. 1575). 

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 (103 Stat. 

1968; 16 U.S.C. 4401–4412): PL 101-233, enacted 

December 13, 1989: An act to conserve North 

American wetland ecosystems, waterfowl and other 

migratory birds, fish, and wildlife that depend on 

such habitats. The act established a council to 

review project proposals and provided funding for 

the projects. The act 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. The act 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 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. It 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. It also authorizes 

the charging of fees for public uses. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1966 (PL 87-714; 76 Stat. 

653–654; 16 U.S.C. 460k et seq.): 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 (16 U.S.C. 715s): Section 

401 of the act of June 15, 1935 (49 Stat. 383) provides 

for payments to counties in lieu of taxes, using 

revenues derived from the sale of products from 

refuges. 

PL 88-523, approved 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

212 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

special Treasury account and net receipts 

distributed to counties for public schools and 

roads. 

PL 93-509, approved 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, approved October 17, 1978 (92 Stat. 

1319): Expands the revenue-sharing system 

to include national fish hatcheries and Service 

research stations. It also includes in the Refuge 

Revenue Sharing Fund receipts from the sale 

of salmonid carcasses. 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 U.S.C. 1601–1607, 90 

Stat. 2662), payment in lieu of taxes on 

public lands. 

This amendment also 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. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1978 [PL 95-469, 

October 17, 1978, (amended 16 U.S.C. 715s); 50 CFR, 

part 34]: Changes the provisions for sharing revenues 

with counties in a number of ways. It makes revenue 

sharing applicable to all lands administered by the 

Service, whereas previously it was applicable only 

to areas in the Refuge System. The new law 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, 

the new law 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. The new law makes 

reserve (public domain) lands entitlement lands under 

PL 94-565 (16 U.S.C. 1601–1607, and provides for a 

payment of 25% of net receipts. The new law 

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 

that if net receipts were insufficient to make full 

payment, payment to each county would be reduced 

proportionality. 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 28, 1906 (18 U.S.C. 41; 

43 Stat. 98, 18 U.S.C. 145): Provides the first federal 

protection for wildlife at national wildlife refuges. 

This act 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. The act 

also protects government property on such lands. 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948 (18 U.S.C. 41. 

Stat 686), section 41 of the Criminal Code, title 18: 

Consolidates the penalty provisions of various acts 

from January 24, 1905 (16 U.S.C. 684–687; 33 Stat. 

614), through March 10, 1934 (16 U.S.C. 694–694b; 

48 Stat. 400) and restates the intent of Congress to 

protect all wildlife within federal sanctuaries, refuges, 

fish hatcheries, and breeding grounds. 

The act 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 U.S.C. 794 ), as amended: 

Title 5 of PL 93-112 (87 Stat. 355), signed October 1, 

1973, prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap 

under any program or activity receiving federal 

financial assistance. 

Rivers and Harbors Act (1899): Section 10 of this act 

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, 

upon 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 (regardless of size) within 

the Refuge System and National Park Service for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policies 213 

Laws and Executive Orders that Regulate Recreational Use on the Refuge System 


Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 [16 U.S.C. 410 hh3233] [43 U.S.C. 1602–1784] 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C. 1601–1624] 

Antiques Act of 1906 [16 U.S.C. 431–433] 

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1960 [16 U.S.C. 469–469c], as amended 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 [16 U.S.C. 470aa–470mm] 

Comprehensive Environmental Responses, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 [16 U.S.C. 1531–1544], as amended 

The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)], as amended 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 2901–2911], as amended 

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661(1)–662(c)] 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 [16 U.S.C. 7421] 

Historic Sites, Building and Antiquities Act of 1935 [16 U.S.C. 461–462, 464–467] 

Land and Water Conservation Fund [16 U.S.C. 460(l–4)–(l–11)], as amended. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 [16 U.S.C. 715–715d, 715e, 715f–715r], as amended 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 [16 U.S.C. 668dd–669ee], as amended 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

Natural Historic Preservation Act of 1966 [16 U.S.C. 470–470b, 470c–470n], as amended 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 [16 U.S.C. 460k–460k4], as amended 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1969 [16 U.S.C. 460k–460k4], as amended 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, as amended 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act [16 U.S.C. 1271–1287], as amended 

Wilderness Act of 1964 [16 U.S.C. 1131–1136] 

EO 11593—Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment; Protection of Historical, 

Archaeological, and Scientific Properties 

EO 11644—Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands 

EO 11988—Floodplain Management 

EO 11990—Protection of Wetlands 

EO 12372—Intergovernmental Review of Federal Program 
214 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Laws and Executive Orders that Regulate Recreational Use on the Refuge System 


EO 12962—Recreational Fisheries 

EO 12996—Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

EO 13006—Locating Federal Facilities On Historic Properties In Our Nation’s Central Cities 

EO 13007—Indian Sacred Sites 

EO 13287—Preserve America 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 


Contributors 

This draft CCP and EA 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 draft CCP and EA, 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 

draft CCP and EA. The diversity, talents, and knowledge contributed by these individuals dramatically 

improved the vision and completeness of this document. 

Name Title Agency 

Bob Barrett Deputy refuge supervisor; North Dakota, South 

Dakota USFWS 

Elgin Crows Breast Cultural preservation officer Three Affiliated Tribes 

Rick Coleman Assistant regional director, NWRS USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

216 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Name Title Agency 

Megan Estep Regional 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 Economist USGS, Fort Collins 

Science Center 

Rod Krey Refuge supervisor; North Dakota, South Dakota USFWS 

Murray Laubhan Biologist 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, Bismarck, ND USFWS 

Connie Young-Dubovsky Regional NEPA coordinator USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C 

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. 

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 

on 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, 

radio, and television stations. Flyers were posted at 

local businesses throughout the region, 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 March 24– 

27, 2003. At the start of 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 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 on-going public involvement effort and a 

summary of public comments that were received 

during the public open houses. 

A total of 57 comments were received during the 

scoping effort. Input obtained from open houses, 

letters, comment forms, and planning updates was 

considered in developing this draft CCP. These 

comments identified biological, social, and economic 

concerns regarding refuge management. 

The planning team’s response to public comments 

will be completed prior to final approval of the CCP. 

The following list of recipients was developed for 

this draft 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 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bismarck, ND 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 

Bismarck, ND 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

218 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

State Agencies 

NDGF, Bismarck, ND 

NDGF, Minot, ND 

NDGF, Riverdale, ND 

North Dakota State Water Commission, 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 

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 

Lansford Rural Fire District, Lansford, ND 

Mohall Rural Fire District, Mohall, ND 

Tolley Fire Department, Kenmare, ND 

Universities, Schools, and Libraries 

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 
 

 

 

 

Appendix C—Public Involvement 219 

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 

Renville County Farmer, Mohall, ND 

Minot Daily News, Minot, 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 persons 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D 

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, its taxonomy was verified by expert 

botanists, 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

222 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D—Plants of the Souris River Basin Refuges 223 

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 


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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

224 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D—Plants of the Souris River Basin Refuges 225 

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 


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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

226 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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 

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 E 

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 listed 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 considered 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% 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

228 Draft CCP and EA, 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 F 

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 

Loons

common loon 

Sp 

r 

S 

o 

F 

r 

W 

— 

are known to have nested at the refuges, and 150 of 

these nest regularly. The following list is adapted Grebes Sp S F W 

from that produced for the refuges by G. Berkey and pied-billed grebe• f f f — 

R. Martin, updated January 2001, as published in the horned grebe• f r u — 

Service publication “National Wildlife Refuges, Along red-necked grebe• o o o — 

the Souris River Loop, Bird List.” eared grebe• a a a — 

western grebe• c c c — 

Seasons of Occurrence Clark's grebe r r r — 

Sp

 S

 spring (March–May) 

 summer (June–July) Pelicans and Cormorants 

American white pelican 

Sp 

c 

S 

c 

F 

c 

W 

— 

F fall (August–November) double-crested 

W winter (December–February) cormorant c c c — 

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. 

Bitterns, Herons, and 

Egrets 

American bittern• 

least bittern 

great blue heron• 

great egret 

snowy egret• 

Sp 

u 

o 

f 

o 

o 

S 

u 

o 

f 

o 

o 

F 

u 

o 

f 

o 

o 

W 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

a abundant= >125 per day, >600 per season little blue heron• o o o — 

c 

f 

common= 25–125 per day, 125–600 per 

 season 

fairly common= 5–25 per day, 25–125 per season 

cattle egret•(i) 

black-crowned 

 night-heron• 

f 

f 

f 

f 

f

f 

— 

— 

u uncommon= 1–5 per day, 5–25 per season Ibises and Spoonbills Sp S F W 

r rare= 1–5 per season white-faced ibis o o o — 

o occasional= 

• nested= 

small numbers seen at intervals 

of 2–10 years 

species that have nested 

New World Vultures 

turkey vulture 

Sp 

r 

S 

— 

F 

r 

W 

— 

(i) irregular= indicates a species that is 

irregular; the abundance 

category indicates the numbers 

expected in peak years 

Swans, Geese, and Ducks 

greater white-fronted 

goose 

snow goose 

Sp 

f 

a 

S 

— 

o 

F 

f 

a 

W 

— 

o 

(1) extirpated as a 

 breeding species

 (2) last observed 

1956 

Ross' goose 

Canada goose• 

trumpeter swan(1) 

tundra swan 

wood duck• 

u 

a 

— 

c 

f 

— 

c 

o 

o 

f 

u 

a 

o 

a 

f 

— 

o 

— 

— 

— 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

230 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Swans, Geese, and Ducks Plovers Sp S F W 

(continued) 

green-winged teal• 

canvasback• 

Sp 

f 

c 

S 

u 

f 

F 

c 

c 

W 

o 

— 

black-bellied plover f 

American golden-plover f 

semipalmated plover u 

— 

— 

u 

f 

f 

u 

— 

— 

— 

redhead• c f a — piping plover• o o o — 

ring-necked duck• f r f — killdeer• c c c — 

greater scaup r — r — 

lesser scaup• 

surf scoter 

a 

— 

u 

— 

a 

r 

o 

— 

Stilts and Avocets 

American avocet• 

Sp 

c 

S 

f 

F 

c 

W 

— white-winged scoter — — r — 

black scoter — 

long-tailed duck — 

bufflehead• c 

common goldeneye c 

hooded merganser• f 

common merganser c 

red-breasted merganser o 

ruddy duck• a 

— 

— 

r 

— 

f 

— 

— 

c 

o 

r 

c 

c 

f 

f 

o 

a 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

Sandpipers and 

Phalaropes 

greater yellowlegs 

lesser yellowlegs 

solitary sandpiper 

willet• 

spotted sandpiper• 

upland sandpiper• 

Sp 

f 

c 

u 

f 

f 

f 

S 

f 

c 

u 

f 

f 

f 

F 

f 

c 

u 

f 

f 

u 

W 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

Osprey, Kites, Hawks, and 

Eagles Sp S F W 

Hudsonian godwit 

marbled godwit• 

ruddy turnstone 

u 

f 

r 

o 

f 

o 

o 

f 

o 

— 

— 

— osprey r — r — red knot o o o — bald eagle 

northern harrier• 

sharp-shinned hawk• 

Cooper's hawk• 

northern goshawk 

broad-winged hawk• 

Swainson's hawk• 

red-tailed hawk• 

f 

c 

f 

u 

o 

u 

f 

c 

o 

f 

f 

u 

— 

o 

u 

f 

f 

c 

f 

u 

r 

u 

f 

c 

r 

o 

r 

— 

r 

— 

— 

o 

sanderling u 

semipalmated sandpiper a 

western sandpiper o 

least sandpiper c 

white-rumped sandpiper a 

Baird's sandpiper c 

pectoral sandpiper c 

dunlin u 

u 

c 

o 

f 

f 

f 

f 

— 

u 

a 

o 

c 

o 

c 

c 

o 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— ferruginous hawk• 

rough-legged hawk 

golden eagle 

r 

u 

r 

o 

— 

— 

r 

u 

r 

— 

r 

r 

stilt sandpiper f 

buff-breasted sandpiper o 

short-billed dowitcher f 

c 

— 

f 

c 

o 

f 

— 

— 

— 

long-billed dowitcher c c a — 

Falcons and Caracaras 

American kestrel• 

Sp 

f 

S 

u 

F 

f 

W 

— 

common snipe• 

Wilson's phalarope• 

f 

c 

u 

a 

c 

a 

— 

— 

merlin r — u u red-necked phalarope a a a — 

gyrfalcon — — o o 

peregrine falcon 

prairie falcon 

r 

o 

o 

— 

r 

r 

o 

r 

Skuas, Jaegers, Gulls, 

and Terns Sp S F W 

Franklin's gull• a a a — 

Gallinaceous Birds Sp S F W Bonaparte's gull r r u — 

gray partridge• u u u u ring-billed gull• a c a — 

ring-necked pheasant• f f f f California gull• u r u — 

ruffed grouse• u u u u herring gull u — u — 

sharp-tailed grouse• f f f f common tern• f r f — 

greater prairie­ Forster's tern• f f f — 

chicken(1)(2) — — — — black tern• a c a — 

wild turkey• u u u u 

Pigeons and Doves Sp S F W 

Rails Sp S F W rock dove• u u u u 

yellow rail• r o r — mourning dove• c c a o 

Virginia rail• u u u — 

sora• 

American coot• 

c 

a 

c 

a 

c 

a 

— 

— Cuckoos and Anis 

black-billed cuckoo• 

Sp 

u 

S 

u 

F 

r 

W 

— 

yellow-billed cuckoo o — — — 

Cranes Sp S F W 

sandhill crane• a r a — 

whooping crane o — o — 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F—Birds of the Souris River Basin Refuges 231 

Typical Owls Sp S F W Crows, Jays, and Magpies Sp S F W 

eastern screech-owl• r r r r blue jay• f u f u 

great horned owl• f f f f black-billed magpie• f f f f 

snowy owl r — r r American crow• a f a u 

burrowing owl• o o o — common raven• r r o o 

long-eared owl•(i) u u r o 

short-eared owl•(i) 

boreal owl 

u 

— 

u 

— 

u 

— 

r 

o 

Larks 

horned lark• 

Sp 

a 

S 

f 

F 

a 

W 

f northern saw-whet owl o — o o 

Goatsuckers 

common nighthawk• 

Sp 

u 

S 

r 

F 

u 

W 

— 

Swallows 

purple martin• 

tree swallow• 

Sp 

f 

c 

S 

f 

f 

F 

f 

u 

W 

— 

— common poorwill• 

whip-poor-will 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

— 

— 

— northern rough-winged 

 swallow• f f r — 

bank swallow• a c a — 

Swifts Sp S F W cliff swallow• a a a — 

chimney swift o — o — barn swallow• a c a — 

Hummingbirds Sp S F W Titmice and Chickadees Sp S F W 

ruby-throated black-capped chickadee• f f f f 

 hummingbird• r r r — 

Nuthatches Sp S F W 

Kingfishers Sp S F W red-breasted nuthatch•(i) u r u r 

belted kingfisher• u u u o white-breasted nuthatch• u u u u 

Woodpeckers Sp S F W Creepers Sp S F W 

red-headed brown creeper u — u r 

 woodpecker• r o r — 

yellow-bellied 

 sapsucker• u u u — Wrens 

rock wren• 

Sp 

r 

S 

r 

F 

r 

W 

— downy woodpecker• u u u u house wren• c c c — hairy woodpecker• u u u u winter wren — — o — northern flicker• f f f o sedge wren•(i) c c c — 

marsh wren• c c c — 

Tyrant Flycatchers Sp S F W 

olive-sided flycatcher r 

western wood-pewee o 

eastern wood-pewee• f 

yellow-bellied flycatcher o 

r 

o 

f 

— 

r 

o 

f 

o 

— 

— 

— 

— 

Kinglets Sp 

golden-crowned kinglet f 

ruby-crowned kinglet f 

S 

— 

— 

F 

f 

f 

W 

r 

— 

alder flycatcher• 

willow flycatcher• 

least flycatcher• 

eastern phoebe• 

Say's phoebe• 

great crested

 flycatcher• 

western kingbird• 

eastern kingbird• 

u 

f 

c 

r 

r 

f 

c 

c 

r 

f 

c 

r 

r 

f 

c 

c 

r 

f 

c 

r 

r 

u 

c 

c 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

Thrushes 

eastern bluebird• 

mountain bluebird• 

Townsend's solitaire 

veery• 

gray-cheeked thrush 

Swainson's thrush 

hermit thrush 

American robin• 

Sp 

u 

u 

o 

f 

f 

c 

u 

a 

S 

u 

u 

— 

f 

— 

— 

— 

c 

F 

u 

u 

o 

u 

r 

f 

u 

a 

W 

— 

— 

o 

— 

— 

— 

— 

r 

Shrikes 

loggerhead shrike• 

northern shrike 

Sp 

r 

u 

S 

r 

— 

F 

r 

u 

W 

o 

u 

Mimic Thrushes 

gray catbird• 

northern mockingbird 

Sp 

f 

o 

S 

f 

o 

F 

f 

o 

W 

— 

— 

Vireos Sp S F W 

brown thrasher• f f f — 

yellow-throated vireo• 

blue-headed vireo 

warbling vireo• 

u 

u 

f 

u 

— 

f 

u 

u 

f 

— 

— 

— 

Starlings 

European starling• 

Sp 

c 

S 

f 

F 

a 

W 

u 

Philadelphia vireo r o r — 

red-eyed vireo• c c c — 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

232 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Wagtails and Pipits Sp S F W Towhees and Sparrows 

American pipit 

Sprague's pipit• 

u 

f 

— 

f 

f 

u 

— 

— 

(continued) 

song sparrow• 

Sp 

c 

S 

f 

F 

c 

W 

o 

Lincoln's sparrow f — f — 

Waxwings 

Bohemian waxwing(i) 

cedar waxwing• 

Sp 

c 

f 

S 

— 

c 

F 

c 

c 

W 

c 

u 

swamp sparrow• 

white-throated sparrow 

Harris' sparrow 

white-crowned sparrow 

f 

c 

c 

f 

r 

— 

— 

— 

f 

c 

c 

f 

— 

o 

o 

— 

Wood Warblers Sp 

Tennessee warbler c 

orange-crowned warbler• f 

Nashville warbler u 

northern parula o 

yellow warbler• c 

chestnut-sided warbler o 

magnolia warbler u 

Cape May warbler o 

black-throated blue

S 

r 

r 

— 

— 

c 

— 

— 

— 

F 

f 

c 

u 

o 

c 

r 

u 

o 

W 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

dark-eyed junco 

McCown's longspur• 

Lapland longspur 

Smith's longspur 

chestnut-collared 

 longspur• 

snow bunting 

Nelson's sharp-tailed

 sparrow• 

fox sparrow 

a 

o 

a 

r 

u 

c 

f 

r 

o 

o 

— 

— 

u 

— 

f 

— 

a 

o 

a 

r 

u 

a 

f 

u 

r 

— 

u 

— 

— 

c 

— 

— 

 warbler o — o — 

yellow-rumped warbler 

black-throated green 

 warbler 

a 

o 

o 

— 

a 

r 

— 

— 

Cardinals, Grosbeaks, and 

Allies Sp 

rose-breasted grosbeak• f 

S 

f 

F 

f 

W 

— 

Blackburnian warbler o — r — black-headed grosbeak• r r o — 

palm warbler 

bay-breasted warbler 

blackpoll warbler 

u 

o 

c 

— 

— 

— 

u 

r 

f 

— 

— 

— 

lazuli bunting• 

indigo bunting• 

dickcissel• 

r 

r 

o 

r 

r 

o 

r 

r 

o 

— 

— 

— 

black-and-white warbler• f u f — 

American redstart• 

ovenbird• 

f 

f 

u 

f 

f 

u 

— 

— 

Blackbirds and Orioles 

bobolink• 

Sp 

c 

S 

c 

F 

f 

W 

— northern waterthrush• f 

Connecticut warbler r 

r 

o 

u 

o 

— 

— red-winged blackbird• 

western meadowlark• 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

o 

o 

mourning warbler u 

MacGillivray's warbler o 

o 

— 

r 

o 

— 

— 

yellow-headed 

 blackbird• a a a o 

common yellowthroat• 

Wilson's warbler 

c 

u 

c 

— 

c 

f 

— 

— 

rusty blackbird 

Brewer's blackbird• 

r 

c 

— 

f 

f 

a 

o 

o 

Canada warbler 

yellow-breasted chat• 

r 

r 

— 

r 

r 

o 

— 

— common grackle• a 

brown-headed cowbird• a 

c 

a 

a 

u 

o 

— 

orchard oriole• f f o — 

Tanagers Sp S F W northern oriole• f f f — 

scarlet tanager• o o — — 

western tanager — — o — Finches Sp S F W 

pine grosbeak(i) u — u f 

Towhees and Sparrows 

spotted towhee• 

eastern towhee 

Sp 

f 

o 

S 

f 

— 

F 

f 

o 

W 

— 

— 

purple finch 

house finch• 

red crossbill•(i) 

u 

u 

u 

— 

u 

o 

u 

u 

u 

r 

f 

f 

American tree sparrow a 

chipping sparrow• c 

clay-colored sparrow• a 

field sparrow• r 

vesper sparrow• c 

lark sparrow• u 

lark bunting•(i) u 

— 

u 

a 

r 

c 

u 

u 

a 

c 

a 

r 

c 

r 

u 

u 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

white-winged

 crossbill(i) 

common redpoll(i)

hoary redpoll 

pine siskin•(i) 

American goldfinch• 

evening grosbeak 

o 

a 

o 

c 

c 

o 

— 

— 

— 

o 

c 

— 

o 

c 

— 

c 

c 

o 

o 

a 

o 

f 

u 

o 

Savannah sparrow• a c a — 

grasshopper Old World Sparrows Sp S F W 

sparrow•(i) 

Baird's sparrow•(i) 

c 

f 

c 

f 

c 

f 

— 

— house sparrow• f f f f 

Le Conte's sparrow•(i) f f f — 
Appendix F—Birds of the Souris River Basin Refuges 233 

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
 

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 G 

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 H 

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 

*Largely extirpated from the area. 
 

 

238 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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
 

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 I 

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 data; 

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 J 

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 K 

Water Management Agreements
 
244 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 245 
246 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 247 
248 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 249 
250 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 251 
252 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 253 
254 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 255 
256 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 257 
258 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 259 
260 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 261 
262 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 263 
264 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 265 
266 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 267 
268 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 269 
270 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 271 

A-10
 
272 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 273 
274 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 275 
276 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 277 
278 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

A-17
 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 279 

A-18 
280 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 281 
282 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 283 
284 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 285 
286 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 287 
288 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 289 
290 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 291 
292 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 293 

A-32
 
294 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 295 
296 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 297 
298 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 299 
300 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 301 
302 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 303 
304 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 305 

PLATE-7
 
306 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 307 
308 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 309 
310 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 311 
312 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix K—Water Management Agreements 313 
314 Draft CCP and EA, 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 K—Water Management Agreements 315 

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. 
 

 

316 Draft CCP and EA, 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 K—Water Management Agreements 317 

(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. 
318 Draft CCP and EA, 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 K—Water Management Agreements 319 

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 
 

 

 

320 Draft CCP and EA, 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 K—Water Management Agreements 321 

(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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

322 Draft CCP and EA, 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 K—Water Management Agreements 323 

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 L 

Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Grazing
 
326 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix L—Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Grazing 327 
328 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix L—Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Grazing 329 
330 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix L—Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Grazing 331 
332 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M 

Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Haying
 
334 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Haying 335 
336 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Haying 337 
338 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix M—Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Haying 339 
340 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix N 

Compatibility Determination for the 

Cooperative Farming Program 
342 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix N—Compatibility Determination for the Cooperative Farming Program 343 
344 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix N—Compatibility Determination for the Cooperative Farming Program 345 
346 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 
Appendix N—Compatibility Determination for the Cooperative Farming Program 347 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix O 

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 Dakota. 

Fire: A Critical Natural Process 

In ecosystems in the prairie of the Great Plains, 

vegetation has evolved under periodic disturbance 

and defoliation from bison, fire, and drought. This 

periodic disturbance is what kept the ecosystem 

diverse and healthy while maintaining significant 

biodiversity for thousands of years. 

Historically, natural fire and including Native 

American ignitions, have played an important 

disturbance role in many ecosystems by removing 

fuel accumulations, decreasing the impacts of 

insects and diseases, stimulating regeneration, 

cycling critical nutrients, and providing a diversity 

of habitats for plant species and wildlife. 

When fire is excluded on a broad scale (over several 

decades) as it has been in many areas, the unnatural 

accumulation of living and dead fuel can contribute 

to degraded plant communities and wildlife habitats. 

These fuel accumulations often change fire regime 

characteristics. This has created a potential in many 

areas across the country for uncharacteristically 

severe wildland fires. These catastrophic wildland 

fires often pose risks to public and firefighter safety. 

In addition, they threaten property and resource 

values such as wildlife habitat, grazing opportunities, 

timber, soils, water quality, and cultural resources. 

Return of fire is essential for healthy vegetation and 

wildlife habitat in most ecosystems including 

grassland, wetland, woodland, and forest. When 

integrated back into an ecosystem, fire can help 

restore and maintain healthy systems and reduce 

the risk of wildland fires. To facilitate fire’s natural 

role in the environment, fire must first be integrated 

into land and resource management plans and 

activities on a broad scale. 

Reintroduced fire 

■	 can improve waterfowl habitat, wetlands, and 

riparian areas by reducing the density of 

vegetation or by modifying the plant species; 

■	 can improve deer and elk habitat, especially in 

areas with shortages such as winter habitat 

and on spring and fall transitional ranges; 

■	 can sustain biological diversity; 

■	 can improve access in woodland and shrubland; 

■	 can improve soil fertility; 

■	 can improve the quality and amount of 


livestock forage;
 

■	 can improve growth in immature woodland by 

reducing density; 

■	 can remove excessive buildup of fuels; 

■	 can reduce susceptibility of plants to insects 

and disease caused by moisture and nutrient 

stress; 

■	 can improve water yield for off-site activities 

and communities dependent on wildlands for 

their water supply. 

Wildland Fire Management Policy 

and Guidance 

In 2001, an update of the 1995 “Federal Fire Policy” 

was completed and approved by the Secretaries of 

Interior and Agriculture. 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, it directs agencies to use the appropriate 

management response for all wildland fires regardless 

of the ignition source. This policy provides eight 

guiding principles that are fundamental to the success 

of the fire management program: 

■	 Firefighter and public safety is the first priority 

in every fire management activity. 

■	 The role of wildland fires as an essential 

ecological process and natural change agent 

will be incorporated into the planning process. 

■	 Fire management plans (FMPs), programs, 

and activities support land and resource 

management plans and their implementation. 

■	 Sound risk management is a foundation for all 

fire management activities. 

■	 Fire management programs and activities are 

economically viable, based on values to be 

protected, costs, and land and resource 

management objectives. 

■	 FMPs and activities are based on the best 


available science. 


■	 FMPs and activities incorporate public health 

and environmental quality consideration— 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

350 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

federal, state, tribal, local, interagency, and 

international coordination and cooperation are 

essential. 

■	 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 

management 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. 

Management Direction 

The Souris River basin refuges will protect life, 

property, and other resources from wildland fire by 

safely suppressing all wildland fires. Prescribed fire 

and manual and mechanical fuel treatments will be 

used in an ecosystem management context for habitat 

management, and to protect both federal and private 

property. Fuel reduction activities will be applied 

where needed, especially in areas with a higher 

proportion of residences that may be considered 

“wildland–urban interface” (WUI) areas. 

All aspects of the fire management program would 

be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable 

laws, policies, and regulations. The Souris River 

basin refuge stations will maintain an FMP and carry 

out the plan to accomplish resource management 

objectives. Prescribed fire and manual and mechanical 

fuels treatments will be applied in a scientific way 

under selected weather and environmental conditions. 

These activities will occur on approximately 500– 

2,500 acres, over a 5-year average, for native and 

restored prairie habitat to accomplish habitat 

management objectives. 

Fire Management Goal 

Restore and enhance fire as an ecosystem process 

within prairie habitats. The return and maintenance 

of fire is essential for wildlife habitat in these 

ecosystems. 

Fire Management Objective 

Fire is an important management tool that can be 

used to accomplish habitat management objectives. 

If not used properly, fire is also a tool that can 

quickly damage or destroy natural resources, 

equipment, buildings, and property; and can hurt or 

kill those that work with it. Prescribed fire and 

manual and mechanical fuels treatments will be used 

to reduce hazardous fuels and on refuge lands to 

reduce the intensity and severity of wildland fires. 

Special attention will be given to WUI areas, both 

on Service-owned and adjacent lands to reduce the 

risk of wildland fires to communities and 

improvements. 

Strategies 

Strategies and tactics that consider public and 

firefighter safety as well as resource values at risk 

will be used. Wildland fire suppression, prescribed 

fire methods, manual and mechanical means, timing, 

and monitoring are all found in a more detailed list 

in a step-down FMP. 

All management actions would use prescribed fire 

and manual and/or mechanical means to restore and 

maintain desired habitat conditions and control 

nonnative vegetation and the spread of woody 

vegetation within the diverse ecosystem habitats. 

The prescribed fire program will be outlined in the 

FMP for the refuges. Detailed prescribed burn plans 

will be developed, which describe the following: 

■	 burn units and their predominant vegetation 

■	 primary objectives for burn units 

■	 acceptable range of results 

■	 site preparation requirements 

■	 weather requirements 

■	 safety considerations and measures to protect 

sensitive features 

■	 burn day activities 

■	 communications and coordination for burns 

■	 ignition techniques 

■	 smoke management procedures 

■	 postburn monitoring 

Prescribed fire temporarily reduces air quality by 

reducing visibility and releasing several components 

through combustion. The four major components are 

carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, and 

particulates. Varying amounts of particulate content 

are generated in different types of fuels (for example, 

wildlife habitat improvement burns versus fuel 

reduction burns). 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 

Qualified fire management technical oversight and 

support for the refuges will be established by region 6 

of the Service, using the fire management district 

approach. Under this approach, an appropriate fire 

management staffing organization 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 and historical and planned 

fuels treatments. 
 

 

 

Depending on budgets, fire management staffing 

and support equipment may be located at the 

station or at other refuges in the district and shared 

between all units. Wherever possible, fire 

management activities will be conducted in a 

coordinated and collaborative manner with federal 

and nonfederal partners. 

Appendix O—Fire Management Program 351 

On approval of the CCP, a new FMP would be 

developed for the Souris River basin national wildlife 

refuges as (1) a stand-alone FMP, (2) a FMP with two 

or three refuges (the three refuges in the fire 

management district), or (3) as an interagency FMP. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix P 

Draft 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 

■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

■ 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 would be described in step-down 

management plans and addressed through future 

funding requests. The refuges would provide special 

accommodations for people with disabilities. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

The draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) 

recommends an annual review of the hunting program. 

This evaluation would determine what effect 

diverting funding and staff would have on the ability 

of the refuges to implement habitat management. 

Limited staff and funding would be directed toward 

habitat management first. Lack of funding and 

personnel may result in decreased opportunities 

and/or facilities. 

Temporary disturbance would exist to wildlife in the 

vicinity of the activity. Animals surplus to populations 

would be removed by hunting. A temporary 

decrease in populations of wild animals would be 

experienced which may help ensure that carrying 

capacity (especially for big-game species) is not 

exceeded. Closed areas would provide some sanctuary 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

354 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

for game and nongame species and 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 would be retained. The 

following stipulations would apply to all three 

refuges: 

■	 Hunting would be permitted in accordance with 

state regulations. 

■	 Overnight camping and open fires would not 


be allowed. 


■	 The areas around refuge offices, visitor centers, 

and residences would be posted closed to 

hunting. State law prohibits hunting within 

one-quarter mile of an occupied building. 

■	 It would be unlawful to carry a loaded firearm 

in any vehicle on refuge lands or roads. 

■	 Nontoxic shot would be required for hunting 

upland game and waterfowl. No other type of 

shot may be possessed while in the field. 

■	 Collecting, injuring, disturbing, destroying, or 

harming any animal or plant except legally 

taken game animals would be prohibited. 

■	 Searching for, disturbing, or collecting
 

prehistoric or historic artifacts would be 


prohibited. 


■	 Archery and gun seasons for deer hunting 


would coincide with state hunting seasons. 


■	 A deer hunter would need a special state permit 

to hunt on a refuge during rifle season. A 

hunter with a state muzzleloader deer permit 

would be allowed to hunt without a refuge 

permit. 

■	 Trash, including shell casings, would be 

required to be packed out so the areas would 

remain clean, natural, and enjoyable. 

■	 Possession of fireworks would be prohibited. 

■	 Possessing alcohol would be prohibited. 

Intoxicated and disorderly conduct would not 

be permitted. Open container of alcoholic 

beverage in a vehicle would be prohibited. 

The following stipulations would apply only to 

J. Clark Salyer NWR: 

■	 Nine designated areas would be open for 


hunting waterfowl, sharp-tailed grouse, 


partridge, pheasant, and deer. 


■	 The entire refuge would be open for lateseason sharp-tailed grouse, partridge, pheasant, 

and fox hunting following the close of firearm 

deer season, in accordance with state hunting 

seasons. 

■	 Entry without a firearm to retrieve legally 


taken waterfowl would be permitted within
 

100 yards of exterior refuge boundaries and
 

interior boundaries of designated public 


hunting areas.
 

The following stipulations would apply only to 

Upper Souris NWR: 

■	 Vehicle travel would be restricted to public 


roads and recreation area parking lots. The 


use of all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and
 

other off-road vehicles would not be allowed.
 

■	 Horses would not be permitted. 

■	 Weapons would not be allowed in boats and 


canoes. 


■	 Preseason scouting for deer would be allowed 

only in open public use areas and areas marked 

“foot traffic only.” 

■	 Baiting for deer would not be allowed. 

■	 Portable tree stands during deer hunting would 

be allowed, but daily removal would be 

required. Only strap-on steps or removable 

climbing ladders would be allowed. 

■	 Hunters would be allowed to carry, drag, or 


use carts to remove their deer. 


■	 Once hunters filled their deer tags, they would 

not be allowed to return to the refuge with 

weapons. However, they would be allowed to 

carry shotguns while hunting upland game 

birds in open bird-hunting areas. 

■	 Land south of Lake Darling Dam would be 


closed to all upland game bird-hunting.
 

■	 Wearing of a blaze orange vest and cap would 

be required when hunting game birds during 

the deer firearm season. 

■	 Dogs would 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 

c 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix P—Draft Compatibility Determination for Recreational Hunting 355 

are adequate. Special regulations are in place to Hunting harvests a small percentage of the 

minimize negative impacts to the refuges and renewable resources, which is in accordance with 

associated wildlife, and state of North Dakota law wildlife management objectives and principals. 

further controls hunter activities. 

Mandatory 15-Year Reevaluation Date: Hunting is a legitimate wildlife management tool 2021 that can be used to control wildlife populations. 

Signature Review 

________________________________ 

Dan Severson 

Refuge Manager 

Des Lacs NWR 

Kenmare, ND 

___________ 

 Date 

________________________________ 

Tedd Gutzke

Project Leader 

Souris River Basin Complex 

Upham, ND 

___________ 

 Date 

________________________________ 

Gary Erickson 

Refuge Manager, 

J. Clark Salyer NWR 

Upham, ND 

___________ 

 Date 

________________________________ 

Lloyd Jones

Regional Compatibility Coordinator 

NWRS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Region 6, Coleharbor, ND 

___________ 

 Date 

________________________________ 

Tom Pabian 

Refuge Manager, 

Upper Souris NWR 

Berthold, ND 

___________ 

 Date 

________________________________ 

Rod Krey 

Refuge Supervisor (ND, SD, ) 

NWRS 

Lakewood, CO 

___________ 

 Date 

Concurrence 

________________________________ 

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. 

Assistant Regional Director, NWRS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 

___________ 

Date 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix Q 

Draft Compatibility Determination for 

Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography, 

Environmental Education, and Interpretation 

Uses: Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography, 

Environmental Education, and Interpretation 

Refuge Names: Des Lacs National Wildlife 

Refuge (NWR) 

J. Clark Salyer NWR 

Upper Souris NWR 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

■	 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

■	 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, Wildlife 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 would 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 would assist in activities 

when available. Organized groups such as school, 

scouts, 4-H, and others may have instructors or 

leaders who would 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 

■	 1 auto tour route (scenic backway) 

■	 4 hiking trails (1 national recreation trail) 

■	 1 canoe route 

■	 1 observation blind 

■	 3 annual environmental education events 

■	 1 interpretive kiosk 

■	 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 

■	 2 auto tour routes (both interpreted) 

■	 1 hiking trail 

■	 1 canoe route (national recreation trail) 

■	 1 observation blind 

■	 1 kiosk 

■	 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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

358 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Upper Souris NWR 

■	 1 auto tour route 

■	 5 hiking trails (1 is interpreted) 

■	 2 canoe routes 

■	 4 observation blinds 

■	 2 interpretive kiosks (2 additional kiosks are
 

planned for 2006 construction) 


■	 1 visitor contact station in headquarters
 

building 


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 would provide special accommodations for 

people with disabilities. 

The draft comprehensive conservation plan (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 would emphasize 

the principles of natural plant and animal communities 

and ecological processes and restoration. 

Implementing improvements or expanding public 

use opportunities would be addressed in future 

step-down management plans and through future 

funding requests. Program expansion would require 

increased funding for operations and maintenance. 

When funding is not adequate to operate and maintain 

programs, the public use would 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 would 

exist to wildlife in the vicinity of the activity. Closed 

areas would 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, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation are 

compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility 

Current regulations related to these wildlifedependent uses would be retained. The following 

stipulations would apply to all three refuges: 

■	 Collecting, injuring, disturbing, destroying, or 

harming any animal or plant would be 

prohibited. 

■	 Searching for, disturbing, or collecting
 

prehistoric or historic artifacts would be 


prohibited. 


■	 Vehicles would be required to stay on 


designated roads.
 

■	 Trespassing in closed areas would not be
 

permitted.
 

■	 Overnight camping and open fires would not 

be allowed. 

■	 Trash would be required to be packed out so 

the areas would remain clean, natural, and 

enjoyable. 

■	 Pets would be required to be leashed, except 

dogs used while hunting. 

■	 Firearms would be prohibited except during 

appropriate hunting seasons. 

■	 Possession of fireworks would be prohibited. 

■	 Possessing alcohol would be prohibited. 

Intoxicated and disorderly conduct would not 

be permitted. Open container of alcoholic 

beverage in a vehicle would be prohibited. 

The following stipulation would apply only to Des 

Lacs NWR: 

■	 Swimming and motorized boating would be 

prohibited. 

The following stipulations would apply only to 

Upper Souris NWR: 

■	 Wildlife observation would be permitted yearround in all open areas, on nature trails, on 

the auto tour route, and in areas marked with 

“Foot Traffic Only” signs. 

■	 Permission would be required to enter closed 

areas. 

■	 Photo blinds for observing sharp-tailed grouse 

on their dancing grounds would be available 

in April by phone reservation. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix Q—Draft Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental Education, Interpretation 359 

■	 Two canoe trails would be available from May 

1 to September. No swimming would be 

permitted on either the Beaver Lodge or 

Mouse River canoe trails. 

■	 Swimming, water skiing, and sailing would 

not be allowed. Recreational boating and the 

use of jet boats or personal watercraft would 

not be allowed. 

■	 The use of all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, 

and other off-road vehicles would not be 

allowed. 

■	 The use of horses for wildlife viewing would be 

allowed with advanced permission from the 

refuge manager. 

■	 Dog training would not be allowed. 

■	 Guiding would be prohibited. 

■	 Geocaching or similar activity would be 

prohibited. 

Justification 

Wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation are 

historical wildlife-dependent 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 

Signature Review 

________________________________ 

Dan Severson 

Refuge Manager 

Des Lacs NWR 

Kenmare, ND 

___________ 

 Date 

________________________________ 

Tedd Gutzke

Project Leader 

Souris River Basin Complex 

Upham, ND 

___________ 

 Date 

________________________________ 

Gary Erickson 

Refuge Manager, 

J. Clark Salyer NWR 

Upham, ND 

___________ 

 Date 

________________________________ 

Lloyd Jones

Regional Compatibility Coordinator 

NWRS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Region 6, Coleharbor, ND 

___________ 

 Date 

________________________________ 

Tom Pabian 

Refuge Manager, 

Upper Souris NWR 

Berthold, ND 

___________ 

 Date 

________________________________ 

Rod Krey 

Refuge Supervisor (ND, SD, ) 

NWRS 

Lakewood, CO 

___________ 

 Date 
 

________________________________ ___________ 

 

360 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Concurrence 

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date 

Assistant Regional Director, NWRS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix R 

Draft Compatibility Determination for Recreational Fishing
 

Use: Recreational Fishing 

Refuge Names: J. Clark Salyer National

 Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

 Upper Souris NWR 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

■	 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

■	 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 

would need to be maintained to facilitate this 

program. Seasonally sensitive areas at the refuge 

would remain closed to the 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 would be open to 

fishing and would be posted accordingly. Special 

refuge regulations for fishing would 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. 

■	 Bank fishing at designated sites is allowed 


whenever there is open water.
 

■	 Boat fishing, without motors, is allowed in 


designated areas from May 1 through 


September 30. 


■	 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 would 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 boat 

fishing program. 

■	 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. 

■	 Boat fishing is allowed from May 1 through 


September 30 at two designated areas of
 

Lake Darling. 


■	 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 would be allowed to drive on the ice of 

Lake Darling. The use of ice fishing shelters 

would be allowed in accordance with state law 

and special refuge regulations. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

362 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

■	 Fishing derbies may be allowed by issuing 


special use permits and special conditions. 


Permits would only be issued to nonprofit 


organizations. Ten percent of the entry fees
 

would be returned to the refuge to maintain
 

or replace fishing facilities. Typical special
 

conditions governing fishing derbies are 


attached. 


Availability of Resources 

Currently, both refuges have adequate administrative 

and management staff to maintain their fishing 

programs. Implementing improvements or expanding 

fishing opportunities would be described in stepdown management plans and addressed through 

future funding requests. The refuges would 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 staff 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 draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) 

recommends an annual review of the fishing program. 

This evaluation would determine what effect 

diverting funding and staff would have on the 

ability of the refuges to implement habitat 

management. Limited staff and funding would 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 in the 

vicinity of fishing activity. Fishing would temporarily 

decrease the fish population until natural reproduction 

or stocking replenishes the population. Frequency 

of use would be directly dependent on fish 

populations and their feeding activity. When fish 

populations are high and active, public use would 

climb and vice versa. No long-term 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 would be retained. The 

following stipulations would apply to both refuges: 

■	 Fishing would be permitted in accordance with 

state regulations. 

■	 Use or possession of bait fish other than those 

listed in the North Dakota Fishing Guide would 

be prohibited. 

■	 Collecting, injuring, disturbing, destroying, or 

harming any plant or animal (including 

minnows, frogs, crawfish, and worms) would 

be prohibited. 

■	 Searching for, disturbing, or collecting
 

prehistoric or historic artifacts would be 


prohibited. 


■	 Overnight camping and open fires would not 


be allowed.
 

■	 Vehicles would be required to stay on 


designated roads.
 

■	 Trespassing in closed areas would not be
 

permitted.
 

■	 Overnight camping and open fires would not 


be allowed.
 

■	 Trash would be required to be packed out so
 

the areas would remain clean, natural, and
 

enjoyable. 


■	 Pets would be required to be leashed. 

■	 Firearms would be prohibited except during 


appropriate hunting seasons. 


■	 Possession of fireworks would be prohibited. 

■	 Possessing alcohol would be prohibited. 

Intoxicated and disorderly conduct would not 

be permitted. Open container of alcoholic 

beverage in a vehicle would be prohibited. 

c 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix R—Draft Compatibility Determination for Recreational Fishing 363 

The following stipulation would apply only to J. Clark 

Salyer NWR: 

■	 Ice fishing would be permitted on all refuge 

waters between December 15 and the end of 

the state fishing season. 

The following stipulations would apply only to 

Upper Souris NWR: 

■	 Fishing boats and canoes would be permitted 

on Lake Darling from May 1 to September 30 

in designated fishing areas. 

■	 Float tube fishing would be allowed where 


boat fishing is permitted. 


■	 Releasing bait fish into any refuge or state
 

waters would be prohibited. 


■	 Operation of a boat in excess of idle speed in 

the Grano Boat Ramp Bay would be prohibited. 

■	 Fishing would not be permitted on the Beaver 

Lodge Canoe Trail. 

■	 Bow and spear fishing, including underwater 

spear fishing, would be prohibited. 

■	 Use of designated spring, summer, and fall 

fishing areas would follow area-specific 

regulations described in the fishing brochure 

available at the refuge. 

■	 The use of all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles 

would not be allowed. 

■	 Access to ice for ice-fishing would be permitted 

only at designated sites. 

■	 Only cars and pickups would be allowed on the 

ice from Lake Darling Dam north to Carter 

Dam for ice-fishing purposes. 

■	 At designated winter-fishing areas, ice-fishing 

shelters would be permitted and would be 

required to be removed on the date set by the 

state for ice-fishing shelter removal. Following 

the date for removal of permanent shelters, 

portable ones would be permitted but would 

need to be removed daily. 

■	 At the remainder of the refuge, portable icefishing shelters would be permitted but would 

need to be removed daily. 

■	 Fishing derbies would 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 

Signature 

________________________________ 

Dan Severson 

Refuge Manager 

Des Lacs NWR 

Kenmare, ND 

___________ 

 Date 

________________________________ 

Tom Pabian 

Refuge Manager, 

Upper Souris NWR 

Berthold, ND 

___________ 

 Date 

________________________________ 

Gary Erickson 

Refuge Manager, 

J. Clark Salyer NWR 

Upham, ND 

___________ 

 Date 
 

 

________________________________ ___________ 

 

________________________________ ___________ 

 

 

________________________________ ___________ 

 

________________________________ ___________ 

 

364 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Review 

Tedd Gutzke Date 

Project Leader 

Souris River Basin Complex 

Upham, ND 

Lloyd Jones Date 

Regional Compatibility Coordinator 

NWRS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Region 6, Coleharbor, ND 

Rod Krey Date 

Refuge Supervisor (ND, SD, ) 

NWRS 

Lakewood, CO 

Concurrence 

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date 

Assistant Regional Director, NWRS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 

c 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix R—Draft Compatibility Determination for Recreational Fishing 365 

Attachment—Typical Special Conditions
 

Upper Souris NWR 


Ice Fishing and Open-water Fishing Derbies 


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 derby rules. One patrol 

 vehicle per 50 teams is required during ice-fishing derbies. 

 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 derby rules. The ratio 

 of derby 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 derby 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 derbies. 

 The remainder of the parking lot is reserved for refuge visitors not fishing in the derby. Non-derby 

 anglers should not have to wait in line to launch their boat. Derby sponsors shall provide volunteers to

 direct parking of participants and non-derby anglers. The overflow parking lot west of the township

 road may be used for derby vehicle and trailer parking. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix S 

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. 

Recurring 

First-Year Annual 

RONS1 Need Need Personnel 

Number Project Description ($1,000s) ($1,000s) (FTE2

) 

R–94009 Implement the geographic information system 

(computer specialist) 151 74 1.0 

R–99009 Increase resource protection and security 

(law enforcement officer) 140 60 1.0 

R–99013 Increase biological monitoring for adaptive resource 

management (biologist) 151 74 1.0 

R–93007 Increase habitat management (refuge manager) 151 

74 

1.0 

R–94001 Increase the integrated pest management program 

(biological technician) 106 50 1.0 

R-93014 Protect and manage water rights 126 0 0 

R–94005 Construct an equipment storage building 200 0 0 

R–01002 Construct refuge housing for the law enforcement 

officer 228 0 0 

R-99003 Construct water development to expand the grassland 

grazing program 155 0 0 

R-99001 Conduct a cultural resource inventory 55 0 0 

1 RONS=Refuge Operations Needs System. 

2 FTE=full-time equivalent. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

368 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Service Asset Maintenance Management System 

SAMMS* Cost 

 Number Description ($1,000s) 

Deferred Maintenance 

93106800 Replace the unit 4 water control structure 215 

93106830 Replace the unit 5 water control structure 235 

93106834 Replace the unit 6 water control structure and emergency spillway 280 

01116014 Replace the unit 3 water control structure spillway/weir 250 

01115455 Replace residence Q-4 280 

Large Construction 

Construct the fire equipment storage and cache 450 

Road Rehabilitation 

03126148 Do preliminary engineering of auto tour route (routes 011, 012,103;12.3 miles) 313 

03126149 Construct and asphalt the auto tour route (routes 011, 012,103;12.3 miles) 1,500 

03126152 Do preliminary engineering of the Canada Goose Trail (route 102, 11.0 miles) 282 

03126153 Construct the Canada Goose Trail (route 102, 11.0 miles) 2,700 

Heavy Equipment 

97106791 Replace the 1978 Ford backhoe 110 

99106837 Replace the 1978 JD 544 B front-end loader 181 

01114123 Replace the 1979 IHC tractor 95 

Small Equipment 

00106802 Replace the 1992 Dodge Dakota 4x4 pickup 30 

01111766 Replace the 1990 Polaris 4x4 ATV 10 

01111763 Replace the 1989 Dodge 4x4 pickup 30 

01111766 Replace the 1989 Chevrolet 4x4 pickup 30 

01114123 Replace the 1997 Ford 4x4 pickup 30 

00106859 Replace the 1984 Type 4X fire engine 98 

*SAMMS=Service Asset Maintenance Management System. 
 

 

Appendix T 

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. 

Recurring 

First-Year Annual 

RONS1 Need Need Personnel 

Number Project Description ($1,000s) ($1,000s) (FTE2

) 

R-00001 Restore and enhance the prairie grassland and forest 

habitat (resource specialist) 125 75 1.0 

R-99012 Improve marsh habitat management (refuge 

operations specialist) 139 75 1.0 

R-99010 Improve habitat management, and population and 

habitat monitoring (biologist) 139 75 1.0 

R-00002 Improve visitor services and outreach programs 

(administrative receptionist/clerk) 110 55 1.0 

R-03001 Improve the resource protection capability (law 

enforcement officer) 136 55 1.0 

R-97010 Enhance streamflow monitoring and the water 

management capability (refuge operations specialist) 97 55 1.0 

R-97038 Develop a new area-capacity table for marsh 

impoundments 324 0 — 

1 RONS=Refuge Operations Needs System. 

2 FTE=full-time equivalent. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

370 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Service Asset Maintenance Management System 

SAMMS* Cost 

 Number Description ($1,000s) 

Deferred Maintenance 

90106948 Replace the boundary fence 118 

02121135 Repair the pool 320 dike and nesting islands 201 

89106942 Rehabilitate the 6-stall storage building 28 

99106956 Repair and rehabilitate quarters 40 223 

01117727 Rehabilitate the office visitor area 34 

Large Construction 

97109872 Construct a vehicle and equipment storage building 1,460 

99109875 Improve water level management in pool 341 1,298 

Small Construction 

99112488 Construct a wildfire response storage building 449 

97123485 Construct an equipment storage yard 54 

Road Rehabilitation 

88106960 Do preliminary engineering for the headquarters and a scenic trail 408 

02121139 Construct a scenic trail 1,400 

02121147 Construct the headquarters road and parking areas 396 

10028965 Replace the Johnson Bridge 689 

Heavy Equipment 

00106973 Replace the 1972 Caterpillar Grader 116 

01115317 Replace the 1968 5-ton 6x6 fire truck 95 

01117349 Replace the Case 680E loader/backhoe 95 

01116659 Replace the 1972 White semi-tractor 105 

01117375 Replace the 1972 John Deere 8630 tractor 126 

01116987 Replace the 1982 dump truck 95 

Small Equipment 

01113840 Replace the 1996 Honda ATV 7 

01115730 Replace the 1991 Chevrolet Service truck 33 

01113900 Replace the John Deere loader tractor 90 

01116659 Replace the John Deere rotary mower 9 

01116659 Replace the 1988 pickup 29 

*SAMMS=Service Asset Maintenance Management System. 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix U 

RONS and SAMMS Projects, Upper Souris NWR
 

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. 

Recurring 

First-Year Annual 

RONS1 Need Need Personnel 

Number Project Description ($1,000s) ($1,000s) (FTE2

) 

R-97008 Monitor adaptive management 

(biologist) 151.0 86 1.0 

R-97001 Increase the environmental education and outreach 

efforts (public use specialist) 151.0 86 1.0 

R-00002 Support the visitor service, educational, biological, and 

law enforcement functions (receptionist/typist) 63.5 26 0.5 

R-98002 Initiate a comprehensive biological inventory 

(biological technician) 74.5 37 0.5 

R-02001 Manage invasive species (range technician) 83.0 39 0.5 

R-97005 Develop a fire management program 130.5 78 1.0 

R-97004 Protect water rights and monitor water quality 193.0 140 0 

R-01001 Compile and analyze the existing Souris River water 

quality data and its affect on the refuge 358.0 48 0.6 

R-01004 Construct a shelter for environmental education 

activities 185.0 43 0.6 

R-97019 Survey for archeological and historical sites 181.0 10 0 

1 RONS=Refuge Operations Needs System. 

2 FTE=full-time equivalent. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

372 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Service Asset Maintenance Management System 

SAMMS* Cost 

 Number Description ($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 interpreted 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 
Appendix U—RONS and SAMMS Projects, Upper Souris NWR 373 

SAMMS* Cost 

 Number Description ($1,000s) 

Road Rehabilitation 

02121052 Construct the landing 1 parking lot (916) 156 

Construct the Outlet Fishing Area road and parking (route 101, parking lot 908­ 98106752 272 9; 0.5 mile) 


Do the preliminary engineering for landings 2 and 3 roads, parking, and spillway 
 98106750 136 road and parking (routes 12, 102; 1.72 miles; parking lots 900 and 908-917)

Construct landings 2 and 3 roads, parking, and the spillway road and parking 98106768 1,100 (routes 12, 102; 1.72 miles; parking lots 900 and 908-917)
 

Pave the Overlook Viewing Trail parking lot (Federal Highway Administration
 02121048 [FHWA] Route 910); regravel the Lake Darling Interpretive Overlook (FHWA 108 02121049 Route 913); and pave the Lake Darling Dam pullout (FHWA 911) 

*SAMMS=Service Asset Maintenance Management System. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anderson, Oscar. 1955. A brief history of Velva, 

North Dakota. Velva, ND: Hauff Printing. 26 p. 

Anonymous. 1962. Objectives of marsh vegetation 

control. Documentation files at J. Clark Salyer 

NWR, Upham, ND. 

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: 185–191. 

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. Vol. 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 (rev.). 

North Dakota Geological Survey Education 

Series 21. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 177 p. 

Boller, Henry A.; Quaife, Milo Milton, ed. 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.; eds. 

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 

References
 

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: 135–167. 

Coupland, R.T. 1992. Mixed prairie. In: Coupland, 

R.T., ed. Ecosystems of the world: natural 

grasslands. New York: Elsevier Press. 151–182. 

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

376 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

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. [Number 

of pages unknown]. 

Eddingsaas, Aren; Kadrmas, Neil; Grant, Todd; 

Murphy, Robert; Rubin, Cory. Unpublished 

data. On file at Des Lacs NWR (Kenmare, ND), 

J. Clark Salyer NWR (Upham, ND), and Upper 

Souris NWR (Carpio, ND). 

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: 238–266. 

Fredrickson, L.H. 1979. Impact of water management 

on the resources of lowland hardwood forests. 

In: Chabreck, R.A.; Mills, R.H.; eds. 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. 

[Number of 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., ed. 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: Tall Timbers Research 

Station Miscellaneous Publication 11. 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]. [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. 

Washington DC: The Wildlife Society. 904–914. 

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. Washington DC: 

The Wildlife Society. 807–818. 

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: 106–111. 

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.; Pietz, P.J.; 

Berkey, G.B.; Kadrmas, N.J. [In press]. Nest 

survival of clay-colored and vesper sparrows in 

relation to woodland edge in mixed-grass prairies. 

Journal of Wildlife Management. 

Grant, T.A.; Murphy, R.K. 2005. Changes in woodland 

cover on prairie refuges in North Dakota, USA. 

Natural Areas Journal. 25: 359–368. 

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References 377 

Hammond, M.C.; Mann, G.E. 1956. Waterfowl nesting 

islands. Journal of Wildlife Management. 20: 345– 

352. 

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: 257–263. 

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: 372–377. 

Hickerson, Harold. 1965. The Virginia deer and 

intertribal buffer zones in the upper 

Mississippian Valley. In: Lewis, Anthony; Vayda, 

Andrew P.; eds. 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. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

Hood, G.N. 1994. Against the flow: Rafferty– 

Alameda 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: 727–736. 

Johnson, D. H. 1979. Estimating nest success: the 

Mayfield method and an alternative. Auk. 96: 651­

661. 

Johnson, D.H.; Igl, L.D. 1995. Contribution of the 

Conservation Reserve Program to populations of 

breeding birds in North Dakota. Wilson Bulletin. 

107: 709–718. 

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, N.J. 2005. Community dynamics of 

terrestrial vertebrates in aspen parkland–mixed 

grass prairie habitats at J. Clark Salyer National 

Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota. Grand Forks, 

ND: University of North Dakota. 103 p. M.S. 

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. Columbia, MO: University 

of Missouri. 87 p. M.S. 

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: 233–246. 

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

378 Draft CCP and EA, 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]. 101–119. 

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. 

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: 627–640. 

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: 377–392. 

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: 133–141. 

Minot Chamber of Commerce. 2005. <www.minot 

chamber.org> 

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.; 

Hasselblad, K.W.; Martin, R.E.; Sidle, J.G. 2001. 

Status of the burrowing owl in North Dakota. 

Journal of Raptor Research. 35: 322–330. 

Murphy R.K.; Grant, T.A. 2005. Land management 

history and floristics in mixed-grass prairie, 

North Dakota, USA. Natural Areas Journal. 

25: 351–358. 

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. On file at Des Lacs NWR, 

Kenmare, ND. 

Murphy, Robert; Whipp, Stacy. Unpublished data. 

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. Missoula, MT: University 

of Montana. 103 p. M.S. 

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: 246–252. 

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: 573–577. 

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: 131–135. 

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: USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 11 p. 

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: 182–186. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References 379 

Schweigert, Kurt P. 1990. An historic overview of 

the Souris River valley in North Dakota. 

In: Gnabasik, V., ed. Journal of the North 

Dakota Archaeological Association. 4: 206–229. 

Seastedt, T.R. 1995. Soil systems and nutrient cycles 

of the North American prairie. In: Joern, A.; 

Keeler, K.H.; eds. The changing prairie: North 

American grasslands. New York: Oxford 

University Press. 157–174. 

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: 1860–1867. 

Stammen, Henry. 1978. Personal communication. 

Foxholm, ND. 

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: 400–405. 

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. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2004. 

<http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil> 12 February 

2004 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000 summary 

file, American factfinder. <http://factfinder 

.census.gov> 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2002. Regional 

economic information system. U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

<www.bea.gov> 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; and U.S. Department of 

Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. 2001 

National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlifeassociated recreation. [Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. 

Fulfilling the promise: the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 94 p. 

———. 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: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

120 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: USDA, Soil Conservation 

Service. 14 p. 

van der Valk, A.G. 1981. Succession in wetlands: a 

Gleasonian approach. Ecology. 62: 688–696. 

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. 145–158. 

Weller, M.W.; Fredrickson, L.H. 1974. Avian ecology 

of a managed glacial marsh. Living Bird. 12: 269– 

291. 

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. 

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. 
 

 

380 Draft CCP and EA, Souris River Basin Refuges, ND 

Willms, M.A.; Crawford, R.C. 1989. Use of earthen 

islands by nesting ducks in North Dakota. 

Journal of Wildlife Management. 53: 411–417. 

Willson, G.D.; Stubbendieck, J. 2000. A provisional 

model for smooth brome management in degraded 

tall-grass prairie. Ecological Restoration. 18: 34–38. 

Wilson, S.D. 2002. Prairies. In: Davy, A.J.; Perrow, 

M.R.; eds. Handbook of ecological restoration. 

Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 

443–465. 

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.