Environmental Assessment and 

Draft Land Protection Plan

Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

North Dakota, South Dakota

June 2011

Prepared by

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

North Dakota Wetland Management Districts

South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region

Division of Refuge Planning

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300

Lakewood, Colorado 80228

303 /236 8145

CITATION

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Environmental Assessment and Draft Land Protection Plan: Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area. Lakewood, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region. 129 p.

Contents

Summary ....................................................................................... V

Abbreviations .................................................................................... VII

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA)

EA Chapter 1—Purpose and Need for Action ......................................................

Introduction .................................................................................

Proposed Project Area ..........................................................................

Proposed Action ..............................................................................

Purpose and Need for Proposed Action ..............................................................

Decisions to Be Made ..........................................................................

Issues Identified and Selected for Analysis ...........................................................

Related Actions and Activities ....................................................................

National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities ......................................................

EA Chapter 2—Alternatives .....................................................................

Alternative A (No Action) ........................................................................

Alternative B (Proposed Action) ...................................................................

Alternatives Considered but Not Studied ............................................................

EA Chapter 3—Affected Environment .............................................................

Physical Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Biological Environment .........................................................................

Cultural Resources ............................................................................

Socioeconomic Environment .....................................................................

EA Chapter 4—Environmental Consequences .....................................................

Effects on the Physical Environment ................................................................

Effects on the Biological Environment ...............................................................

Effects on Cultural Resources ....................................................................

Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment ...........................................................

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ....................................................................

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .................................................

Short-Term versus Long-Term Productivity ............................................................

Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................

EA Chapter 5—Coordination and Environmental Review ............................................

Agency Coordination ...........................................................................

Contaminants and Hazardous Materials .............................................................

National Environmental Policy Act .................................................................

Strategic Habitat Conservation ...................................................................

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives ..............................................................

EA Glossary ...................................................................................

EA Appendixes

A–Requests for Use or Modification of Easement Properties ..........................................

B–Public Scoping Report .......................................................................

C–List of Preparers ...........................................................................

D–Species Lists ..............................................................................

 1

 1

 2

 4

 5

 5

 6

 6

 8

 11

 11

 12

 12

 15

 15

 18

 27

 29

 31

 31

 32

 35

 35

 37

 37

 37

 38

 41

 41

 41

 41

 42

 45

 47

 49

 79

 89

 91
IV EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

EA Bibliography ................................................................................ 107

EA Figures

1. Map of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America ............................................... 2

2. Map of the boundary of the proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area ............................ 3

3. Map of ecoregions in the proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area .............................. 16

4. Map of the North American breeding ranges of 27 grassland birds ................................... 26

5. Graphic of the elements of strategic habitat conservation .......................................... 42

6. Chart of evaluation criteria for acquiring wetland conservation easements ............................. 43

7. Chart of evaluation criteria for acquiring grassland conservation easements ........................... 44

8. Graph of percentage of public scoping comments, by category, about the proposed Dakota Grassland 

Conservation Area .......................................................................... 84

EA Table

1. Priority bird species of the Prairie Pothole Region ................................................. 23

DRAFT LAND PROTECTION PLAN (LPP)

Draft LPP Chapter 1—Introduction and Project Description .........................................

Priorities and Objectives ........................................................................

Ecosystem Management and Landscape Conservation ..................................................

Strategic Habitat Conservation ...................................................................

Threats to and Status of the Resources .............................................................

Draft LPP Chapter 2—Proposed Action and Alternatives ............................................

Easement Terms and Requirements ................................................................

Project Costs .................................................................................

Protection Alternatives .........................................................................

Acquisition Funding Alternatives ..................................................................

Draft LPP Chapter 3—Coordination ...............................................................

Sociocultural Considerations .....................................................................

Draft LPP Figures

A. Map of the boundary of the proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area ............................

B. Graphic of the elements of strategic habitat conservation ..........................................

C. Chart of evaluation criteria for acquiring wetland conservation easements .............................

D. Chart of evaluation criteria for acquiring grassland conservation easements ...........................

Draft LPP Table

A. Priority bird species of the Prairie Pothole Region .................................................

 111

 112

 112

 114

 117

 119

 119

 120

 121

 124

 129

 129

 113

 114

 125

 126

 115
Summary

The first part of this volume is an environmental 

assessment, documenting the purpose, issues, alternatives, and analysis for the proposed Dakota 

Grassland Conservation Area. The draft land protection plan presents an overview of the Service’s 

proposed management approach to wildlife and associated habitats, easement priorities, public uses, 

interagency coordination, public outreach, and other 

operations.

The uniqueness of the proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area lies in the millions of 

depressional wetlands that constitute one of the 

richest wetland systems on Earth—the Prairie Pothole Region. The prairie potholes and surrounding grasslands are highly productive and support a 

myriad of wetland and grassland birds along with 

large numbers of spring and fall migrants.

The Prairie Pothole Region

Once vast grassland, the Prairie Pothole Region is 

now largely an agricultural system dominated by 

cropland and is one of the most threatened landscapes in North America. Recent changes in agricultural economics and advances in crop genetics are 

increasing the rate of habitat transformation—from 

an expansive mosaic of native prairie and wetland 

used for livestock ranching—to a landscape dominated by tillage agriculture.

Although one of the most altered, the Prairie 

Pothole Region is one of the most important, migratory bird habitats in the Western Hemisphere with 

its ability to produce and sustain tremendous numbers of waterfowl. The large-scale change in land 

use is rapidly expanding into the remaining quality 

habitat for breeding birds. At the current rate of 

grassland conversion, an estimated one-half of the 

remaining native prairie in the Prairie Pothole Region will be converted to other uses in only 34 years.

The prairie potholes and surrounding grasslands are highly productive and support wetland and grassland birds along 

with many other animals.

Fowler Photography / USFWS

Proposed Dakota Grassland 

Conservation Area

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to 

establish the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area 

in the eastern parts of North Dakota and South 

Dakota, which cover all counties north and east of 

the Missouri River except those in the existing Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area. 

The Service would conserve wetland and grassland 

resources in the proposed project area primarily 

through the purchase of perpetual easements from 

willing sellers. These wetland and grassland easements would connect and expand existing lands under conservation protection.

The area’s strong and vibrant rural lifestyle, of 

which agriculture is the dominant land use, is one 
VI EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

of the key components to ensuring habitat integrity 

and wildlife resource protection. Based on anticipated levels of landowner participation, objectives 

for the proposed conservation area are to protect 

240,000 acres of wetland and 1.7 million acres of critical grassland habitat, within an overall boundary 

area of 29.6 million acres.

Priorities

The Prairie Pothole Joint Venture, Partners in 

Flight, and the Service have identified priority species for the Prairie Pothole Region: 8 species of waterfowl, 22 species of shorebirds, 10 species of other 

waterbirds, and 20 species of grassland birds.

The Service would set priorities for potential 

easements based on landscape evaluation models 

that identify the extent and location of grassland and 

wetland along with nesting areas of concentration 

for priority species. With this strategic determination of conservation priorities, the Service would 

be able to protect the most productive, remaining 

wetland and grassland habitats to help to conserve 

populations of priority species. Concurrently, the 

Service would engage the Plains and Prairie Potholes Landscape Conservation Cooperative (a recent 

initiative that reaches across broad landscapes and 

involves many partners).

Acquisition

To better protect wetland and grassland resources, 

the Service needs money in addition to Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act (Federal Duck Stamps) and 

NAWCA (North American Wetland Conservation 

Act) Funds for acquiring perpetual easements in 

the proposed project area. With well over 800 landowners interested in selling wetland and grassland 

easements, the only thing restricting the Service 

from protecting more than 300,000 acres on the waiting list is limited money. This proposal would allow 

the purchase of critical wetland and grassland easements using Land and Water Conservation Fund 

money as an alternative funding source. In addition, 

the Service would continue to use Federal Duck 

Stamp money as appropriate and available. The estimated cost for acquisition of the easements is about 

$588 million.

Easement Terms

All land under wetland or grassland easement would 

remain in private ownership. Property tax and land 

management, including control of noxious weeds and 

other invasive plants and trees, would remain the 

responsibility of the landowner.

The easement contract would specify perpetual 

protection of habitat by restricting the conversion 

of wetland and grassland to other uses. Alteration 

of the natural topography, conversion of grassland 

to cropland or other uses, and draining, burning, 

filling, and leveling of protected wetlands would be 

prohibited. However, perpetual protection would not 

prohibit all activities. Protected wetland basins may 

be hayed or grazed without restriction and farmed 

when dry from natural conditions. Grassland easements would not restrict grazing in any way, and 

haying would be permitted after July 15 each year.

The Service would administer wetland and grassland easements according to Region 6 policy in the 

“Administrative and Enforcement Procedures of Easements within the Prairie Pothole States Manual.”

Green-winged teal is a migratory species that depends on 

wetlands in the Dakotas.

Donna Dewhurst / USFWS
Abbreviations

AFWA Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

DGCA Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

EA Environmental assessment

Easement Manual “Administrative and Enforcement Procedures of 

Easements within the Prairie Pothole States Manual”

GAO Government Accountability Office

HAPET Habitat and Population Evaluation Team

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LCC Landscape conservation cooperative

LPP Land protection plan 

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service

NAWCA North American Wetland Conservation Act

NDGF North Dakota Game and Fish Department

NDGS North Dakota Geological Survey

NDOGC North Dakota Oil and Gas Commission

NDSHPO North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFHB National Fish Habitat Board

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

PPJV Prairie Pothole Joint Venture

PPR Prairie Pothole Region 

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System

SDARC South Dakota State Historical Society Archeological 

Research Center

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

SHC Strategic habitat conservation

SWAP Small Wetlands Acquisition Program

U.S. United States

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

EA Chapter 1–Purpose and Need 

for Action

This EA (environmental assessment) documents the 

purpose, issues, alternatives, and analysis for the 

proposed DGCA (Dakota Grassland Conservation 

Area) in North Dakota and South Dakota. Chapter 1 details the background information and conditions that led to the Service’s (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service) proposal to create the DGCA project for 

protection of important wetland and grassland habitat through conservation easements with willing 

landowners.

Large areas of native prairie remain within the Prairie Pothole Region.

USFWS

Introduction

The PPR (Prairie Pothole Region) is an extraordinary biome (a defined geographical area and its 

living organisms that interact with the environment) 

for its ability to produce and sustain tremendous 

numbers of waterfowl (figure 1). The region is part 

of one of the largest wetland–grassland ecosystems 

on Earth. In the late 1700s, between 7 and 8 million 

acres of wetland existed in the Dakotas alone within 

the United States part of the PPR. By the 1980s, 

North Dakota had lost nearly 50 percent of its original wetland acreage and South Dakota had lost an 

estimated 35 percent (Dahl 1990). Drainage of wetland in the PPR imposes a condition of permanent 

drought for wildlife. Consequently, the abundance of 

most species of wetland wildlife has declined drastically (Johnson et al. 2008), and the “North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan” identified the PPR as 

the continent’s top priority for waterfowl conservation (USFWS 1986).

Across the Nation, grassland declined by an estimated 25 million acres from 1978 to 2002, according 

to a recent audit by the GAO (Government Accountability Office) (GAO 2007a). More specifically, in 

2006, the States of North Dakota and South Dakota 

reported the conversion of approximately 68,000 

acres of native prairie to cropland (GAO 2007a). 

Despite these reductions in wetland and grassland 

resources, millions of wetlands and large tracts of 

native prairie remain within the region.

The PPR is one of the most altered, yet one of 

the most important, migratory bird habitats in the 

Western Hemisphere. It is the backbone of North 

America’s “Duck Factory.” In addition, the PPR has 

high species richness (number of species), and it harbors large proportions of the continental populations 

of many species of breeding waterbirds (Beyersbergen et al. 2004), shorebirds (Brown et al. 2001), and 

grassland birds (Peterjohn and Sauer 1999). The 

PPR was recognized as an important area in 1987 

with the establishment of the PPJV (Prairie Pothole 
2 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Joint Venture) to protect wetlands, waterfowl, and 

other wildlife. The PPJV committed to efforts to 

revive declining North American waterfowl populations through the protection of crucial wetland and 

grassland habitats. The 2005 PPJV implementation 

plan shows a need to protect more habitat—an additional 1.4 million acres of wetland and 10.4 million 

acres of grassland—to meet the goals for waterfowl 

population size (Ringelman 2005).

The Service protects these resources under the 

authority of the SWAP (Small Wetlands Acquisition 

Program), using monies from the sale of Federal 

Duck Stamps, NAWCA, and donations from conservation groups. Over the past 48 years, the Service 

has purchased 95 percent of easements using Federal Duck Stamp dollars. At current budget levels, 

it would take the Service 150 years to protect the 

nearly 12 million acres identified in the “2005 Prairie 

Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan” as critical for sustaining migratory bird populations (GAO 

2007b). However, at the current rate of grassland 

conversion, an estimated one-half of the remaining 

native prairie in the PPR will be converted to other 

uses in only 34 years.

Figure 1. Map of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America.

Proposed Project Area

The Service proposes to create the DGCA to accelerate the conservation of wetland and grassland 

habitat in the area (figure 2). The proposed project 

area was selected using models developed by the 

Service’s HAPET (Habitat and Population Evaluation Team), located in Bismarck, North Dakota. 

The models identify the extent and location of 

wetlands and grasslands required to help meet the 
EA Chapter 1–Purpose and Need for Action 3

Figure 2. Map of the boundary of the proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area.
4 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

PPJV goals for migratory bird populations and the 

SWAP objectives for habitat protection. HAPET 

developed the Service’s “Conservation Strategy” 

using models combined with decades of biological 

information from scientific studies of the spatial and 

temporal needs of nesting ducks in the PPR. The 

analysis was the basis for the resulting Conservation 

Strategy goal to protect an additional 1.4 million 

acres of wetlands and 10 million acres of grassland 

in the PPJV boundary to support the current levels 

of breeding ducks. Specifically, these models show 

that protection of all wetland and grassland in areas 

that support more than 25 duck pairs per square 

mile plus a 1-mile buffer, referred to as the “priority 

zone,” would meet the PPJV conservation goal of 

protecting adequate habitat to support more than 

90 percent of the PPR’s duck productivity. The proposed DGCA project represents an element of the 

Conservation Strategy.

The proposed project area for the DGCA includes 

parts of North Dakota and South Dakota lying north 

and east of the Missouri River, except those parts of 

southeastern North Dakota and eastern South Dakota encompassed by the Dakota Tallgrass Prairie 

Wildlife Management Area, a grassland easement 

program approved in 2000 (figure 2). The total area 

within the proposed DGCA boundary is 29.6 million 

acres or 46,267 square miles; the priority zone in this 

area covers 8.5 million acres.

A canvasback hen leads her young brood to cover in a prairie wetland.

Donna Dewhurst / USFWS

Proposed Action

The objectives for the proposed DGCA would be to 

conserve 240,000 acres of wetland and 1.7 million 

acres of grassland. The wetland and grassland resources in the proposed DGCA would be conserved 

primarily through the purchase of perpetual wetland 

and grassland conservation easements from willing 

sellers. All land under easement would remain in 

private ownership. Protected wetland basins may 

be hayed or grazed without restriction and farmed 

when dry from natural causes. However, wetland 

easements would prohibit the draining, burning, 

filling, or leveling of protected wetland. Grassland 

easements would not restrict grazing in any way, 

and haying would be permitted after July 15 each 

year. Conversion of these grasslands to crop production or other uses that destroy vegetation would be 

prohibited.

The cost for acquisition of easements in the proposed DGCA would be approximately $588 million. 

This proposal would allow the purchase of critical 

wetland and grassland easements using money from 

the LWCF (Land and Water Conservation Fund) as 

an alternative funding source. In addition, the Service would continue to use Federal Duck Stamp and 

NAWCA monies as appropriate and available. At 

current acquisition rates, the goal for the proposed 

project would be achieved within 30 years.

The Service proposes to affirm an established 

review process for evaluating requested uses on 

all current and future wetland and grassland easements in the prairie pothole States of Region 6 of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Refer to appendix A, 

which contains chapter 12 of the Easement Manual 

(“Administrative and Enforcement Procedures of 

Easements within the Prairie Pothole States Manual”) (USFWS 2011a). This review process would 

apply not only to easements bought under the proposed DGCA project but also to those easements the 

Service had acquired earlier.
EA Chapter 1–Purpose and Need for Action 5

Purpose and Need for 

Proposed Action

The proposed DGCA is part of a landscape-scale, 

strategic habitat conservation effort to protect a 

unique, highly diverse, and endangered ecosystem. 

This proposal would accelerate the protection of 

wetland and grassland habitats through the acquisition of wetland and grassland conservation easements on private land. It is widely recognized that 

the most effective technique for conserving the 

remaining wetland and grassland character of the 

proposed project area is to work with private landowners on conservation matters of mutual concern 

(Higgins et al. 2002).

Historically, virtually no ecosystem in North 

America offered a landscape more conducive to 

rapid and widespread agricultural settlement than 

the PPR. Large-scale, land use changes continue to 

expand rapidly into formerly secure grassland–wetland complexes and grassland tracts, which represent much of the remaining high-priority wetland 

and grassland habitat for breeding birds. To better 

protect these resources, the Service needs money 

in addition to those sources currently available for 

acquiring perpetual wetland and grassland easements in North Dakota and South Dakota. Given the 

diversity of plants and animals that rely on these 

habitat types, the ability of the proposed project to 

protect wetland and grassland habitats in perpetuity 

is critical.

The purpose of the proposed DGCA project is to 

provide for the long-term viability of the breeding 

waterfowl populations through the conservation 

of existing habitats while considering the needs of 

other migratory birds, threatened and endangered 

species, and other wildlife. To accomplish this purpose, the goals for the proposed DGCA follow:

■ Conserve the landscape-scale ecological integrity of wetlands and grasslands in the DGCA by 

maintaining and enhancing the historical native 

plant, migratory bird, and other wildlife species.

■ Protect the integrity of native prairie and associated wetlands by preventing further habitat 

fragmentation.

■ Conserve working landscapes based on ranching 

and livestock operations that support a viable 

livestock industry.

■ Support the recovery and protection of threatened and endangered species, and reduce the 

likelihood of future listings under the Endangered Species Act.

■ Provide a buffer against climate change by providing resiliency for the grassland ecosystems 

and associated prairie pothole wetlands through 

landscape-scale conservation.

■ Conserve, restore, enhance, and protect in perpetuity wetland and grassland habitats for migratory bird productivity.

■ Preserve the ecological function of these habitats 

by providing for floodwater retention, ground 

water recharge, carbon sequestration, improved 

water quality, and reduced soil and water erosion.

The proposed DGCA project would follow the “road 

map”—goals and objectives—in the PPJV for integrating the conservation of all migratory birds. The 

process involves “stepping down” the objectives of 

four international bird plans for waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, and landbirds as they apply to the 

PPJV.

Monies from the Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act (Federal Duck Stamp) 

and the North American Wetlands Conservation 

Act have funded habitat protection under SWAP. 

The use of Federal Duck Stamp dollars requires 

approval by the State Governor, and the Service 

would continue to use this money for wetland and 

grassland easements in the State of South Dakota. 

In North Dakota, the State has established limits 

on the number of wetland acres in each county that 

can be protected with perpetual Service easements. 

Federal Duck Stamp dollars are not available in 

North Dakota to buy easements in several counties, because the acreage limits have been reached. 

Therefore, the Service would have limited means to 

acquire more wetland and grassland easements in 

North Dakota.

Decisions to be Made

Based on the analysis provided in this EA (environmental assessment), the Regional Director of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 (Mountain–

Prairie Region), will make three decisions:

1. Determine whether the Service should establish 

the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area and approve the associated land protection plan.

2. If yes, select for approval the conservation area 

boundary that best fulfills the habitat protection 

purpose.
6 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

3. Determine whether the selected alternative will 

have a significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. This decision is required 

by NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969). If the quality of the human environment is 

not affected, a “finding of no significant impact” 

will be signed and will be made available to the 

public. If the preferred alternative would have 

a significant impact, an environmental impact 

statement will be prepared to further address 

those impacts.

Issues Identified and Selected 

for Analysis

The Service solicited comments about the proposed 

DGCA from the public through direct mailings, news 

releases, public meetings, and direct contacts:

■ On December 1, 2010, the Service issued a scoping notice to all media outlets in Montana, North 

Dakota, and South Dakota and several major, 

daily newspapers in Minnesota and Iowa (refer 

to “Appendix B—Public Scoping Report”). This 

information was also posted to www.fws.gov/

audubon/dakotagrasslands.html, as well as the 

Service’s Facebook and Twitter profiles. Due to 

the holiday season, the Service extended the public scoping period by 2 weeks, until January 14, 

2011 (appendix B); with this extension, there was 

a total of 45 days for the public comment period.

■ The Service mailed a four-page fact sheet to 1,275 

individuals and organizations; in addition, 1,737 

postcards were mailed out to individuals informing them of the project. Names on the mailing list 

came from prior Service projects where groups 

or individuals had expressed interest in the general area or in easement programs.

■ The Service conducted three scoping meetings on 

December 14, 15, and 16, 2010—at Minot, North 

Dakota; Jamestown, North Dakota; and Huron, 

South Dakota; respectively. Public attendees at 

the three scoping meetings totaled 93 individuals.

■ A project Web site provided interested parties 

with updates and information about the proposal.

The Service received 1,469 emails, 24 written letters, and 60 phone calls. Most of the comments 

reflected concern about the loss of wetland and 

grassland and stated general support for the proposed project, while comments against the proposal 

emphasized the need for easements of shorter duration, that is, not perpetual.

The Service’s planning team (appendix C) reviewed all comments collected from the public and 

identified several key issues in three general categories. During formulation and evaluation of project 

alternatives, the planning team considered the following issues.

Biological Issues

■ Why is grassland protection an important issue?

■ Why is wetland protection an important issue?

■ How does the Service determine the goals for 

habitat protection?

Socioeconomic Issues

■ How will these easements affect the local tax 

base?

■ How will these easements affect other property 

rights?

■ How will the family ranching heritage be maintained on the landscape?

■ Has the Service considered short-term easements—20, 30, or 40 years versus perpetual?

Administrative and Enforcement Issues

■ How do these easements affect local governments and adjoining landowners?

■ How does the Service address requested uses on 

easement lands?

Related Actions and Activities

Several existing Federal and State programs promote the conservation of wetland and grassland 

habitats in the general area of the proposed DGCA.

Dakota Tallgrass Prairie 

Wildlife Management Area

The goal for this project area is to conserve 185,000 

acres of the remaining, native, tallgrass prairie 

within 32 counties in eastern South Dakota and 

southeastern North Dakota through the acquisition 

of perpetual grassland easements. This project absorbed an earlier phase 1 project in Brown County, 

South Dakota. To date, this project has protected 

59,098 acres. The Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area is entirely within the PPJV 

boundary and is also an element of the Conservation 

Strategy.
EA Chapter 1–Purpose and Need for Action 7

Monarch butterfly clinging to switchgrass.

Gary Eslinger / USFWS

North Dakota Wildlife Management Area

The Service developed this easement project to conserve up to 300,000 acres of grassland in the Missouri Coteau region of North Dakota through the 

acquisition of perpetual grassland easements. The 

project has goals similar to those for the proposed 

DGCA; however, the project area of the North Dakota Wildlife Management Area is limited in size and 

does not afford conservation for critical wetlands 

and grasslands in North Dakota and South Dakota. 

If the Service approves the proposed DGCA project, 

the DGCA would absorb the North Dakota Wildlife 

Management Area.

North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan

Enacted in 1986, this international plan addresses 

declining waterfowl populations. The plan created 

the PPJV to coordinate conservation efforts in 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, and 

Montana. Many PPJV projects are active within 

the proposed DGCA project area and use funding 

partnerships with many entities including the following: private landowners; the Service; Ducks 

Unlimited; The Nature Conservancy; Pheasants 

Forever; North Dakota Game and Fish Department; 

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks; and several 

others.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

(Federal Duck Stamps)

The act established the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, which oversees the purchase 

and lease of properties benefitting migratory 

birds. These land acquisitions are funded primarily through money generated by the purchase of 

stamps—commonly known as “Federal Duck 

Stamps”—as authorized by the Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act. With this 

money, the Service has acquired wetland and grassland easements within the PPR in South Dakota and 

wetland easements in North Dakota. To date, the 

Service has protected approximately 1,386,279 acres 

of wetland and 1,128,513 acres of grassland within 

the above projects.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture)–

Farm Service Agency

The Farm Service Agency offers several programs 

throughout the PPR in the United States, which 

aim to preserve and restore the native, mixed-grass, 

prairie ecosystem in the proposed project area. 

The Conservation Reserve Program is a voluntary 

program available to agricultural producers to help 

them safeguard environmentally sensitive land. Producers that enroll their property in the program will 

plant perennial vegetation to improve the quality 

of water, control soil erosion, and enhance wildlife 

habitat. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement 

Program is a version of the Conservation Reserve 

Program that has been tailored to meet the needs of 

the State. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement 

Program is a Federal–State conservation partnership that targets significant environmental effects 

related to agriculture.

USDA–NRCS 

(Natural Resources Conservation Service)

Working jointly with the Farm Service Agency, the 

NRCS provides technical aid and financial incentives through voluntary programs, based on sound 

science, to promote conservation. Some of the programs that benefit land in the proposed project area 

are the Grassland Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, Wetland Reserve Program, 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and the 

Conservation Stewardship Program.
8 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

■ The Grassland Reserve Program emphasizes 

support for working, livestock-grazing operations, enhancement of plant and animal biodiversity, and protection of grassland under threat of 

conversion to other uses. Participants voluntarily 

limit future development and cropping uses of 

the land. At the same time, participants retain 

the right to conduct common livestock-grazing 

practices and operations related to the production of forage and seeding, subject to certain restrictions during nesting seasons of bird species 

that are in significant decline or are protected 

under Federal or State law.

■ The Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program helps 

develop or improve quality habitat that supports 

fish and wildlife populations of national, State, 

tribal, and local significance. Through this incentive program, the NRCS provides technical and 

financial help to private and tribal landowners for 

the development of upland, wetland, aquatic, and 

other types of wildlife habitat.

■ The Wetland Reserve Program offers landowners the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property by establishing 

long-term conservation and wildlife practices and 

protection.

■ The Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

provides financial and technical help to farmers and ranchers who face threats to soil, water, 

air, and related natural resources on their land. 

Through the incentives program, the NRCS develops contracts with agricultural producers to 

conduct conservation practices that address environmental natural resource problems.

■ Financial incentives offered by the Conservation Stewardship Program encourage agricultural producers to address resource concerns by 

undertaking more conservation activities and 

improving and maintaining existing conservation 

systems.

South Dakota Grassland Coalition

This nonprofit organization has more than 100 members—individuals; private organizations; and local, 

State, and Federal entities—that are represented 

by a seven-member board of directors and two coordinators. The vision of the South Dakota Grassland 

Coalition is to build a partnership of people working 

to voluntarily improve grasslands for the long-term 

needs of the resource. The coalition’s goal is to provide local leadership and guidance in a cooperative 

effort and to provide information and technical help 

to grassland managers.

National Wildlife Refuge System 

and Authorities

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System is to preserve a national network of 

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

their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans.

The proposed DGCA project would be monitored as 

part of the Refuge System in accordance with the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, as well as 

other relevant legislation, Executive orders, regulations, and policies. Conservation of more wildlife 

habitat within the PPR of North Dakota and South 

Dakota would continue to be consistent with the 

following:

■■ Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1956)

■■ Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)

■■ Endangered Species Act (1973)

■■ Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (1940)

■■ Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)

■■ “North American Waterfowl Management Plan” 

(2004)

■■ “Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation 

Plan” (2005)

■■ Habitat protection and easement acquisition process in the “Administrative and Enforcement 

Procedures of Easements within the Prairie Pothole States Manual” (2010)

The basic considerations in acquiring an easement 

interest in private lands are the biological significance of the area, biological requirements of the 

wildlife species of management concern, existing 

and anticipated threats to wildlife resources, and 

landowner interest in the program. On approval of 

a project boundary, habitat protection would occur 
EA Chapter 1–Purpose and Need for Action 9

through the purchase of conservation easements. It 

is the long-established policy of the Service to acquire minimum interest in land from willing sellers 

to achieve habitat protection goals.

The acquisition authority for the proposed DGCA 

project is the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 

U.S.C. 742a–j). The Federal money used to acquire 

conservation easements is from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, which is derived primarily from 

oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf, 

motorboat fuel taxes, and the sale of surplus Federal 

property. There could be more money to acquire 

lands, water, or interests for fish and wildlife conservation purposes as identified by Congress or donations from nonprofit organizations. The purchase of 

conservation easements from willing sellers would 

be subject to available money.

EA Chapter 2–Alternatives

Chapter 2 describes the alternatives considered for 

the proposed project, including the two alternatives 

that were developed and evaluated:

■ No-action alternative.

■ Proposed action, giving the Service the authority 

to create the DGCA. This alternative considers 

the effects of a wetland and grassland easement 

program within the proposed project area boundary identified in this EA.

Northern pintails, American wigeons, and northern 

shovelers fly off a wetland in the Prairie Pothole Region.

USFWS

Alternative A (No Action)

Habitat protection under SWAP would continue at 

current levels, funded by monies from Federal Duck 

Stamps and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.

The use of Federal Duck Stamp dollars requires 

approval by the State Governor, and the Service 

would continue to use this money for conservation 

easements in the State of South Dakota. In North 

Dakota, the State has established limits on the number of wetland acres in each county that can be protected with perpetual Service easements. Federal 

Duck Stamp dollars are not available in North Dakota to buy easements in several counties, because 

the acreage limits have been reached. Therefore, the 

Service would have limited means to acquire more 

wetland and grassland easements in North Dakota.

Easement Terms and Requirements

Easements bought under the authorities listed 

above are administered according to policy and 

procedures in chapter 12 of the Easement Manual, 

which is in appendix A (USFWS 2011a). Following 

the policy and procedures in the manual, the Service 

evaluates and administers all requests for uses or 

activities restricted by an easement (for example, 

agricultural, utility, commercial, or industrial uses). 

This review process applies not only to easements 

the Service has acquired earlier, but also to future 

easements bought under SWAP.

All land under easement would remain in private 

ownership. Property tax and land management, including control of noxious weeds and other invasive 

plants and trees, would remain the responsibility of 

the landowner. Control of public access to the land 

would remain under the control of the landowner.

The easement contract would specify perpetual 

protection of habitat for trust species by restricting 

the conversion of wetland and grassland to other 

uses. Wetland easements would prohibit the draining, burning, filling, or leveling of protected wetland. 

Furthermore, conversion of grassland to crop production or other uses that destroy vegetation would 

be prohibited. While the easement contract would 

specify perpetual protection, it would not eliminate all activities. Protected wetland basins may 
12 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

be hayed or grazed without restriction and farmed 

when dry from natural causes. Grassland easements 

would not restrict grazing or seed harvesting in any 

way, and haying would be permitted after July 15 

each year.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

The Service would establish the DGCA in the eastern parts of North Dakota and South Dakota (refer 

to chapter 1, figure 2), with objectives to conserve 

240,000 acres of wetland and 1.7 million acres of 

grassland.

The Service would buy wetland and grassland 

easements from willing sellers on privately owned 

wetlands and grasslands. This proposal would allow 

the purchase of critical wetland and grassland easements using LWCF money as an alternative funding 

source. LWCF monies are derived primarily from 

oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf, 

motorboat fuel taxes, and the sale of surplus Federal 

property. In addition, the Service would continue to 

use Federal Duck Stamp and NAWCA monies as appropriate and available.

The Service would base prioritization of areas 

considered for wetland and grassland easements on 

models developed by the Bismarck HAPET office, 

which identify the extent and location of grasslands 

and wetlands required to help meet the PPJV goals 

for migratory bird populations and the SWAP objectives for habitat protection. The LPP in the second 

part of this volume describes these priorities in detail.

Service staff at the following wetland management districts in the proposed DGCA area would 

administer and monitor the easement program:

■ North Dakota wetland management districts—

Arrowwood, Audubon, Chase Lake, Crosby, 

Devils Lake, J. Clark Salyer, Kulm, Long Lake, 

Lostwood, Tewaukon, and Valley City

■ South Dakota wetland management districts—

Huron, Lake Andes, Madison, Sand Lake, and 

Waubay

Monitoring would include a periodical review of land 

status through correspondence or meetings with the 

landowners or land managers to make sure provisions of wetland and grassland easements are being 

met. The Service would use photo documentation 

at the time of easement establishment to document 

baseline conditions.

The terms, requirements, and review process for 

easements acquired under this alternative would be 

identical to those described under alternative A.

Alternatives Considered 

but Not Studied

The Service did no further analysis for the following 

alternatives.

Voluntary Landowner Zoning

Landowners would voluntarily petition their county 

commissioners to create a zoning district to direct 

the types of development that can occur in an area. 

An example of citizen-initiated zoning is where 

landowners would petition the county government 

to zone an area as agricultural, precluding certain 

types of nonagricultural development such as residential subdivision. Citizen initiatives are rarely 

used, and the Service did no further study of this 

alternative.

County Zoning

In a traditional approach used by counties and municipalities, the local government would use zoning to designate the type of development that could 

occur in an area. While laws in North Dakota and 

South Dakota grant cities and counties the authority to regulate land use, engaging in planning and 

zoning activities is optional. Many counties in these 

States have opted to have no planning or zoning 

requirements but, where used, zoning would be subject to frequent changes and would not ensure the 

long-term prevention of residential or commercial 

development in the proposed conservation area. 

Furthermore, comments received from county commissioners have expressed, instead, support for conservation easements (alternative B, the proposed 

action) as a means of maintaining rural area values 

and potentially reducing the need for future zoning.

Acquisition or Management by Others

Ranching practices characteristic to grassland in 

the proposed project area have focused primarily 

on season-long grazing and more recently on rotational grazing. Native prairie subject to long periods 

of season-long grazing has experienced decreased 

plant diversity; subsequently, a high percentage 

of the remaining native prairie comprises woody 

plants (predominantly snowberry), trees, and coolseason invasive grasses and forbs. Recent changes 

in grazing practices, including rotational grazing and 

attention to progressive range management practices, have restored the native plant composition and 

diversity to grassland where these practices have 

been used.
EA Chapter 2–Alternatives 13

The ranching heritage and efforts by a variety 

of agencies and organizations have been essential to 

maintaining the diversity of grasslands. Economic 

pressures, including generous farm programs that 

target a cheap food supply, have accelerated the 

conversion rates of grassland into cereal production 

agriculture. Without a landscape-scale conservation 

effort such as the proposed DGCA, pressures such 

as the following make the future of the PPR wetland 

and grassland uncertain:

■ Development pressures for roads, cities, utilities, 

energy, and development materials (sand, gravel, 

and clay)

■ Planting of trees for windbreaks, erosion control, and wildlife that further fragment the native 

prairie landscape

While other conservation agencies and groups play 

a role in the protection of the PPR, the Service is 

mandated to manage migratory birds populations (in 

this case, those that thrive in the DGCA) and in the 

protection and conservation of the habitat on which 

these resources depend.

Wetlands under easement may be grazed without restriction.

USFWS

Short-Term Easements

Short-term easements have an important role to 

play in the conservation arena, since they provide 

a valuable tool in broadening conservation efforts 

to lands otherwise not available for permanent conservation protection. Moreover, several Federal and 

State programs are authorized to use only shortterm easements.

By comparison, short-term 

easements could be considered 

conservation rental, whereas 

perpetual easement conservation would be considered 

conservation ownership. Both 

types of easements are necessary to effect and provide 

conservation of high-priority 

habitats that target the conservation of migratory birds. 

Consequently, easement purchases should be considered 

valuable investments. However, as land values increase 

and the cost of purchasing 

easements increases, the 

value of previously acquired 

easements that are already affecting priority conservation 

continues to increase over 

time. This makes long-term 

easements a more cost-effective means of accomplishing conservation on the landscape.

Since the inception of SWAP, the Service has periodically tested short-term wetland easement projects. During the infancy stage of the program from 

1960 to 1963, the Service bought eighty-five 20-year 

easement contracts in North Dakota and thirty-five 

contracts in South Dakota; these easements have 

long since expired. Another study concluded that 20-

year contracts only delayed drainage and that shortterm easements have short-term benefits (Higgins 

and Woodward 1986).

From 1970 to 1972, the Service bought twenty 

50-year easements in Ramsey County, North Dakota, during a period when the State legislation 

prohibited the Service from purchasing perpetual 

easements with Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act 

money. Conservation purchases (fee-title and easement purchases) from this fund require the Governor’s approval, which came into question due to 

the newly imposed prohibition. A subsequent U.S. 

Supreme Court decision overturned the prohibition, 

referring to earlier Governor approval of stated acquisition goals, and allowed the program to continue 

until those goals are reached.

In 1987, in response to “Thirteen Agreements 

between the Governor of North Dakota and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service,” the SWAP program again 

looked at 50-year easements as a potential conservation option. However, neither landowner support nor 

statutory approval of this alternative was achieved 

due in large part to significant differences in the 

compensation offered.

The purpose and need for action described in 

chapter 1 is landscape-scale protection in perpetu-
14 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

ity. Repeatedly paying for the same conservation 

through short-term easements would not allow the 

Service to achieve the habitat goals and objectives 

needed to sustain migratory bird populations in this 

area. Because several less-than-perpetual conservation options are available through other Federal 

and State programs and conservation partners, it 

is logical that the Service continue to pursue permanent conservation avenues such as the DGCA 

proposed project. Moreover, history reveals a successful record in accomplishing the goals set forth 

by SWAP. A backlog of 800 landowners interested in 

the program presently awaits money for prolonged 

periods, which supports the use of perpetual rather 

than short-term easements.

Expansion of the Project

Based on the assumption that the initial phases of 

the proposed DGCA project were well underway, 

the Region 6 planning team evaluated the possibility 

of expanding the project area into other parts of the 

PPR—in particular Minnesota, Iowa, and Montana.

Minnesota and Iowa are in another Service 

region (Midwest Region, Region 3), and Region 3 

staffs administer conservation easements under a 

separate administrative and enforcement manual, 

which has policies different from Region 6 guidance 

for enforcement and administration of easements. 

The Service determined that the needs of Minnesota and Iowa would be best served with a separate 

LPP designed and carried out by administrators 

and managers in Region 3. However, Region 6 staff 

will assist Region 3, as requested, with any future 

conservation planning and implementation efforts 

targeting the PPR in Minnesota and Iowa.

The Service decided that many opportunities 

exist to effect the needed conservation in the PPR of 

Montana using current allocations of migratory bird 

money for the State. If conservation needs in Montana exceeded the money available from Federal 

Duck Stamps, the Service would prepare a separate 

environmental analysis and LPP for the area.

Fee-Title Acquisition

Over the past 50 years, the Service, other Federal 

and State agencies, and conservation groups have 

acquired many fee-title tracts within the proposed 

project area. While fee-title acquisition offers the 

greatest security and protection for wetland and 

grassland tracts, the initial costs for acquisition and 

the recurring costs for annual management of these 

areas use more resources, compared with other 

available alternatives that are more cost effective 

and more socially and politically acceptable. The 

Service conducted no further analysis of this alternative.
EA Chapter 3–Affected Environment

This chapter describes the physical, biological, and 

socioeconomic environments and cultural resources 

that alternatives A and B could affect.

Fowler Photography / USFWS

Physical Environment

The section describes the physical features of the 

proposed DGCA project area, climate of the area, 

and climate change.

Physiographic Features

A physiographic region is an area with a pattern of 

relief features or landforms that are significantly 

different from that of adjacent regions. There are 

many descriptions, some more detailed than others, 

of the physiographic regions in the prairie pothole 

landscape. However, in the simplest terms, North 

Dakota has at least four physiographic regions in 

the proposed DGCA: the Red River Valley, the 

Drift Prairie, the Missouri Coteau, and the Missouri 

Slope. Within the South Dakota part of the proposed 

DGCA project area, there are three physiographic 

regions: the Drift Prairie, the Dissected-till Plains, 

and the Great Plains.

An ecoregion is a major ecosystem (a biological 

community of interacting organisms and their physical environment) that is defined by distinctive geography. Figure 3 shows the location of 24 ecoregions 

in the project area for the proposed DGCA (Bryce et 

al. 1998).

Landscape variability patterns in the ecoregions 

are more numerous and distinctive east to west, 

even though some variability exists from north to 

south, primarily due to the advancement and receding, stall, and melt of glaciers that occurred in a 

more north-to-south pattern. As glaciers advanced, 

they encountered topographic obstacles, which resulted in sediment being picked up and mixed with 

ice. When the glaciers melted between 10,000 and 

12,000 years ago, the ice on top melted more quickly 
16 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Figure 3. Map of ecoregions in the proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area.
EA Chapter 3 –Affected Environment 17

than ice that was trapped beneath the sediment. The 

uneven melting resulted in the hilly to gently rolling topography characteristic of large parts of the 

proposed project area. Similarly, other ecoregions 

resulted from the advance of parts of the glaciers 

with differing levels of resistance, ranging from low 

to extreme, and melting or running off the landscape 

in differing sequences. The subsequent landforms 

resulted from movement and melt-timing differentials. The sedimentary deposition is up to 600 feet 

thick and is characterized as an unsorted mixture of 

clay, silt, sand, cobbles, and boulders, or “till.”

The depressions between hills in the glaciated 

landscape are described as “potholes,” which fill seasonally with water to form wetlands. The proposed 

project area is punctuated with areas created by 

runoff from melting glaciers, resulting in gravel and 

sand depositions (Bluemle 1977). The grinding of 

rock by the glaciers created a nutrient-rich soil on 

which grasslands were established.

In general, soils in the proposed project area are 

described as Mollisoils, which are dark in color due 

to high content of organic matter. The soil suborder 

is Borolls, which are moist–wet and cool (Barker and 

Whitman 1989, Bryce et al. 1998). Flat fertile soils of 

the Red River Valley in the eastern and northeastern parts of North Dakota developed under longterm inundation in the glacial bed of historic Lake 

Agassiz. Also within the proposed project area, 

there are other similar fertile soils, primarily the 

result of lacustrine (lake-associated) deposits characteristic to lakebed and river valley areas.

Climate

The climate of the proposed DGCA project area is 

continental, with very hot summers coupled with 

very cold winters. Due to the span of the proposed 

project area from north to south and east to west, it 

is difficult to capture meaningful temperature and 

precipitation averages, because ranges are highly 

variable. However, temperatures can range from 

−60 to 121 degrees Fahrenheit, and precipitation 

averages generally range from 13 to 22 inches. Temperatures can vary as much as 70 degrees within a 

24-hour period. Precipitation as well as temperatures within a specific locale are highly variable and 

can range from less than 10 inches in one year to 

more than 30 inches in another. The western edge on 

average receives the lowest average annual precipitation and eastern parts receive the highest average 

annual precipitation.

Climate in the proposed project area often 

changes from extreme drought to flood in relatively 

short periods. Similarly, abrupt changes in temperature occur seasonally as well as daily. This climate 

variability is responsible for the productivity and 

diversity of wetland and grassland habitats found in 

the proposed DGCA.

Climate Change

The Service identified climate change resulting from 

human activity as a potential factor that could substantially affect fish and wildlife populations in the 

PPR. Effects could be direct, such as changes in 

temperature and precipitation influencing species 

and their habitats, or indirect, such as habitat loss 

caused by conversion of habitat for biofuels. While 

planning needs to consider both direct and indirect 

effects, there are considerable uncertainties related 

to climate change and future land use that would 

greatly complicate any analysis.

Many species in the PPR are adapted to highly 

variable conditions (Niemuth et al. 2008, Wiens 1974, 

Woodhouse and Overpeck 1998). These species respond behaviorally and physiologically (for example, 

nest site selection and reproductive output) and, 

therefore, should respond well to habitat conservation efforts.

Due to the uncertainties associated with climate 

change and the dynamic wet–dry hydrologic cycles 

of the proposed project area, the Service sees that 

landscape-scale protection of existing habitats as a 

sound approach to increase resiliency of the PPR 

and to buffer against unpredictable climate variables.

The Service is working with U.S. Geological Survey scientists to model climatic changes in the PPR 

and to develop adaptive management strategies that 

accommodate these changes. Protection of grassland 

in the proposed project area is estimated to bank 

44,000–93,000 pounds (20–42 metric tons) per acre of 

carbon dioxide equivalent. These estimates—based 

on the difference between the organic carbon in soil 

of native prairie and that of traditional cropland—

were derived using methods described by the IPCC 

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 

(Eggleston et al. 2006).

Adaptation, Mitigation, and Engagement

The Service’s strategic response to climate change 

involves three core strategies: adaptation, mitigation, and engagement (USFWS 2010).

■ Through adaptation, the negative effects of climate change on wildlife can be reduced by conserving habitats that are expected to be resilient.

■ Carbon sequestration forms one of the key elements of mitigation. Prairie vegetation stores 

carbon in its deep fibrous roots, with approximately 80 percent of the plant biomass located 

belowground. It is equally as important to pro-
18 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

tect existing carbon stores, as it is to sequester 

atmospheric carbon.

■ Engagement involves cooperation, communication, and partnerships to address the conservation challenges presented by climate change 

(USFWS 2010).

Biological Environment

The biological environment described in this section comprises habitat and associated wildlife in the 

proposed project area. Appendix D contains a list 

of plant and animal species that occur over the proposed project area.

The uniqueness of the proposed DGCA lies in 

the millions of depressional wetlands that constitute 

one of the richest wetland systems in the world. 

These wetlands—or prairie potholes—and surrounding grasslands support an entire suite of plants and 

animals. In addition, the grasslands support yet another suite of plants and animals. In many cases, the 

biodiversity of this highly productive area relies on a 

combination of resources from the potholes and the 

native prairie grasslands. The PPR is breeding habitat for a myriad of wetland and grassland birds and 

supports high numbers of spring and fall migrants.

Once vast grassland, the PPR is now largely an 

agricultural system dominated by cropland. Despite 

these changes, millions of wetlands and large tracts 

of native prairie remain. The PPR is one of the most 

altered—yet also one of the most important—migratory bird habitats in the Western Hemisphere.

Uplands

The proposed project area lies in the native mixedgrass prairie of the northern plains and includes 

small elements of native tallgrass prairie to the east 

and native shortgrass prairie to the west (Whitman and Wali 1975). The vegetation is largely a 

wheatgrass–needlegrass type (Bryce et al. 1998, 

Martin et al. 1998). The area has six primary species of grass: prairie Junegrass, green needlegrass, 

needle and thread, blue grama, little bluestem, and 

yellow sedge. There are 11 secondary grass species: 

western wheatgrass, Canada wildrye, spike oats, big 

sandgrass, ticklegrass, porcupinegrass, mat muhly, 

sideoats grama, Leiberg’s panicum, needleleaf sedge, 

and threadleaf sedge. In areas of glacial outwash, 

plains muhly and saltgrass may be found (Bryce et 

al. 1998).

Many wildflowers and other forbs make up 5–15 

percent of the vegetative cover. The native prairie 

has 65 species of common forbs including the following: pasqueflower, western wallflower, prairie smoke, 

Missouri milkvetch, lead plant, Indian breadroot, 

purple prairie clover, gaura, harebell, narrowleaf 

blazing star, purple coneflower, and western yarrow. 

Other common forbs are sunflowers, goldenrods, 

asters, sageworts, and wild mint (USDA 1975).

Wooded and shrubby areas cover less than 1 percent of the land in the proposed project area and 

primarily occur on slopes and in ravines (Niemuth 

et al. 2008, Whitman and Wali 1975). Wooded areas 

often comprise aspen and green ash, especially in 

the northwestern section of the Missouri Coteau. 

Pockets of western snowberry shrubs can be found 

throughout the proposed project area (Barker and 

Whitman 1989, Martin et al. 1998).

In addition to the tremendous diversity of common plants in the upland grasslands, several plant 

species are considered rare, threatened, or endangered at the State level in North Dakota and South 

Dakota (Hagen et al. 2005, USFWS 2011b). The Dakota buckwheat found in dry, upland, native prairie 

is endangered in North Dakota, and another seven 

grassland species are threatened. Rare plants in the 

proposed project area are prairie mimosa, Rocky 

Mountain iris, bottle gentian, small-flowered penstemon, and western prairie fringed-orchid.

Tallgrass Prairie

John and Karen Hollingsworth / USFWS

Wetlands

About 10 percent of the proposed project area is 

primarily palustrine (marsh) emergent wetland 
EA Chapter 3 –Affected Environment 19

(Cowardin et al. 1979). These wetland habitats have 

temporary, seasonal, semipermanent, and permanent water regimes; the variation in the length of 

time water persists in these wetlands results in different types of vegetation.

■ Ephemeral, temporary, and seasonal wetlands 

that have water for several weeks support vegetation that comprises wetland–low native prairie, 

wet meadow, and shallow marsh zones. Common plants include bluegrass, sedges, western 

snowberry, prairie cordgrass, and wild lily. Other 

plants in temporary and seasonal wetlands include smartweed, rushes, and reed canarygrass.

■ Semipermanent or permanent wetlands have water present through most or all of the year. These 

wetlands may have any of the vegetation zones 

already mentioned, as well as deep marsh zones 

with pondweed and milfoil, shallow marsh zones 

with bulrush and cattail, and open-water areas 

with no vegetation.

Two other types of wetland are found on the Missouri Coteau: alkali ponds and fens. Alkali ponds 

generally have reduced diversity, although widgeongrasses are common (Stewart and Kantrud 1971). 

Fens are alkali bogs that support a diversity of flora 

including some of the rarest plants in North Dakota 

(Duxbury 1986).

The wetlands in the proposed project area also 

support several species of plants that have small 

or declining populations in North Dakota. Fifteen 

species of wetland plants are considered threatened, 

and pullup muhly and elk sedge are endangered at 

the State level in North Dakota. In wetter native 

prairie areas within the proposed project area, rare 

or imperiled species occur such as the joint-spike 

sedge, fringed gentian, and sedge mousetail (Hagen 

et al. 2005, USFWS 2011b).

Federally Listed Species

Under classification of the Endangered Species Act, 

there are eight endangered and threatened species 

(scaleshell mussel, Topeka shiner, pallid sturgeon, 

least tern, whooping crane, gray wolf, western prairie fringed-orchid, and piping plover) and two candidate species (Dakota skipper and Sprague’s pipit) 

that occur in the proposed project area.

Endangered Species

SCALESHELL MUSSEL. The scaleshell is a relatively 

small freshwater mussel with a thin, fragile shell 

and faint green rays. It grows to about 1–4 inches 

in length. The inside of the shell is pinkish white or 

light purple and highly iridescent. The scaleshell 

gets its name from the scaly appearance of the shell, 

which is only seen in females.

Scaleshell historically occurred across most of 

the eastern United States. Scaleshell mussels live in 

medium-sized and large rivers with stable channels 

and good water quality. They bury themselves in 

sand and gravel on the river bottom with only the 

edge of their partially opened shells exposed. As 

river currents flow over them, they siphon particles 

out of the water for food such as plant debris, plankton, and other microorganisms.

The life cycle of the scaleshell, like most freshwater mussels, is unusual and complex. Their eggs 

develop into microscopic larvae (glochidia) within 

the gills of the female. The female discharges its glochidia into the river, where they must attach to gills 

or fins of a fish to continue developing. Each mussel 

species has specific fish species (host fish) that the 

glochidia need to develop. Glochidia continue growing on the fish and transform into juveniles. After a 

few weeks, they drop off, land on the river bottom, 

and continue maturing into adults.

The roles of scaleshell mussels in river ecosystems are as food for wildlife like muskrats, otters, 

and raccoons and as filters that improve water quality. During the last 50 years, this species became 

increasingly rare within its reduced range. Of the 

55 historical populations, 14 remain scattered within 

the Mississippi River basin in Arkansas, Missouri, 

and Oklahoma. Toxins and declines in water quality 

from pollution easily harm adult mussels because 

they are sedentary (stay in one place). Pollution may 

come from specific, identifiable sources such as factories, sewage treatment plants, and solid waste disposal sites or from diffuse sources like runoff from 

cultivated fields, pastures, cattle feedlots, poultry 

farms, mines, construction sites, private wastewater 

discharges, and road drainage. Contaminants reduce 

water quality and may directly kill mussels, reduce 

the ability of surviving mussels to have young, or 

result in poor health or disappearance of host fish.

Sedimentation is material suspended in water 

that usually moves as the result of erosion. Although 

sedimentation is a natural process, poor land use 

practices, dredging, impoundments, intensive timber harvesting, heavy recreational use, and other 

activities may accelerate erosion and increase sedimentation. A sudden or slow blanketing of the river 

bottom with sediment can suffocate freshwater mussels, because it is difficult for them to move away 

from the threat. Increased sediment levels may also 

make it difficult for scaleshell to feed, which can lead 

to decreased growth, reproduction, and survival.

Dams affect both upstream and downstream 

mussel populations by disrupting natural flow patterns, scouring river bottoms, changing water temperatures, and eliminating habitat. The scaleshell 
20 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

and many other river mussels and fish cannot 

survive in the still water impounded behind dams. 

Scaleshell and other mussels depend on their host 

fish for dispersal. Because dams are barriers to fish 

movement and migration, this, in turn, prevents the 

dispersal of mussels upstream. Upstream mussel 

populations then become isolated from downstream 

populations, leading to small unstable populations 

that are more likely to die out.

The recent invasion of the exotic zebra mussel 

into the United States poses a substantial threat 

to the scaleshell mussel, because it starves and suffocates native mussels by attaching to their shells in 

large numbers.

TOPEKA SHINER. Topeka shiners are small (less 

than 3 inches in length) minnows that have dark 

lateral and back stripes. Scales above the lateral 

stripe are edged in pigment, while below the stripe 

the scales appear silvery-white. During the breeding 

season, the shiner has a dark chevron at the base of 

the caudal fin; breeding males have orange fins.

Topeka shiner habitat is small streams and 

creeks that exhibit perennial or nearly perennial 

flow. Substrate usually is clean gravel, cobble, or 

sand although these shiners have been found in areas with bedrock and clay hardpan overlain by silt. 

The Topeka shiner may require open pools with cool, 

clean water.

Historically, Topeka shiners were abundant 

throughout the native prairie of South Dakota, 

Minnesota, Kansas, Iowa, and Missouri; these shiners still occur but exist in fragmented and isolated 

populations. The number of known occurrences has 

declined by 80 percent, and Topeka shiners have 

been eliminated from many watersheds. Topeka 

shiners have been adversely affected by degradation of stream quality, habitat destruction, siltation, 

channelization, dewatering of streams, and water 

impoundment.

Activities that increase sedimentation and reduce 

water quality, such as agriculture and grazing, contribute to the decline of the Topeka shiner. Although 

impoundments provide a refuge during droughts, 

impoundments prevent upstream movement, and 

shiners that use these impoundments are subject 

to predation by larger fish. Streams with watering 

ponds and other impoundments have eliminated 

this endangered shiner from the associated stream 

reaches. Spawning behavior is poorly understood for 

this species; it is thought that Topeka shiners spawn 

on silt-free substrates found in the quieter waters of 

stream pools. As a native prairie species, the Topeka 

shiner is adapted to taking refuge in pools during periods of drought. However, human activities that use 

and reduce ground and stream water create artificial 

drought conditions that result in death of Topeka 

shiners from anoxia or exposure. Population declines 

also are attributed to introduced predaceous fishes.

PALLID STURGEON. The pallid sturgeon was placed 

on the Endangered Species List in 1990. This endangered fish, which can weigh up to 80 pounds, has 

rows of bony plates that stretch from head to tail. 

It prefers the bottoms of large, shallow rivers with 

sand and gravel bars, but construction of dams and 

bank stabilization has damaged or destroyed much 

of that habitat.

The pallid sturgeon was fairly common in the 

Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers in North Dakota as 

late as the 1950s, but biologists believe fewer than 

250 wild fish remain in this reach of the rivers. Since 

1997, the Service, in cooperation with State fish and 

wildlife agencies in Montana and North Dakota, has 

stocked pallid sturgeon in compliance with the “1993 

Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Plan.” About 28,000 juvenile pallid sturgeon have been released in recovery 

priority area 2 (the Missouri River from Fort Peck 

Dam to the headwaters of Lake Sakakawea, including the Yellowstone River upstream to the mouth of 

the Tongue River). Releases into recovery priority 

area 2 occurred in 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

The Service estimates that an isolated remnant 

population of less than 50 individuals remains in the 

Garrison Reach of the Missouri River (North Dakota part of the proposed project area); there are no 

recent records (within the last 20 years) of successful pallid sturgeon reproduction in this reach. The 

Garrison Reach is outside of the recovery priority 

areas identified in the recovery plan. Although not 

excluded from implementation of recovery actions, 

river reaches outside the recovery priority areas 

are lower priority, because these areas have been 

altered to the extent that major modifications would 

be needed to restore their natural physical and hydrologic characteristics.

LEAST TERN. This 9-inch long bird is the smallest 

member of the gull and tern family. About 100 of 

the remaining 2,500 pairs of the interior population 

of least tern come to North Dakota each year. The 

least tern uses sparsely vegetated sandbars including those in the Missouri and Yellowstone River 

systems in North Dakota and South Dakota. This 

tern was listed as an endangered species in 1985. 

Its decline is due to the loss of habitat from dam 

construction and subsequent operation of the river 

system.

WHOOPING CRANE. At a height of 5 feet, the 

whooping crane is the tallest bird in North America. 

Equally impressive is its 7-foot wingspan. Most 

whooping cranes migrate through North Dakota 

each spring and fall, frequently in the company of 

sandhill cranes. Whooping cranes pass through 

North Dakota and South Dakota when migrating 
EA Chapter 3 –Affected Environment 21

between their breeding territory in northern Canada and wintering grounds on the Gulf of México. 

Declared an endangered species in 1970, the decline 

of the whooping crane is blamed on loss of habitat 

and excessive shooting. This crane is making a slow, 

but steady, comeback. From a low of 21 birds in the 

1940s, the current wild and captive whooping crane 

population is about 468.

GRAY WOLF. An infrequent visitor to North Dakota, the gray wolf occasionally comes across the 

border from neighboring Minnesota or the province 

of Manitoba, Canada. Once abundant in the State, 

the gray wolf was killed to near extinction by 1940 at 

the urging of western settlers who believed wolves 

caused widespread livestock losses. In 1978, the 

Service published a rule listing the gray wolf as an 

endangered species throughout the lower 48 States 

except Minnesota, where the gray wolf was reclassified as a threatened species. In April 2003, the gray 

wolf’s listing status was downgraded to threatened. 

On February 1, 2005, a United States district court 

in Oregon overturned the April 2003 decision and 

ordered the Service to rescind the rule downgrading 

the listing status for the gray wolf. At this time, the 

gray wolf is listed as a threatened species in Minnesota and as an endangered species throughout the 

rest of its range including North Dakota.

The piping plover is federally listed as a threatened species.

Mike Morel / USFWS

Threatened Species

WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED-ORCHID. The plant, which 

may reach 3 feet in height, can be recognized by its 

large, white flowers on a single stem. The western 

prairie fringed-orchid is a perennial orchid of the native, North American, tallgrass prairie and is found 

most often on unplowed, calcareous native prairies 

and sedge meadows. In North Dakota, the orchid 

most frequently occurs in the sedge meadow community on the glacial Sheyenne Delta and in the 

moist, native, tallgrass prairie.

The western prairie fringed-orchid is restricted 

to west of the Mississippi River and is known from 

about 75 sites in Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, and Oklahoma and in Manitoba, Canada. The Sheyenne National Grasslands 

and adjacent native prairie in southeastern North 

Dakota contain one of three large populations of the 

orchid, two in the United States—Sheyenne Delta 

in North Dakota and Pembina Trail prairie complex 

in Minnesota—and one in Vita Prairies, Manitoba, 

Canada. On the Sheyenne Delta, about 95 percent of 

the orchids occur on the Sheyenne National Grasslands administered by the USDA Forest Service 

and 5 percent occur on private land.

The only North Dakota plant on the Endangered 

Species List, the western prairie fringed-orchid is 

classified as a threatened species, which means it is 

likely to become endangered. The major cause of the 

species’ decline is the conversion of native prairie to 

cropland.

PIPING PLOVER. The piping plover is a small shorebird that inhabits barren sand and gravel shores of 

rivers and lakes; the plovers are attracted to the 

rare combination of windswept islands or peninsulas 

with a lack of adjacent tree cover. North Dakota is 

the most important State in the Great Plains for 

nesting piping plovers, with more than three-fourths 

of the plovers nesting on alkali lakes in native prairie and the remainder using the Missouri River. 

Lake Sakakawea and Lake Audubon are significant 

areas for piping plovers on the Missouri River system. The average adult census for piping plovers 

from 1998 through 2000 was 79 birds or 16.2 percent 
22 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

of the river system’s total, the third highest of the 

Missouri River segments supporting plovers. While 

piping plovers are widely distributed over much of 

the Lake Sakakawea reservoir, important nesting 

areas include Steinke Bay, Douglas Creek Bay, the 

Van Hook Arm, Little Egypt, and Tobacco Garden 

Bay. From 1998 to 2003, survey crews with the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers recorded an average of 

56 piping plover nests within 10 miles of the Snake 

Creek Embankment between Lake Sakakawea and 

Lake Audubon; in 2004, there were 141 nests in this 

area (unpublished Corps data). Piping plover nest 

initiation is similar to that observed on wetlands in 

the adjacent native prairie coteau, with the birds 

initiating nests in early to mid-May.

The piping plover was listed as a threatened species in 1985. Habitat loss and poor breeding success are major reasons for its population decline. 

In North Dakota, critical habitat for piping plover 

has been designated on the Missouri River, Lake 

Sakakawea, Lake Oahe, and selected alkali lakes 

and wetlands. On the Missouri River, critical habitat 

includes sparsely vegetated channel sandbars, sand 

and gravel beaches on islands, temporary pools on 

sandbars and islands, and the interface with the 

river. Critical habitat on Lake Sakakawea and Lake 

Oahe includes sparsely vegetated shoreline beaches; 

peninsulas; and islands formed of sand, gravel, or 

shale; and their interface with the water bodies. For 

alkali lakes and wetlands, critical habitat includes 

the following: (1) shallow, seasonally to permanently 

flooded, mixosaline to hypersaline wetlands with 

sandy to gravelly, sparsely vegetated beaches, saltencrusted mudflats, or gravelly salt flats; and (2) 

springs and fens along edges of alkali lakes and wetlands and the adjacent upland grasslands that are 

200 feet above the high-water mark of the alkali lake 

or wetland.

Candidate Species

DAKOTA SKIPPER. The Dakota skipper is a small butterfly with a 1-inch wingspan. Dakota skippers live 

in native prairie containing a high diversity of wildflowers and grasses. Habitat includes two native 

prairie types: (1) low (wet) native prairie dominated 

by bluestem grasses, wood lily, harebell, and smooth 

camas; and (2) upland (dry) native prairie on ridges 

and hillsides dominated by bluestem grasses, needlegrass, pale purple coneflower, upright coneflowers, 

and blanketflower. The skipper’s current distribution 

straddles the border between the native, tallgrass 

and mixed-grass prairie ecoregions. The most significant remaining populations of Dakota skippers 

occur in western Minnesota, northeastern South 

Dakota, north-central North Dakota, and southern 

Manitoba. Dakota skipper populations have declined 

historically due to widespread conversion of native 

prairie. In addition, the remnant native prairie occupied by Dakota skippers is subject to a variety of 

threats.

SPRAGUE’S PIPIT. Sprague’s pipits require large 

patches of grassland habitat for breeding, with the 

preferred grass height between 4 and 12 inches. The 

pipit prefers to breed in well-drained, open grassland and avoids grassland with excessive shrubs. 

Sprague’s pipits can be found in lightly to heavily 

grazed areas. Pipits avoid intrusive human features 

on the landscape, so the effect of a development can 

be much greater than the actual “footprint” of the 

feature. In 2010, the Sprague’s pipit was added to 

the candidate species list. Migratory bird species 

that are candidate species, such as Sprague’s pipit, 

are still protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act.

Invertebrates

The number of insect species and other invertebrate 

species in the proposed project area is not currently 

known; however, the available information suggests 

a wide diversity. The Missouri Coteau is in an area 

that represents 15–19 percent of all insect species 

found in North America (Arenz and Joern 1996). 

A survey of just five wetlands found more than 50 

species of insects. In addition, snails, shrimp, and 

amphipods are common invertebrates in prairie wetlands (Kantrud et al. 1989).

The regal fritillary and tawny crescent butterfly 

are two butterflies (other than the Dakota skipper 

described under candidate species) that occur in the 

proposed project area and that are considered likely 

to become candidates under the Endangered Species Act without more conservation action (USFWS 

2011b).

Mixed-vegetation stands such as native prairie 

are thought to be less prone to insect pest outbreaks 

than monocultures such as cropland (Curry 1994).

Amphibians and Reptiles

Turtles, snakes, toads, frogs, and salamanders all 

live in the project area (Hoburg and Gause 1992). 

The western hognose snake and the Great Plains 

toad are typical of grassland, whereas the northern 

leopard frog, western chorus frog, and tiger salamander are closely associated with prairie wetlands. 

Tiger salamander larva and adults are particularly 

important food items for some species of wetland 

birds (Kantrud et al. 1989).

Aquatic Species

Rivers and streams are some of the aquatic habitats 

of the Dakota Grasslands that are most affected 
EA Chapter 3 –Affected Environment 23

by the conversion of native prairie to agricultural 

or urban purposes. There are literally thousands 

of miles of these riparian corridors throughout the 

grasslands that provide pathways for much more 

than just the fish that swim in the waters. Mussel 

species that rely on fish to distribute their larval 

stages upriver and migratory birds that use the riparian zones for nesting and feeding also use these 

systems. The effects of erosion on the watersheds 

can cause decreases in water quality and degraded 

habitat that affect the sustainability of many species 

found in this region.

Despite the best individual efforts of the management agencies involved with watershed decisions, 

aquatic habitat quality continues to decline across 

the Nation. Under the National Fish Habitat Action 

Plan, a strategy to focus and work with partners 

is beginning to develop across the nation (AFWA 

2006). For the Dakota Grasslands region, several 

fish habitat partnerships are involved with the conservation of aquatic habitats—from glacial lakes and 

reservoirs to rivers and streams. All of these aquatic 

habitats are affected by the land uses upstream, and 

aquatic habitat conservation would significantly improve through grassland easements (NFHB 2010).

Birds

The proposed project area is in one of the areas of 

highest species richness for wetland and grassland 

birds in the United States and Canada, providing 

breeding habitat for at least 130 species of birds 

(Sauer et al. 1997, Stewart 1975). In addition to birds 

that breed in the proposed project area, many species of birds migrate through or use the area as wintering ground (Ringelman 2005). Migrating geese, 

ducks, gulls, and shorebirds rest and feed on these 

wetlands. Warblers use the wooded and shrubby 

areas and raptors such as bald eagles and peregrine 

falcons use a variety of habitats.

The proposed project area supports 27 of the 

Service’s species of conservation concern (table 1) 

including ferruginous hawk, willet, short-eared owl, 

and loggerhead shrike (Berkey et al. 1993, USFWS 

1995).

Table 1. Priority bird species of the Prairie Pothole Region.

Species Prairie Pothole Joint 

Venture Priority Species1

Partners in Flight

Priority Species 2

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Birds of Conservation Concern3

LANDBIRDSBaird’s sparrow × × ×

Sprague’s pipit (candidate) × × ×

Chestnut-collared longspur × ×

Smith’s longspur ×

Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow × × ×

Bell’s vireo ×

Le Conte’s sparrow ×

Grasshopper sparrow ×

Sharp-tailed grouse ×

McCown’s longspur × × ×

Swainson’s hawk × ×

Greater prairie-chicken ×

Short-eared owl × ×

Red-headed woodpecker ×

Sedge wren × ×

Bobolink ×

Black-billed cuckoo × ×

Bald eagle ×

Peregrine falcon ×

Dickcissel ×
24 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Table 1. Priority bird species of the Prairie Pothole Region.

Species Prairie Pothole Joint 

Venture Priority Species1

Partners in Flight

Priority Species 2

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Birds of Conservation Concern3

WATERBIRDSHorned grebe × × ×

Western grebe × ×

American bittern × × ×

Yellow rail × × ×

King rail × ×

Franklin’s gull × ×

Black tern × × ×

Least tern (endangered) × ×

Whooping crane (endangered) × ×

Least bittern × ×

SHOREBIRDSPiping plover (threatened) × ×

Mountain plover × × ×

American golden-plover × ×

Semipalmated plover × ×

American avocet × ×

Upland sandpiper × × ×

White-rumped sandpiper × ×

Baird’s sandpiper × ×

Pectoral sandpiper × ×

Buff-breasted sandpiper ×

Semipalmated sandpiper × ×

Solitary sandpiper ×

Stilt sandpiper × ×

Dunlin × ×

Marbled godwit × × ×

American woodcock × ×

Wilson’s phalarope × ×

Hudsonian godwit × × ×

Long-billed curlew × ×

Lesser yellowlegs × ×

Long-billed dowitcher × ×

Short-billed dowitcher ×

WATERFOWLMallard ×

Northern pintail ×

Gadwall ×

Northern shoveler ×

Blue-winged teal ×

Lesser scaup ×

Canvasback ×

Redhead ×
EA Chapter 3 –Affected Environment 25

Table 1. Priority bird species of the Prairie Pothole Region.

Species Prairie Pothole Joint 

Venture Priority Species1

Partners in Flight

Priority Species 2

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Birds of Conservation Concern3

1 Species designated a focal species, a species of concern, a species in an area important to migrants, or a species of high 

conservation assessment from the “Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan” (Ringleman et al. 2005).

2 Species designated a criteria I species in the Partners in Flight physiographic areas (37 and 40) within the proposed 

project area, a species of concern in the “Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan,” or 

a species of high concern in the “Northern Prairie and Parkland Waterbird Conservation Plan” (Beyersbergen et al. 

2004, Fitzgerald et al. 1998, Fitzgerald et al. 1999, Skagen and Thompson 2011).

3 Species designated a species of conservation concern by the Migratory Bird Division of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS 2008).

Waterfowl

The duck population boom that began in 1994 is evidence of the potential capacity of the proposed project area to recruit ducks when habitat conditions are 

suitable. The PPR of the Dakotas accounts for only 7 

percent of the traditional waterfowl survey area of 

North America, yet carried far more than 20 percent 

of breeding ducks during the period 1994–2009 (USFWS 2009). Accordingly, the foundation of the PPJV 

implementation plan is to “keep the table set” for 

periodic booms in duck populations by making sure 

that important wetland and grassland habitats are 

intact. This would require conserving an additional 

1.4 million acres of wetland and an additional 10.4 

million acres of grassland in the United States part 

of the PPR.

At least 12 species of waterfowl breed in the 

proposed project area and most depend on upland 

grasslands for nesting, as well as wetlands for feeding and brood rearing. (Stewart 1975). Mallard, 

northern pintail, northern shoveler, gadwall, and 

blue-winged teal are the priority species of waterfowl in this proposal (table 1). In fact, parts of the 

proposed project area support, on average, more 

than 100 pairs of breeding ducks per square mile—

some of the highest densities recorded in North Dakota and South Dakota (Reynolds et al. 2006). The 

“North American Waterfowl Management Plan” 

identified the PPR as the continent’s top priority 

for waterfowl conservation and has a goal of restoring wetland to accommodate an additional 492,000 

pairs of breeding ducks and 393,000 acres more of 

restored grassland associated with high-density 

wetland communities (USFWS 1986).

The gadwall is one of the priority waterfowl species.

SFWSU

Other Waterbirds

Waterbirds constitute an important group of species in the proposed project area. The PPR contains 

two-thirds of the continental breeding population 

of Franklin’s gull; one-half of the 

continental population of piedbilled grebe, American bittern, 

sora, American coot, and black 

tern; and approximately one-third 

of the American white pelican and 

California gull populations (Beyersbergen et al. 2004).

The proposed DGCA would 

benefit 13 species of breeding 

shorebirds, as well as many other 

shorebird species that use the 

area as stopover habitat during 

migration, such as 30 species that 

breed in the Arctic. As shown in 

table 1, priority waterbird species include marbled godwit, willet, Wilson’s phalarope, American 

avocet, and piping plover (Ringelman 2005, Skagen and Thompson 

2007).
26 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Grassland Birds

Native prairie and untilled pastureland in the proposed project area are habitat for many bird species including northern harrier, sharp-tailed grouse, 

willet, upland sandpiper, marbled godwit, common 

snipe, Wilson’s phalarope, mourning dove, shorteared owl, burrowing owl, and common nighthawk.

Parts of the area provide habitat for a suite of 

grassland birds—the only group of bird species to 

experience consistent declines nationwide over the 

last 30 years (Sauer et al. 1995). Many species in this 

group have ranges limited to the grassland habitat 

represented in the proposed project area, including 

Baird’s sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, Sprague’s 

pipit, lark bunting, and chestnut-collared longspur 

(Knopf 1996, Johnson et al. 1994, USFWS 1995). 

Destruction of habitat and mowing for hay production are two of the main reasons for the decline in 

grassland birds (Sauer et al. 1995).

Figure 4 shows the extent of the breeding range 

for 27 grassland birds throughout the United States, 

with the highest concentrations in the Midwest and 

the PPR. The 27 bird species represented follow:

Upland sandpiper

Long-billed curlew

Mountain plover

Greater prairie-chicken

Sharp-tailed grouse

Ring-necked pheasant

Northern harrier

Ferruginous hawk

Common barn-owl

Short-eared owl

Horned lark

Bobolink

Eastern meadowlark

Western meadowlark

Chestnut-collared longspur

McCown’s longspur

Vesper sparrow

Savannah sparrow

Baird’s sparrow

Grasshopper sparrow

Henslow’s sparrow

Le Conte’s sparrow

Cassin’s sparrow

Dickcissel

Lark bunting

Sprague’s pipit

Sedge wren

Figure 4. Map of the North American breeding ranges of 27 grassland birds (Source: U.S. Geological Survey).

In many cases, the proposed project area represents a refuge for birds that are suffering population declines elsewhere. For example, over the last 

30 years, 21 species of birds have experienced major declines nationwide, while populations in the 

proposed DGCA have remained stable (Sauer et al. 

1997). Included in this group are several grassland 

species such as Wilson’s phalarope, bobolink, western meadowlark, and clay-colored sparrow. How-
EA Chapter 3 –Affected Environment 27

ever, populations of the loggerhead shrike, vesper 

sparrow, and American goldfinch actually have increased over the last 30 years in the proposed project area, while decreases occurred nationwide.

Blending in with shortgrasses, a sharp-tailed grouse 

performs a mating display for a hen.

G.R. Zahm / USFWS

The western meadowlark is a common grassland bird.

John and Karen Hollingsworth / USFWS

Mammals

The proposed project area includes the ranges of 

approximately 50 mammal species (Burt and Grossenheider 1964, Grondahl 2011).

Native prairie uplands are habitat for many small 

mammals including shrews, mice, and voles. In addition, three species of ground squirrels (Richardson’s, 

Franklin’s and thirteen-lined) rely on grassland habitat found in the proposed project area. These ground 

squirrels provide critical food sources, and their 

burrows provide nesting habitat, for raptors such 

as ferruginous hawks and short-eared owls (Berkey 

et al. 1993). Big game animals including white-tailed 

deer and pronghorn also use the upland habitat.

Wetlands provide cover or food, or both, for at 

least 17 species of terrestrial or semiaquatic mammals such as muskrat, beaver, and mink (Kantrud et 

al. 1989).

Coyote, red fox, badger, skunk, and weasels are 

examples of furbearing animals that are widespread 

throughout the area.

Cultural Resources

Archeologically, all of the proposed DGCA is within 

the Northwestern Plains subarea of the Northern 

Plains area (Wood 1998). There have been five cultural traditions or lifeways recognized by archeologists for the American Indians in the Northwestern 

Plains: from earliest to latest these are paleo-Indian, 

Plains Archaic, Plains Woodland, Plains Village, and 

Equestrian Nomadic. During any time in history, 

existing groups of peoples could be found living different lifeways in different parts of the proposed 

project area (Gregg et al. 2008).

This section also describes the more recent history of the area. Modern historical records for the 

proposed project area are contained in the 1790s’ 

journals of explorers and traders.

Paleo-Indian Tradition

The paleo-Indian tradition (9500–5500 B.C.) was 

based on big game hunting during a time of a relatively warm and comfortable climate. As the ice age 

ended, these peoples within the proposed project 

area could be identified by the distinctive Clovis 

points attached to their lances or spears. Clovis 

peoples hunted now-extinct animals including mammoths, mastodons, horses, and American camels. By 

11,000 years ago, these animals were gone, and then 

the paleo-Indian hunters relied on hunting giant bison (Bison antiques) with beautifully crafted Folsom 

points. For a thousand years, these peoples continued to hunt the giant bison using regional variations 

of spear or dart points with names such as the Agate 

Basin, Hell Gap, Eden, and Cody points (SDARC 

2011).

As the paleo-Indian tradition ended, there was 

increased evidence of plant collection and food 

storage. Sites of the paleo-Indian tradition include 

camps, Knife River flint quarry sites, other stone 

procurement areas, stone workshops, and isolated 

artifact finds (NDSHPO 2009).

Plains Archaic Tradition

Plains Archaic tradition lifeways (5500–400 B.C.) 

were based around gathering plants and hunting 

bison during a drier climate period that had many 

long and frequent droughts. Reliance predominantly 

on the hunting of big game seems to have shifted to 

the opportunistic hunting of bison when available 

and small game, even rodents, when necessary. The 

Archaic peoples used the atlatl with dart points for 

hunting.

The dry climate slowly changed until about 1000 

B.C., when conditions became much the same as 

today (SDARC 2011). Plant gathering was a very 
28 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

important component of the Archaic peoples’ daily 

activities and diet. Sites include animal kill sites, 

camps, Knife River flint quarry sites, stone workshops, and burial sites (NDSHPO 2009).

Pasqueflower is a native prairie plant.

Jackie Jacobson / USFWS

Plains Woodland Tradition

The Plains Woodland tradition lifeway (400 B.C.–

A.D. 1200) was primarily based on hunting and the 

gathering of modern plants and animals. During 

this tradition, the bow and arrow came into use 

(NDSHPO 2009). In addition, the Plains Woodland 

peoples began to garden and use ceramic pots as a 

result of contacts with eastern peoples. Trade goods 

from other regions of North America were common 

to these peoples. After A.D. 900, farming crops of 

corn, beans, squash, and sunflowers in gardens along 

river bottoms supplemented the hunting and gathering (SDARC 2011).

The farmers lived in earthlodge villages fortified 

by ditches and log palisades. Sites include burial 

mounds and other burial sites, occupations, camps, 

quarries, stone procurement areas, and bison kill 

sites (NDSHPO 2009). Great social and religious 

changes became part of these peoples’ lifeways as 

observed in the archeological record—hundreds and 

maybe thousands of burial mounds were constructed 

as a new and more elaborate way of burying their 

dead (Gregg et al. 2008, SDARC 2011).

Plains Village Tradition

Plains Village tradition lifeways (A.D. 1200–1780) 

adapted to hunting and gathering with full-scale 

gardening and with ceramic pots common in everyday life. These peoples had a dependable supply 

of stored food, primarily dried corn, which made 

possible the large and more permanent village communities of earthlodges. The Plains Village peoples 

were living all along the Missouri River Valley and 

its uplands, and their seasonal hunting camps occur 

throughout the proposed project area. After A.D. 

1700, European contacts and trade items became 

part of the lifeway, as did the introduction of the 

horse from the Southwest.

The Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara, and Cheyenne 

may be the most recognized of these Plains Village 

tradition peoples. Sites include occupations (fortified and unfortified earthlodge villages), winter 

villages, hunting camps, flint quarries, eagle-trapping sites, conical timber lodges, burial sites, lithic 

(stone) workshops, bison kill sites, and rock art sites 

(NDSHPO 2009).

This tradition ended when the 1780 epidemics 

decimated the villages, after which the nomadic 

Sioux became the dominant cultural force in the 

Northern Plains (Gregg et al. 2008).

Equestrian Nomadic Tradition

The Equestrian Nomadic tradition (A.D. 1780–1880) 

was dependent on the horse to focus narrowly on 

bison hunting, with seasonal rounds of plant gathering. A diversified group of cultures such as the 

Cheyenne, Dakota, Nakota, Lakota, Assiniboine, and 

Plains Cree took up the Equestrian Nomadic lifeway 

(DeMallie 2001). This horse culture lifeway greatly 

increased the capacity to hunt bison and to transport 

it and family goods over vast areas (Gregg et al. 

2008). Known sites include camps, battle sites, and 

animal kill sites (NDSHPO 2009). It could be said 

that this lifeway terminated with the surrender of 

Sitting Bull at Fort Buford, North Dakota.

Modern History

As they explored the Louisiana Purchase, the Lewis 

and Clark expedition traveled through or wintered 

in the proposed project area in 1804, 1805, and 1806. 

The 1800s were a period of cultural turmoil. Based 

on the United States’ Indian policy, the Government made acts and treaties with American Indian 
EA Chapter 3 –Affected Environment 29

tribes in response to the immigration of Europeans 

into the Northwestern Plains subarea. In the late 

1870s, these policies led to settlement of the American Indians on reservations. Today there are eight 

reservations in the proposed project area (Schneider 

2002).

The Dakota Boom began in the late 1870s. During 

this period, there was large growth in emigrant populations as new railroads opened eastern markets to 

the wheat from farms within the proposed project 

area. The Territory of Dakota was an organized, incorporated territory of the United States from 1861 

until 1889, when the territory was divided into the 

present States of North Dakota and South Dakota as 

they were admitted into the Union (Schell 1975).

Even after the effects of the Dust Bowl and Depression era of the 1930s, farms still covered the 

vast majority of land within the proposed project 

area. The Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System 

grew out of the attention given to conservation by 

President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his administration during this Depression Era. Today, the 

proposed project area includes 62 national wildlife 

refuges and 16 wetland management districts.

Socioeconomic Environment

The proposed project area includes parts of 52 counties within North Dakota and South Dakota:

North Dakota Counties

Barnes

Benson

Bottineau

Burke

Burleigh

Cass

Cavalier

Dickey

Divide

Eddy

Emmons

Foster

Grand Forks

Griggs

Kidder

LaMoure

Logan

McHenry

McIntosh

McLean

Mountrail

Nelson

Pembina

Pierce

Ramsey

Renville

Rolette

Sheridan

Steele

Stutsman

Towner

Trail

Walsh

Ward

Wells

Williams

South Dakota Counties

Aurora

Brule

Buffalo

Campbell

Charles Mix

Douglas

Edmunds

Faulk

Hand

Hughes

Hyde

Jerauld

McPherson

Potter

Sully

Walworth

The North Dakota cities of Bismarck, Fargo, Grand 

Forks, Jamestown, and Minot and the South Dakota 

cities of Aberdeen, Huron, Mitchell, and Pierre are 

some of the largest cities in or near the project area. 

These larger cities are considered travel designations from the surrounding rural communities for 

their shopping and entertainment. A limited amount 

of industrial activity is associated with the larger 

communities.

The proposed project area is rural in nature. 

Many small, rural communities with a population 

of less than 10,000 people lie within the proposed 

project area and are generally supported by the 

local agricultural and ranching industries. With the 

exception of the areas near cities and towns, the 

rural lands are mostly zoned for agriculture. Medium 

to large farming operations emphasize (1) high-value 

cropland mainly consisting of corn, wheat and beans, 

and (2) livestock beef agriculture. Because of the 

highly desirable soils, the high precipitation, and the 

topography, the proposed project area has a higher 

percentage of cropland operations as compared with 

livestock operations. The USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service reports that land values 

within the proposed project area range from more 

than $3,000 per acre for cropland (eastern South Dakota) to a low of near $300 per acre for pastureland 

(north-central North Dakota) (USDA–NASS 2008). 

These mostly family-owned operations range from a 

few hundred acres to several thousand acres in size.

Oil development in the northwestern part of 

North Dakota has seen tremendous growth over 

the last 10 years. There are 5,199 active wells, with 

174 active drilling rigs, in North Dakota, and most 

of them are within the proposed project area. Oil 

production for September 2010 was more than 10 

million barrels. The local media reported that 2010’s 

revenue to the State from oil extraction taxes will 

exceed $530 million and will likely exceed $1 billion 

in 2011. The discovery of new oil reserves and the 

advancement of drilling technology have resulted 

in a significant interest in drilling new wells for oil. 

Furthermore, a recently released survey conducted 

by the North Dakota Geological Survey showed that 

52 of the 53 counties in North Dakota have shallow natural gas reserves, which will likely result in 

added interest in natural gas exploration (NDGS 

2010).

Landownership

Most land in the project area is in private ownership. 

An unpublished report entitled “Summary of Lands, 

North Dakota Counties,” shows that approximately 

88 percent of North Dakota landownership is in private agricultural ownership, with the balance in 

towns, cities, roads, and State and Federal ownership.

South Dakota personnel estimate that approximately 90 percent of the State is privately owned. 

The ratio of private ownership is assumed similar 

within the proposed project area. Less than 7 per-
30 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

cent of the land in the proposed project area was 

purchased primarily for wildlife production.

Property Tax

Currently, landowners pay property tax on their 

private lands to the counties. Since the proposed 

project is a conservation easement program, the 

land would remain in private ownership. Easement 

properties would remain on the tax rolls, and landowners would continue to pay property taxes to 

the counties. Since lands in both North Dakota and 

South Dakota are assessed based on soils, which the 

conservation easements will not affect, no changes to 

the tax base are anticipated.

Public Use and Wildlife-Dependent 

Recreational Activities

Opportunities for wildlife observation, nature photography, hunting, and fishing attract visitors to 

the project area. Because the proposed project area 

encompasses part of the PPR, waterfowl hunting is 

a major attraction. Grassland species such as ringnecked pheasant and sharp-tailed grouse are abundant and are highly sought after by hunters.

The 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, 

and Wildlife-Associated Recreation found that $539 

million were spent on equipment and various trip 

expenditures for hunting and fishing in North Dakota and South Dakota (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). 

In 2010, the sale of hunting and fishing licenses in 

North Dakota and South Dakota generated nearly 

$42 million in revenue. An additional $206 million 

were spent on wildlife observation activities in both 

States.

There is increasing interest in developing wildlife-related tourism opportunities in the proposed 

project area. Several communities have developed 

self-guided, wildlife-viewing routes in conjunction 

with local landowners. Control of public access to 

easement lands remain under the control of the landowners.
EA Chapter 4–Environmental 

Consequences

For alternatives A and B described in chapter 2, this 

chapter documents the analysis of environmental 

effects expected to occur from implementing the 

alternatives.

Effects on the Physical 

Environment

This section describes the estimated effects of each 

alternative on the Service’s ability to address climate change.

Alternative A (No Action)

If spring and summer precipitation were to increase 

in a changing climate, tree encroachment would accelerate the threat of fragmentation in the proposed 

project area. The Service would have very limited 

means to promote conservation of native habitats in 

the proposed project area other than as a reactive 

response to climate changes.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

The proposed DGCA would provide the Service with 

a strong strategy for conservation action in anticipation of changes in climate. Implementing the proposed project could help secure the carbon already 

stored within native prairie soils. As preserving 

migratory bird corridors becomes increasingly important, the proposed DGCA would provide a contiguous north–south stand of native mixed-grass and 

tallgrass prairie within the central flyway. Conservation actions would help maintain intact the character 

of this native prairie in the PPR.

In addition, the proposed DGCA would serve as a 

model for engagement on the issue of climate change 

by working with producers, nongovernmental organizations (The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, Pheasants Forever, and many 

© Harold C. Hultberg

Wilson’s phalarope is a shorebird that uses both wetland and grassland habitats.
32 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

local wildlife organizations scattered throughout the 

proposed DGCA), State and local agencies (South 

Dakota Game, Fish and Parks; and North Dakota 

Game and Fish Department), and Federal agencies 

including the NRCS.

Effects on the Biological 

Environment

This section describes the estimated effects of the alternatives on uplands, wetlands, and federally listed 

species.

Upland and Wetland Effects— 

Alternative A (No Action)

Wetlands and grasslands would continue to be protected through a limited number of conservation 

easements bought with funding sources such as 

NAWCA and Federal Duck Stamps. Other measures for protection of wetland and grassland habitat would continue through fee-title acquisitions and 

restoration projects such as seeding native grasses; 

however, the cost per acre for these measures is 

two to four times the cost per acre for wetland and 

grassland easements. Based on current budgets and 

no additional money, there would be a projected 

loss of half of the remaining native prairie within 

the proposed project area, at current rates of converting native prairie to cropland, over the next 34 

years. Furthermore, without perpetual protection 

in the form of conservation easements, the future of 

wetland and grassland in the proposed project area 

would be uncertain.

The horned grebe is a wetland-dependent waterbird in the Prairie Pothole Region.

John and Karen Hollingsworth / USFWS

A survey of landowners in the PPR conducted 

more than 10 years ago showed that, although most 

landowners would keep the amount of grassland 

and cropland on their property the same, 24 percent would like to increase their cropland acreage 

(Responsive Management 1998). Of those landowners that would like to increase their cropland, the 

topography of the land, the laws, and the costs are 

perceived as factors preventing them from doing 

this. While topography is not changeable, changes in 

policy and the agricultural economy have historically 

resulted in changes in tilled acres (Gerard 1995). 

Several factors have accelerated the conversion 

of grassland into cropland production: (1) recent 

development of genetically modified cereal crops; 

(2) agricultural policy providing increased crop and 

income protection; and (3) increasing commodity 

prices (Stephens et al. 2008).

Current and projected grassland conversion 

rates will undoubtedly accelerate with increasing 

prices for cereal grains and low cattle numbers absent any meaningful effort to protect grasslands that 

remain within the proposed DGCA.

■ Recent crop prices have increased: (1) sunflowers 

at $29.19 per CWT (hundred weight) NuSunTM 

(Enderlin, North Dakota, crushing plant), average for 2011 through March (National Sunflower 

Association 2011); (2) March hard red spring 

wheat at $9.82 per bushel (Sun Prairie Grain 

2011b); and (3) March corn at $6.59 per bushel 

(Sun Prairie Grain 2011a)

■ Oklahoma State University’s Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources reports the 

beef cowherd in the United States decreased 12 

of the past 14 years. The beef cowherd dropped 

from a cyclical peak of 35.3 million head in 1996 to 31.3 million 

head in January 2010, which is 

the lowest level since 1963. Furthermore, the combined beef and 

dairy calf crop in 2010 was expected to be 35.4 million head—

the smallest United States calf 

crop since 1950 (Oklahoma State 

University 2011).

Additional loss of wetland and 

grassland would contribute to 

the long-term decline in nest 

success for upland-nesting waterfowl. Several duck species avoid 

nesting in cropland, and overall 

nest success in croplands is below levels considered sufficient to 

sustain populations (Cowardin et 
EA Chapter 4–Environmental Consequences 33

al. 1985, Klett et al. 1988). It is likely that predation 

would continue to be a major reason for nest loss in 

waterfowl and other upland-nesting birds, since each 

additional conversion of grassland to cropland would 

create an island of grass more easily searched by 

predators (Cowardin et al. 1985, Sovada et al. 1995). 

If grassland was converted to cropland, quality 

duck-nesting habitat could be restored by planting 

cover (cool-season grasses and forbs). Other intensive management techniques such as predator control, fence exclosures, and artificial nesting islands 

could also be used (Beauchamp et al. 1996, Reynolds 

1999). While these measures might be beneficial to 

overall nest success, they would be more expensive 

than protection through conservation easements.

Several species of grassland birds that are restricted to native mixed-grass prairie would be 

negatively affected if more of this habitat were converted to cropland. Cultivated land is unsuitable 

nesting habitat for these species (Owens and Myres 

1972). A reduction in nesting habitat may mean that 

the proposed DGCA would no longer be an area 

with a relatively high density of grassland birds, and 

populations in the proposed project area may begin 

to decline as they have in other parts of their ranges 

(Sauer et al. 1997). Some of these species may have 

to receive protection under the Endangered Species 

Act, if their populations continued to decline.

Conversion of grassland to cropland would increase the pesticide load on the environment. Pesticide use is almost entirely associated with croplands, 

and 90 percent of all cropland in North Dakota receives at least one application of herbicide per year 

(Zollinger et al. 1996). The effects of pesticides on 

wildlife are estimated to be high and could include 

reduction of nesting cover for birds, direct contamination of egg embryos, and losses in the aquatic 

invertebrate food base that is critical for many nesting birds, particularly waterfowl (Dwernychuk and 

Boag 1973, Messmer and Dahl 1991, Pimentel et al. 

1992).

Conversion of grassland to crops has negative 

effects on freshwater ecosystems. Intact grassland 

retains soil and nitrogen. Soil erosion from cropland increases sediment in fresh water systems, 

raising temperatures and degrading the habitat for 

fish. Land planted continuously to crops or close to 

aquatic systems releases high amounts of nitrates 

to freshwater systems. When these nitrogen-laden 

waters reach the larger bodies of water, they contribute to increased algal blooms, which increase 

biological oxygen demand, lower low oxygen levels, 

and change the vegetative habitats to a point that 

make it difficult for fish and other aquatic wildlife to 

survive.

Even in light of the real pressure for grassland 

conversion, North Dakota and South Dakota have 

waiting lists of well over 800 landowners interested 

in selling wetland and grassland easements on 

more than 300,000 acres. The only thing restricting 

the Service from protecting these areas is limited 

money.

Upland and Wetland Effects— 

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Establishing the proposed DGCA project would 

enable the Service to protect in perpetuity up to 

240,000 acres of wetland and 1.7 million acres 

of grassland. In addition to the funding sources 

available in alternative A, under this alternative 

the Service could also use money from the LWCF 

to buy wetland and grassland conservation easements. The increase in available money would result 

in increased acreage to complement the Service’s 

current conservation easement program and the 

existing public grasslands (such as waterfowl production areas and State wildlife management areas)—allowing for the preservation of a network of 

grasslands throughout the proposed project area. 

At current easement acquisition rates, the Service 

would achieve the acreage objectives for the proposed project within 30 years. Importantly, these 

protected areas would exist regardless of changes 

in agricultural policy or economy, which are known 

to affect the rate of grassland conversion (Gerard 

1995).

Protection of native prairie watersheds using 

conservation easements may be one of the best defenses to preclude further degradation of streams 

and prairie wetlands and the aquatic resources that 

depend on them. In addition, conservation easements in the proposed DGCA would help maintain 

the uniqueness of the relatively intact grasslands 

that harbor a wide variety of wildlife species. Buying grassland easements within the proposed project 

boundary would prevent the conversion of grassland, where nest success for waterfowl is higher, to 

cropland where nest success is lower (Klett et al. 

1988). Other species of upland-nesting birds also 

have higher nest success rates in grassland than 

in cropland (Kantrud and Higgins 1992). Furthermore, nest success increases when the percentage 

of the landscape in grass increases (Ball et al. 1995, 

Greenwood et al. 1995, Reynolds et al. 2001). Thus, 

protecting the relatively intact grasslands in the 

proposed project area represents a strategic opportunity for maintaining waterfowl populations 

throughout the PPR.

Protecting grasslands in the proposed DGCA 

would help buffer the population declines grassland 

birds are experiencing in other parts of their ranges. 

Grassland bird populations are steady or increas-
34 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

ing in the proposed project area while decreasing 

throughout many other parts of their ranges (Sauer 

et al. 1997). Long-term prospects for grassland birds 

are considered poor (Sauer et al. 1995), and preserving grasslands in this part of the birds’ ranges 

may prevent some of these species from needing 

protection under the Endangered Species Act. The 

agricultural economy, and in particular the livestock 

industry, is cyclical. In general, high prices of cereal 

crops generate accelerated conversion of grassland 

to cropland and lower the number of cattle due to 

high costs and small profit margins related to feeding and finishing beef cattle. Conversely, low crop 

prices generate gradual buildup of cattle herds to 

take advantage of low feed costs. This contributes to 

the cyclical nature of the beef production industry, 

which does not benefit from protections provided 

by farm policy and programs to agricultural crop 

producers. Grassland easement protection through 

the proposed DGCA project has the potential to 

augment and moderate the cyclical nature of the 

livestock industry, helping keep viable cattle production and ranching industries.

Preventing the establishment of some new cropland would slow the increase in volume of pesticides 

into the environment. Pesticide use is almost entirely associated with cropland, and 90 percent of 

all cropland in North Dakota receives at least one 

application of herbicide each year (Zollinger et al. 

1996). Protected grasslands would also act as buffers 

for wetlands near pesticide-treated cropland by filtering up to 70 percent of the water runoff (Hartwig 

and Hall 1980). This may reduce the negative effects 

on wildlife, such as nesting ducks, from ingesting 

contaminated invertebrates or from the loss of the 

invertebrate food base due to die-offs caused by pesticides (Grue 1988, Kantrud et al. 1989). In addition, 

an increase in the number of acres of upland buffers 

would provide an even greater benefit to aquatic 

resources.

Wetland and grassland easements are the most 

cost-effective, socially and politically acceptable 

means to ensure protection of critical habitats in the 

proposed project area. Although habitat protection 

through fee title remains an option in some locations, 

the Service sees easements as the most viable way 

to conserve lands at the landscape scale necessary 

to protect wildlife values in the proposed DGCA. 

The cost for acquisition of easements in the proposed 

project area would be approximately $588 million. 

Fee-title acquisition would triple or quadruple the 

cost of land conservation in addition to requiring 

increases in long-term management and operational 

costs for the Service.

The Service views a strong and vibrant rural lifestyle, of which ranching is the dominant land use, as 

one of the key components to ensuring habitat integrity and wildlife resource protection. The proposed 

conservation easement program would augment the 

efforts of other conservation agencies and groups.

An area restored by planting native vegetation.

USFWS

Federally Listed Species Effects— 

Alternative A (No Action)

Through the continued use of wetland and grassland 

easements acquired with approved money, there 

would be direct improvement in habitats for listed 

species such as western prairie fringed-orchid and 

indirect habitat improvement for other listed species 

such as pallid sturgeon. However, the pace of habitat 

protection would be at a slower rate than that for 

the proposed action.

Federally Listed Species Effects— 

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

With an accelerated purchase of wetland and grassland easements, the Service anticipates that all endangered, threatened, and candidate species would 

benefit from the extensive habitat protection under 

the proposed DGCA. Although management of lands 
EA Chapter 4–Environmental Consequences 35

with easements would remain primarily with the 

private landowner, maintaining wetland and grassland habitats would directly and indirectly benefit 

federally listed species. Similar to alternative A, direct improvement is expected in habitats for listed 

species such as western prairie fringed-orchid and 

indirect habitat improvement for other listed species 

such as pallid sturgeon.

Effects on Cultural Resources

This section describes the estimated effects of each 

alternative on cultural resources.

Alternative A (No Action)

Some cultural resources could benefit indirectly because, where they occur in a wetland and grassland 

easement, the cultural resources would be protected 

from surface-disturbing activities.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

There would be potential for more protection of cultural resources than under alternative A, due to 

the accelerated purchase of wetland and grassland 

easements.

Effects on the Socioeconomic 

Environment

This section describes the estimated effects of the 

alternatives on landownership, land use, oil and gas 

development, and wind energy development.

Landownership and Land Use Effects—

Alternative A (No Action)

Landownership would not be affected. Limited acquisition of perpetual wetland and grassland easements would continue through existing funding 

sources. Lands not protected through these traditional funding sources would be at risk of conversion to agriculture at the present rate, thus greatly 

reducing wetland and grassland resources over time.

Landownership and Land Use Effects—

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Landownership would not be affected. The additional funding source for the acquisition of wetland 

and grassland easements from willing sellers would 

improve the Service’s ability to protect wetland and 

grassland resources. In addition, the economic incentive of easement purchases may provide opportunities for farming and ranching operations to remain 

viable.

In most instances, wetland and grassland easement requirements would be compatible with the 

current operations on the properties. Protected 

wetlands may be hayed and grazed without restriction and may be farmed when dry of natural causes. 

The wetland easements would prohibit the draining, burning, filling, or leveling of protected wetland 

basins. The grassland easements would not restrict 

grazing, would prohibit the conversion of the grasslands, and would restrict haying until after July 15.

A recent GAO report indicated that the conversion of grassland to agricultural production in South 

Dakota would result in a net increase in farm revenue 4 out of 5 years with farm program subsidies 

(GAO 2007a). However, without farm program subsidies, the farm revenue would only increase 1 out 

of 5 years. Therefore, maintaining the local ranching 

communities would provide a much more stable income and would not increase overall farm subsidy 

payments.

Conservation easements secure a limited interest 

in private lands, and landowners would continue 

to pay property taxes. While there is the potential 

that grassland that could be converted to cropland 

would generate higher tax revenue than grassland, 

this Service’s conservation easement program would 

have no direct effect on the existing value of the 

land. Although the Service would acquire a limited 

interest in an easement property, there would be no 

transfer of ownership. The landowner would keep 

all access control, except the Service may enter the 

property to ensure compliance with the terms of the 

easement.

Subsurface Resource Effects— 

Alternative A (No Action)

The development of subsurface resources would not 

be affected. Region 6 (Mountain–Prairie Region) 

requires that subsurface resources in wetland and 

grassland easements be handled differently from 

other Service regions, because the Region 6 agreements have rights different from those in other regions. The Service would continue to administer 

subsurface resources on wetland and grassland conservation easements according to the policies and 

procedures in the Easement Manual, as described 

under alternative B (USFWS 2011a).
36 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Subsurface Resource Effects— 

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

The subsurface resource effects would be the same 

as for alternative A. The Service would follow policies and procedures in the Easement Manual, which 

are summarized below.

Wetland Easements

Following Region 6 policy for wetland conservation easements, the Service exercises jurisdiction 

over all subsurface resources such as sand, gravel, 

clay, scoria, black soil, other soils, fill, and rock-like 

materials. This jurisdiction does not include the traditional minerals—gas, oil, and coal—because the 

rights to these resources are not included in easements. It needs to be emphasized that this jurisdiction relates only to the wetland protected under 

easement. If any of the subsurface, resource-extraction activities can be accomplished on upland sites 

without affecting protected wetlands either directly 

or indirectly (watershed interference), there is no 

easement jurisdiction and the activities may occur.

Grassland Easements

Region 6 policy for grassland easements specifies 

the Service’s jurisdiction over limited subsurface 

resources such as clay, fill, black soil, or other soils; 

however, under the policy, the Service will not exercise jurisdiction over sand and gravel. As with 

wetland easements, Service jurisdiction does not include gas, oil, and coal. This policy is consistent with 

existing grassland easement program administrative 

guidance, and that has been used by realty and management staffs, as well as portrayed by easement 

vendors to landowners in the past.

Surface Protection

When it is stated that Region 6 will not exercise 

jurisdiction over certain subsurface exploration or 

extraction practices—as described above for sand 

and gravel on grassland easements—the intent is 

that no jurisdiction is expressed nor implied. Managers may, however, suggest reclamation procedures 

or work with the extraction entity or the landowner 

to minimize surface disturbances; but managers cannot require specific conditions of people or entities 

exercising their subsurface resource rights. Recommendations can be sent by letter with a map that (1) 

shows the location of proposed facilities and (2) identifies the natural resource features where minimized 

disturbance is needed to protect resources and to 

avoid negative effects on easement interests. In 

most cases, disturbance to a tame grass site would 

be less detrimental than on a native prairie site.

The mineral estate owner has a legal obligation 

to take reasonable measures to protect the surface 

estate under laws in most States. The Service’s involvement is necessary to protect and reduce the 

negative effects on the wetland and grassland resources. The best situation is for the Service, the 

mineral company, and the landowner to discuss the 

alternatives and choices before any agreements between two of the three parties. Region 6’s role is 

limited to those aspects that affect Service easement 

interests and are reasonable. The Service gives recommendations in writing to the energy or mineral 

company and the landowner; if agreed to, all three 

parties sign the recommendations. The approved 

recommendations are retained and passed on to 

various entities within the mineral company and 

will protect the surface interests of the Service and 

future landowners in case the land or the company 

is sold.

There are situations related to oil and gas production on easements where the Service has the 

authority to permit or deny the use and where the 

Service’s compatibility policy would apply. For example, the Service has the authority to deny the 

crossing of easement lands with pipelines or roads 

to access oil and gas production on lands not within a 

Service easement.

Wind Energy Development Effects— 

Alternative A (No Action)

On easements acquired under existing funding and 

authorities, the Service would address requested 

uses such as wind energy development under the 

policy of reasonable accommodation as described in 

the Easement Manual (USFWS 2011a). No changes 

would occur. The Service would evaluate wind energy development that could affect an easement’s 

provisions and would authorize the use only if appropriate. The policy includes an evaluation process 

that could allow wind energy development to occur 

on an easement by exchanging that easement for another easement property, with a reversionary clause 

to reinstate the original easement after development 

activities cease.

Wind Energy Development Effects— 

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

For easements acquired under the new authority of 

the proposed DGCA, the Service would address requested uses such as wind energy development the 

same as for alternative A, with an expected increase 

in reviews due to more land protected by easements
EA Chapter 4–Environmental Consequences 37

Native prairie in bloom.

USFWS

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Any adverse effects that may be unavoidable while 

carrying out alternatives A and B are described 

below.

Alternative A (No Action)

The loss of wetland and grassland habitats through 

conversion to agriculture and development would 

continue, although protection of some of these habitats would continue through existing acquisition 

authorities and funding.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

The increased protection of wetland and grassland 

habitats would reduce fragmentation, increase water 

quality, maintain current levels of carbon sequestration, and maintain the area’s rich biological diversity. 

Management of lands for wetlands and grasslands 

would benefit ranching operations but may reduce 

the potential production of agricultural crops in the 

area, although most areas to be protected are not 

well suited for crop production. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitments of Resources

Any commitments of resources that may be irreversible or irretrievable because of carrying out 

alternatives A or B are described below.

Alternative A (No Action)

There would be no commitment of resources by the 

Service if no action were taken. The Service’s existing authorities would permit the acquisition of 

easement interests within the proposed project area, 

although they would be limited to current money 

constraints.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

There would not be any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources associated with the 

establishment of the proposed DGCA project. If 

funded through the LWCF, easements would require 

an irretrievable and irreversible commitment of 

resources for the long-term administration of the 

easement provisions. The administration costs would 

be shared among the 16 wetland management districts that cover the proposed project area; the costs 

would represent only a minor increase in overall 

Service costs to the existing easement-monitoring 

program.

Short-Term Use versus Long-Term 

Productivity

Following is a discussion of short- and long-term 

effects.

Alternative A (No Action)

Wetlands and grasslands are expected to continue 

to be lost at current rates of conversion, which 
38 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

would create long-term negative implications to the 

maintenance of the biological and ecological communities they support. Although continued efforts 

to conserve these habitats would be ongoing through 

existing authorities and funding, the Service’s ability to conserve existing large tracts of wetland and 

grassland would be diminished; fragmentation of 

these habitats would continue.

One of the must abundant large mammals in the proposed 

project area is the white-tailed deer.

© Craig Bihrle

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

The increased ability to acquire perpetual wetland 

and grassland easements would provide an immediate economic benefit to participating landowners, 

allowing many operations to expand or simply stay 

in operation—having positive economic short- and 

long-term effects. The conservation of remaining 

wetland and grassland tracts would (1) reduce 

long-term fragmentation of these vital habitats of 

many dependent species, (2) maintain current carbon sequestration capabilities, (3) keep the area’s 

rich biological diversity, and (4) protect endangered, 

threatened, and rare species currently using wetland and grassland habitats. Lands added to the National Wildlife Refuge System through the proposed 

DGCA would increase the costs associated with 

monitoring and management of the Refuge System; 

however, staff at several existing management units 

would share this work, which would require no additional Federal resources.

Cumulative Impacts

As defined by NEPA policy, cumulative impacts 

on the environment are those that result from the 

incremental impact of an action when added to other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency (Federal or nonFederal) or person undertakes the other actions (40 

CFR § 1508.7).

This section describes the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions related to the proposed 

DGCA. The following discussion documents the 

analysis of the cumulative impacts of these actions in 

combination with the actions of alternatives A and B.

Past Actions

The Service’s past, land protection efforts within 

the PPR have included establishment of the Dakota 

Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area and 

the North Dakota Wildlife Management Area, both 

in 2000. Since the 1960s, the Service has actively 

used Federal Duck Stamp money to buy wetland 

and grassland easements. In total, the Service has 

protected in perpetuity approximately 2,420,414 

acres. The Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program has worked with many private landowners 

on site-specific conservation efforts.

The USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program has 

approximately 3,800,000 acres enrolled in the voluntary conservation program. In addition, the USDA 

administers approximately 45,000 in the Wetland 

Reserve Program. Nongovernmental organizations 

such as Ducks Unlimited have purchased approximately 39,000 acres of conservation easements.

Present Actions

The Service’s proposed action to establish the 

DGCA conservation easement program—up to 

240,000 acres of wetland and 1.7 million acres of 

grassland—is one of the largest known actions for 

land protection in the PPR of North Dakota and 

South Dakota. If approved, the Service would be 

able to use money from the LWCF in addition to 

money from the Migratory Bird Stamp and North 
EA Chapter 4–Environmental Consequences 39

American Wetland Conservation Act. If money can 

be secured, there would likely be an increase in the 

number of wetland and grassland easements purchased.

Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions

Reasonably foreseeable actions are activities independent of the proposed action and are anticipated 

to occur regardless of which alternative is selected; 

however, the foreseeable actions could result in cumulative or additive effects when combined with the 

alternatives. The primary, reasonably foreseeable 

actions in the PPR are the development of energy 

(oil, gas, and wind), agriculture, and prairie conservation efforts by a variety of organizations.

Oil and Gas Development

Northwestern North Dakota has recently seen a 

dramatic increase in oil and gas activity in what is 

commonly known as the Bakken formation. Recent 

advances in rock fracturing techniques have made 

oil production more economically viable, and there 

is an estimated 3.65 billion barrels of recoverable oil 

in the Bakken formation within North Dakota and 

Montana (Pollastro et al 2008). North Dakota has 

174 drilling rigs operating; this number of rigs is estimated to remain stable or increase (NDOGC 2011).

Wind Energy Development

North Dakota and South Dakota have remarkable 

wind energy potential. More than 127,000 square 

miles or about 85 percent of both States are suitable 

for commercial wind energy production, with an 

estimated energy capacity of 1.65 million megawatts 

(NREL 2011). The proposed DGCA has less than 2.4 

percent of North Dakota and South Dakota’s wind 

development area (some priority wetland and grassland resources are not in commercially viable areas).

In coordination with the Western Area Power 

Administration, the Service is developing a programmatic environmental impact statement to 

analyze the environmental and socioeconomic effects of wind energy development in two administrative areas: (1) the Upper Great Plains Region 

of the Western Area Power Administration, which 

covers all or parts of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota; and 

(2) the Service’s wetland and grassland easements 

in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana. The 

environmental impact statement will identify typical 

environmental effects of wind energy development; 

prescribe mitigation strategies, standard construction practices, and best management practices; and 

establish a comprehensive environmental program 

for evaluating future projects. The final analysis is 

expected to be completed in 2 years.

Agricultural Development

North Dakota and South Dakota predominantly 

comprise farming and ranching operations. Commodity prices and farm program subsidies are the 

main factors leading to the conversion of grassland 

to cropland. Although farm program subsidies are 

reviewed on a regular basis, few changes are expected. In contrast, commodity prices are difficult to 

estimate and change on a daily basis but tend to be 

cyclic over time.

Other Conservation

Governmental agencies, primarily NRCS, and nongovernmental organizations such as The Nature 

Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited are expected to 

continue offering multiple programs to landowners. 

The proposed action would augment these efforts by 

collaborating with landowners to provide benefits 

to wildlife and fisheries resources along with the 

farming and ranching communities. If the goals of 

the proposed action were achieved, it is expected 

the Service would continue to implement remaining 

elements of the Conservation Strategy. That process 

would be analyzed at such time.

Development Impacts—Alternative A 

(No Action)

Incremental increases in infrastructure construction 

from oil, gas, and wind energy development activities or agriculture production would likely result in 

more fragmentation and removal of wildlife habitat. 

Grassland to cropland conversion rates would be 

expected to remain at current levels, because conversion rates are closely correlated with commodity 

prices.

Development Impacts—Alternative B 

(Proposed Action)

The proposed action is a voluntary program where 

individual landowners would determine if wetland or 

grassland easements would be appropriate for their 

operations. Although the extent of energy development is dynamic, the Service would evaluate energy 

development on a case-by-case basis and authorize 

it if appropriate; the proposed action could influence where energy development companies select 

production sites. In addition, the proposed perpetual 

conservation program may reduce the potential production of agricultural crops in the area, although 

most areas to be protected are not well suited for 

crop production.
40 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Other Conservation Impacts— 

Alternative A (No Action)

Conservation of wetland and grassland habitats 

would continue under existing acquisition authorities. These programs do not keep pace with current 

rates of wetland and grassland loss, and the Service 

would potentially never meet the PPJV conservation objectives. Known impacts from the loss of wetland and grassland include the following:

■ Permanent loss of vegetative species diversity

■ Increased fragmentation of habitats critical to 

the survival of many plant and wildlife species

■ Decreased carbon sequestration capabilities

■ Decreased water retention and water purifying 

capabilities in wetland and grassland communities

Other Conservation Impacts— 

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

The accelerated acquisition of conservation easements up to the proposed 240,000 acres of wetland 

and 1.7 million acres of grassland would conserve 

a large part of the remaining wetland and grassland resources within the PPR, with an emphasis on 

conserving native prairie. This conservation effort 

would do the following:

■ Reduce the loss of vegetative species diversity

■ Maintain key habitat blocks for a variety of wetland- and grassland-dependent birds

■ Conserve carbon sequestration capabilities

■ Protect the area’s water resources

Conclusion 

Development of lands for either agriculture or 

energy development is largely determined by the 

private landowner. Similarly, private landowners 

determine if protection of lands via wetland and 

grassland easements is in their best interest. This 

voluntary program is not expected to have an adverse impact.
EA Chapter 5–Coordination and 

Environmental Review

This chapter describes how the Service coordinated 

with others and conducted environmental reviews of 

various aspects of the project proposal and analysis. 

Additional coordination and review would be needed 

to carry out the proposed action.

Agency Coordination

The Service has discussed the proposal to establish 

the DGCA with landowners; conservation organizations; other Federal agencies; tribal, State, and 

local governments; and other interested groups and 

individuals.

The Service coordinated within the agency as 

well as with State wildlife agencies in developing 

this EA. Field and regional Service staffs conducted 

the analysis and prepared the documentation (refer 

to “Appendix C, List of Preparers and Reviewers”).

Contaminants and Hazardous 

Materials

Level 1 pre-acquisition site assessments would be 

conducted on individual tracts before purchase of 

any land interests. The Service’s environmental contaminants specialists from the Ecological Services 

offices in North Dakota and South Dakota would be 

contacted to make sure policies and guidelines are 

followed before acquisition of conservation easements.

National Environmental Policy Act

The Service conducted this environmental analysis under the authority of and in compliance with 

NEPA, which requires an evaluation of reasonable 

alternatives that will meet stated objectives and 

an assessment of the possible effects on the human 

environment.

Environmental Assessment

This EA will be the basis for determining whether 

implementation of the proposed action would constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. NEPA 

planning for this EA involved other government 

agencies and the public in the identification of issues 

and alternatives for the proposed project (refer to 

“Appendix B, Public Scoping Report”).

Distribution and Availability

The Service is distributing the EA (with the associated draft LPP in the same volume) to the project 

mailing list, which includes Federal and State legislative delegations, tribes, agencies, landowners, private groups, and other interested individuals. Copies 

can be requested. After the EA is released for public 

review, the Service will hold public meetings to talk 

about the EA and draft LPP.

Copies of the EA and information about public 

meetings are available by visiting the project Web 

site or by contacting the Service by email, postal 

mail, phone, or in person.

Northern shoveler is a priority bird species in the Prairie 

Pothole Region.

John and Karen Hollingsworth / USFWS
42 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

■ Project Web site: www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/

planning/lpp/nd/dkg/dkg.html

■ Project email: dgca_comments@fws.gov

■ Nick Kaczor, Planning Team Leader

Attn: Proposed DGCA 

Division of Refuge Planning

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300

Lakewood, Colorado 80228

303/236 4387

■ Lloyd Jones, Refuge Manager

Attn: Proposed DGCA 

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex

3275 11th Street Northwest

Coleharbor, North Dakota 58531

701/442 5474

Strategic Habitat Conservation

The proposed DGCA project is a landscape-scale 

effort to conserve populations of priority species in 

a highly diverse and endangered ecosystem over an 

area of approximately 29.6 million acres. Therefore, 

it is important to incorporate the elements of SHC 

(strategic habitat conservation) to ensure effective 

conservation. SHC entails strategic biological planning and conservation design, integrated 

conservation delivery, monitoring, and 

research at ecoregional scales (figure 5). 

Some elements of SHC have been addressed in migratory bird management 

plans in the PPR.

Strategic Biological Planning 

and Conservation Design

Habitat loss due to conversion of wetland 

and grassland to cropland is the primary 

limiting factor for all of the priority species in the proposed DGCA. The loss of 

wetland reduces the carrying capacity for 

waterfowl and other waterbirds, and the 

loss of grassland reduces the nest success 

of waterfowl and other grassland-nesting 

species (Greenwood et al. 1995, Herkert 

et al. 2003, Reynolds et al. 2001, Stephens 

et al. 2005).

Grassland accessible to the greatest 

number of pairs of breeding ducks would 

be the primary determinant for acquiring grassland conservation easements. 

Long-term protection objectives include 

all grasslands accessible to more than 25 duck pairs, 

plus a 1-mile buffer of grassland that affects nest 

success. These objectives were set to rank grasslands accessible to moderate to high numbers of 

breeding ducks. The Service identified three grassland categories:

■ Grassland accessible to more than 60 duck pairs

■ Grassland accessible to 40–60 duck pairs

■ Grassland accessible to 25–40 duck pairs

Figures 6 and 7 are the wetland and grassland flowcharts from the Easement Manual that the Service 

would use to prioritize areas based on spatial models 

for waterfowl, threatened and endangered species, 

grassland birds, shorebirds, and other waterbirds 

(USFWS 2011a). Priority grasslands and wetlands 

for waterfowl and nonwaterfowl species overlap 

substantially, providing benefits for multiple groups 

of species (Niemuth et al. 2008).

Integrated Conservation Delivery

Wetland and grassland easements represent a 

means to conserve habitat. The habitat conservation 

strategies for grassland wildlife including migratory birds (many of which are addressed by other 

bird initiatives) would not differ substantially from 

those strategies carried out to meet the needs of 

waterfowl (Ringleman 2005). As understanding of 

Figure 5. Graphic of the elements of strategic habitat conservation.
EA Chapter 5–Coordination and Environmental Review 43Figure 6. Chart of evaluation criteria for acquiring wetland conservation easements.
44 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Figure 7. Chart of evaluation criteria for acquiring grassland conservation easements.
EA Chapter 5–Coordination and Environmental Review 45

the functional relationships between priority species 

and habitats increases, the Service will adapt the 

strategies to target the most influential parcels for 

meeting the population objectives of the priority 

species listed in table 1 (chapter 3).

Over time, SWAP has used different criteria 

to guide the acquisition process; however, habitat 

quality has always been the major criterion. The 

best waterfowl-breeding habitat in the PPR is intermixed wetland complexes and quality grasslandnesting habitat. Generally, landscapes with high 

numbers of wetlands attract high numbers of waterfowl breeding pairs, and landscapes with a large 

percentage of perennial grassland cover exhibit 

higher nest success. This combination of wetland 

and grassland is important for many other nonwaterfowl species including shorebirds, other waterbirds, and grassland birds (Beyersbergen et al. 2004, 

Johnson et al. 1994, Niemuth et al. 2008). These two 

elements—large numbers of wetlands in association 

with priority grassland habitat—are the cornerstones of the habitat conservation program.

During development of the EA, the Service developed a draft LPP outlining selection factors for 

obtaining the highest priority habitat for acquisition. 

The detailed EA and draft LPP provide the information necessary to carry out the conservation action 

of acquiring the “best of the best” habitat for priority species. The Service’s Division of Realty would 

continue to refer to the LPP in assessing opportunities to acquire the highest priority habitat.

Monitoring and Research

Conservation efforts in the PPR focus on the protection and restoration of wetland and grassland, and 

there is great potential for providing benefits for 

multiple species. HAPET has developed standalone, 

single-species models to provide the ability to target 

different priority species, a combination of species, 

the treatment types, various locations, or specific 

funding requirements. Furthermore, this approach 

would give the Service a rapid response tool for specific decision support and for adaptive changes in 

models as new information became available.

The Service annually monitors waterfowl, breeding shorebirds, other waterbirds, grassland birds, 

and raptors in the proposed project area. In addition, the Service is working with partners to develop 

a more comprehensive marshbird-monitoring program.

HAPET has provided valuable information 

through current monitoring programs that has been 

used to develop models of population–habitat relationships for priority waterfowl, shorebirds, grassland birds, and some raptors (Niemuth et al. 2005, 

Niemuth et al. 2008a, Reynolds et al. 2001, Reynolds 

et al. 2006). These efforts would be expanded to include other species as resources and methods are 

developed.

Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives

The Service will use LCCs (landscape conservation 

cooperatives), part of a recent developing initiative, 

as a means of conducting SHC. The proposed DGCA 

lies entirely within the Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC. The Secretary of the Interior recently 

outlined the importance of LCCs as a response to 

climate change (USFWS 2010). Reaching across 

broad landscapes, these conservation cooperatives 

involve many partners and function at a scale necessary to address wildlife adaptation in response to 

climate change. In carrying out conservation actions 

through the proposed DGCA, the Service would 

use the efforts of the LCC in refining priority acquisitions as the Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC 

develops.

EA Glossary

AFWA—Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. vesting must be delayed until after July 15 each 

candidate species—A plant or animal species that year. Grazing is not restricted in any way.

has been identified as possibly warranting future grassland, tame—Grassland that was farmed at one 

protection under the Endangered Species Act. point and has reverted to grass, such as CRP 

Conservation Strategy—An adaptive approach for (Conservation Reserve Program) lands.

integrating biological priorities with current HAPET—Habitat and Population Evaluation Team. 

socioeconomic threats to habitat to target the “interseed”—Mechanical seeding of one or several 

acquisition of wetland and grassland easements plant species into existing stands of established 

in the Prairie Pothole Region States of Region 6. vegetation.

The strategy focuses on the five, primary, upland- IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

nesting duck species, which also provide for other LCC—Landscape conservation cooperative. 

trust species’ benefits. To meet the goal of this LPP—Land protection plan. 

strategy, there is an estimated need of an ad- LWCF—Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

ditional 1.4 million acres of high-priority wetland NASS—National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

and 10.4 million acres of high-priority grassland. native prairie—a grassland community that is in 

DGCA—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area. its original state—it has never been plowed or 

Easement Manual—Abbreviated name for the cultivated.

“Administrative and Enforcement Procedures NAWCA—North American Water Conservation Act. 

of Easements within the Prairie Pothole States NDGFP—North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 

Manual” (USFWS 2011a). NDGS—North Dakota Geological Survey. 

endangered species—A species of plant or animal NDOGC—North Dakota Oil and Gas Commission. 

that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a NDSHPO—North Dakota State Historic Preservasignificant part of its range. tion Office. 

Endangered Species Act—A law passed by Congress NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act. 

in 1973 with the purpose of protecting and recov- NFHB—National Fish Habitat Board. 

ering imperiled species and the ecosystems on NRCS—Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

which they depend. NREL—National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

EA (environmental assessment)—A public document PPJV—Prairie Pothole Joint Venture. 

for which a Federal agency is responsible. An PPR—See Prairie Pothole Region. 

EA provides evidence and analysis for deter- prairie pothole—a wetland located in the Prairie 

mining whether to prepare an environmental Pothole Region.

impact statement or a finding of no significant Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan—A 

impact, aids an agency’s compliance with NEPA plan that provides direction for integrating the 

(National Environmental Policy Act) when no conservation of all migratory birds under one 

environmental impact statement is necessary, framework. The process involves stepping down 

and facilitates preparation of a statement when the objectives of the four plans for the internaone is necessary. tional species groups of waterfowl, shorebirds, 

GAO—Government Accountability Office. other waterbirds, and landbirds. Population and 

grassland—A vegetative community in which habitat trends, coupled with knowledge of how 

grasses are the most conspicuous members. species respond to landscape change, will be used 

Grass species may be native or introduced. to build a biological foundation and set quantifigrassland easement—A perpetual, legal agreement able goals.

between a landowner and the Service (U.S. Fish Prairie Pothole Region—An area of the northern 

and Wildlife Service) that pays the landowner Great Plains that contains thousands of shallow 

to permanently keep the land in grass. Land wetlands known as potholes. These potholes are 

covered by a grassland easement may not be the result of glacier activity in the Wisconsin glacultivated. Mowing, haying, and grass seed har- ciation, which ended approximately 10,000 years 
48 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

ago. The decaying ice sheet left behind depres- SDARC—South Dakota State Historical Society Arsions formed by the uneven deposition of till in cheological Research Center. 

ground moraines and melting ice blocks, which Service—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

created kettle lakes. These depressions fill with SHC—Strategic habitat conservation. 

water, creating the seasonal wetlands known as SWAP—Small Wetlands Acquisition Program. 

potholes. threatened species—A species of plant or animal 

priority zone—Grasslands accessible to more than 25 that is likely to become endangered in the foreduck pairs per square mile, plus a 1-mile buffer of seeable future.

grassland, that affect nest success. trust species—Federal trust species, which include 

Refuge System—National Wildlife Refuge System. threatened and endangered species, as well as 

Region 6—An administrative unit of the Service migratory birds such as waterfowl, wading birds, 

known as the Mountain–Prairie Region, which shorebirds, and neotropical migratory songbirds.

covers eight States: Colorado, Kansas, Montana, U.S.—United States. 

Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

and Wyoming. USFWS—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

requested use—An activity that has been requested wetland easement—A perpetual, legal agreement 

to occur on lands with easement agreements. between a landowner and the Service that pays 

These activities—such as pipelines, road con- the landowner to permanently protect wetlands. 

struction, and wind development, which would Wetlands covered by an easement cannot be 

affect easement wetlands or grasslands—would drained, filled, leveled, or burned. When these 

have to be applied to a review process before wetlands dry up naturally, they can be farmed, 

they could be authorized. grazed, or hayed.
EA Appendix A

Requests for Use or Modification

of Easement Properties

Following is the complete 27-page chapter XII, which is an excerpt from the “Administrative and Enforcement Procedures of Easements within the Prairie Pothole States Manual, 2nd Edition, revised March 2011.” 

Chapter XII is also referred to as “Requested Uses.”

EA Appendix A–Requests for Use or Modification of Easement Properties 51

CHAPTER XII 

REQUESTS for USE or 

MODIFICATION of EASEMENT PROPERTIES 

A. General Discussion

When wetland and grassland easements are purchased, the Service acquires certain rights in the 

described property. All of these documents are perpetual (except for a very few 50-year 

agreements within the Devils Lake WMD), and the intent is that wetland managers will enforce 

the provisions of every easement according to the rights acquired. When easements are acquired, 

consideration needs to be given to future uses of the property that may conflict with the easement 

purposes. Measures should be taken during acquisition to eliminate future conflicts if possible.

However, circumstances may arise from time to time when an easement may cause undue 

hardship to a landowner, public service entity, or a municipality that may need to improve its 

public service facilities; all of which may result in the need to modify a Service-held easement. 

In these cases, managers are encouraged to work with these entities when possible to alleviate or 

help minimize the hardship which may be created by the easement. This chapter outlines the 

procedures that must be followed when considering the modification of lands protected by 

Service easements. It is not the intent of this chapter to allow for the exchange or amendment of 

easements for matters of convenience or just because landowners don’t like the easement on their 

property.

The criteria which may justify either temporary relief or an exchange of easement rights involve 

issues surrounding health, safety, or major threats to private or public property; issues associated 

with units of local government or other public entities; or certain issues surrounding farm/ranch 

operations. If the request is justified, based on the manager’s experience and best judgment, then 

the following process should be pursued in an effort to resolve the issue. 

This process and accompanying flowchart are designed to help managers evaluate requested uses 

regardless of whether it is related to health and safety, a right-of-way request, or a proposal from a 

private landowner concerning his private farm operation. Much thought and preparation has gone 

into this process; and while it is not fool-proof, it does provide managers a systematic and 

consistent way of looking at and dealing with the myriad of issues associated with administering 

easement properties. This process is intended to be used for ALL requested uses of easement 

properties, including the authorized activities listed in the “old” manual guidance known as 

“permitted activities.” Managers must use the flowchart to evaluate proposed uses of easement 

properties. As discussed earlier, it is intended to provide a systematic thought process when 

evaluating proposals. Part of this thought process is determining whether the proposal is 

reasonable and whether there are alternatives to accommodating the request on easement 

property. Managers should try to accommodate the request off easement property if possible. 

The “Easement Use Evaluation Form” (Exhibit XII-3) is to be used to aid the evaluation, and to 

serve as a permanent record of the decision for the easement file. 

XII - 1 updated March 2011
52 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

If any pre-76 wetland easements are involved with the request, then the easement wetlands must 

be mapped according to the policies found in Chapter XI. 

Needless to say, activities which do not impact the rights acquired by the Service are allowable 

without the need for a permit. This process for evaluating proposed uses is NOT intended to 

apply to commonly-accepted operational practices which go along with normal farming/ranching 

operations. Activities like fencing needs, corrals, vehicle and equipment access trails, temporary 

hay storage, and other operational necessities are allowed on easement properties WITHOUT the 

need for a permit or advanced approval from the Wetland Management District office. 

Issuance of Permits and/or Letters of Authorization:

The permit application (use request) may be either in writing or verbal. In all cases, however, the 

manager must know exactly what is being requested. Even though use requests can be made 

verbally, in no case will the authorization be verbal. It must be on a Special Use Permit (SUP) or 

through a Letter of Authorization (LoA), with stipulations and a map if necessary. If a request is 

received from a 3rd party (e.g., a utility company, highway department, etc.), then it must be in 

writing. Managers must visit the site of any proposed activity prior to issuing authorization to 

impact any easement area. If the request is to resolve an emergency, authorization can be granted 

prior to visiting the site, but the manager must visit the site as soon as practicable.

All permits must be issued before acts of burning, draining, filling, and leveling in wetlands, or 

cultivation or alteration of grasslands or other protected habitats are allowed. No "after-thefact" permits shall be issued. All non-permitted acts of burning, draining, filling, and leveling 

of wetlands, or cultivation or alteration of grassland vegetation will be treated as easement 

violations and referred to the U. S. Attorney, through the Regional Easement Coordinator, if 

necessary, for resolution. 

Permits can only be issued when the requested activity successfully passes the flowchart (see 

stepped process below) and 1) approval of Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations 

(use Programmatic CD if appropriate; authorized habitat management activities excluded), and 2) 

documentation of NEPA compliance, Cultural Resource compliance, and Endangered Species Act 

compliance. Current regional guidelines, policies, and delegations of authority apply to the 

preparation and processing of NEPA and Endangered Species documentation as well as 

Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations. Except for emergency situations and 

authorized refuge habitat management activities as discussed in this chapter, and recognizing that 

the applicant is not relieved from complying with other local, state, or federal regulations, all 

activities within easement protected habitats require preparation of Appropriate Use and 

Compatibility Determinations (use Programmatic CD if it applies) as well as NEPA and 

Endangered Species Act (Section 7) documentation prior to issuance of a permit. Permits issued 

for any request involving economic activities must meet the higher standard of compatibility by 

“contributing” to the refuge area. See 50CFR, 29.1 for definitions and examples of “economic 

activities.” 

In some situations, field stations have an approved Comprehensive Conservation Plan that 

describes the permitted activities and includes programmatic compatibility determinations, 

environmental assessments, and intra-Service Section 7 Biological Consultations. These 

XII - 2 updated March 2011
EA Appendix A–Requests for Use or Modification of Easement Properties 53

documents should meet the above requirements. At other stations where no generic documents 

exist to meet the requirements of Appropriate Use, Compatibility, NEPA, and the Endangered 

Species Act, Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations will need to be prepared (or use 

Programmatic CD if applicable), as well as NEPA compliance, and consideration of Endangered 

Species Act requirements. 

Where the Service has purchased or acquired an easement interest to preserve wetland, grassland 

or other habitats, certain acts of draining, burning, filling, and leveling of a limited nature may be 

allowed in protected wetland(s) or cultivation or alteration of grasslands by issuance of a permit. 

The Regional Director, or his designee, may issue a permit when such activities will not detract 

from or impair the basic purposes for which the easement was acquired. The Solicitor's opinion of 

August 14, 1980 (Exhibit XII-1) further discusses the legal aspects of permitting limited acts of 

draining, burning, filling, or leveling in wetlands under easement. While this opinion is 

specifically for wetland easements, the intent applies to other types of easement interests. 

Exhibit XII-2 is an example of a permit with the standard wording that is to be used in the 

Statement of Effect and Compatibility section to the permit. This statement will be used on all 

Special Use Permits issued (except emergencies and authorized habitat management activities as 

discussed below in this chapter). 

Authorized burning is considered a habitat management activity and will not require a 

compatibility statement. For authorized activities, other than habitat management activities, the 

statement to be used on the Statement of Effect and Compatibility section of the permit will read 

as follows: 

"The activity described and allowed by this permit is hereby determined to be compatible 

with the purposes for which the easement interest was acquired."

This statement represents only the decision made on compatibility and does not represent a 

determination of compatibility. 

Special Use Permits are issued at the field level for a period of 1 to 5 years and with Regional 

Office approval, for up to 10 years. Stipulations can be added to the permit to require any type of 

restoration, reseeding, packing, returning the soil profile, etc. Generally, this permit is for 

activities with temporary impacts or to authorize the construction period for activities that will 

later be covered by a Right of Way permit. The SUP can be used for example, to authorize 

crossing a wetland with a buried pipeline or crossing a grassland easement with a chiseled in 

waterline. These types of activities generally have limited and quick recovery impacts. The

limitation however, is that if future maintenance is required for example with a broken line after 

the SUP has expired, another SUP would be needed to authorize the additional work. 

A Letter of Authorization can also be issued at the field level and is for the duration of time as 

indicated in the letter. Generally LoA’s are used to authorize a long term or permanent use on 

easement lands; e.g., a request to lower a wetland that is flooding a driveway. If it’s a short term, 

one-time need, the SUP would best meet the authorization need. However, if it is expected that 

the relief being provided will be long term or permanent, that is where a LoA is most applicable. 

XII - 3 updated March 2011
54 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

The LoA basically goes to the landowner and into the files and can be a permanent authorization 

of that requested use. 

The third method of authorizing an activity is through the granting of a Right of Way (ROW) 

permit as the result of an application from the project sponsor. This application process is 

identified in CFR Subpart B – Rights-of Way General Regulations, 50 CFR 29.21. ROW permits 

can be granted for as long as it is used for the purpose granted, generally up to 50 years or lesser 

where appropriate. ROW applications are to be provided to the state Realty Supervisor. Any 

descriptive information or background should be provided by the field managers to this Realty 

office as well. The advantage of authorizing a use with a ROW permit is that current and future 

construction and maintenance would be allowed without any further administrative action, for the 

term of the ROW and within any limitations or stipulations within the permit. For example, if a 

ROW were granted for a buried waterline on a grassland easement and the line broke 20 years 

later, maintenance activity would be already approved under the ROW and no additional permit 

or authorization would be needed. However, the requestor may not want to apply for a ROW 

permit due to cost or application requirements. They may determine that the need for future 

maintenance is limited and if needed, they may assume another SUP would be granted to cover 

that activity. Again, the decision to apply for a ROW or not, is a decision for the requestor. 

Discussions have occurred relative ROW’s on the extent of information needed to describe the 

location of the ROW area. The CFR (29.21-2 Application procedures.) clearly states the intent of 

information needed as being sufficient to “show the right-of-way in such detail that the right-ofway can be accurately located on the ground.” The CFR references that maps, sketches or a plat 

provided by the applicant are sufficient and provides direction on specific location information. 

In the 50 year administration of the program, there has never been an identified need by field 

managers to require a legal survey completed by registered surveyors in order to locate any ROW 

boundary. For example, field managers have the ability to accurately locate and relocate FmHA 

easement boundaries using GPS technology and very basic maps. Therefore, finding a ROW 

boundary for compliance purposes with GPS coordinates would be a similar, accurate and easy 

task. 

In a ROW application, at a minimum, the requestor needs to provide a level of point information 

that can be accurately duplicated by field managers, such as GPS coordinates. A legal survey of 

the ROW is not required. However, if the project sponsor is surveying other features of the 

project, off easement, they should be encouraged to provide survey data for the ROW as well. 

In the advent that the project requestor applies for a ROW permit, it is their choice to do so, there 

may be a time delay before the ROW permit is actually granted. At the discretion of the field 

manager, the project sponsor can be issued a SUP to cover the initial construction while the ROW 

permit is being processed. 

Depending on the outcome of a flowchart review, there may also be an option to use an exchange. 

This is not however, authorizing a use on an easement, an exchange is removing that defined area 

from the system and therefore no permit or authorization is needed. Exchanges are discussed in 

Chapter XV and exchanges with a reversionary clause as is used in wind projects can be found in 

Chapter XIV. 

XII - 4 updated March 2011
EA Appendix A–Requests for Use or Modification of Easement Properties 55

If the requested activity passes the flowchart process and is approved, the requesting entity will 

receive the original of the SUP or Letter of Authorization. The issuing office will retain copies in 

the appropriate easement file. NEPA compliance documents, cultural resource compliance 

documents, and any other documents requiring approval must be forwarded to the RO for 

approval/concurrence prior to issuing the permit/letter of authorization; however, it is no longer 

necessary to send copies of the signed SUP into the Regional Office.

To provide as much consistency as possible among Wetland Management Districts, managers 

must authorize requested uses of easement properties if the proposal passes the flowchart and can 

be accomplished within the guidelines presented in this section and with the guidelines contained 

in Exhibit V-6 (if they apply), unless they can justify a denial of the request to the Standing 

Easement Review Committee. Proposals which fail to pass the flowchart, but involve special 

circumstances associated with the proposed use, may also be appealed to the Committee. 

If circumstances apply, requesters may also need a formal ROW permit from the Regional OfficeRealty. See Chapter XIII for guidance on the right-of-way permit process. 

Concept of Threshold Levels of Disturbance: One of the major components of the flowchart 

process is the concept of threshold levels of disturbance. Section 2.11 B-1 of the 2000 

Compatibility Policy states that compatibility is, in fact, a “threshold issue” and that proposed 

uses must pass a “threshold test.” 

Region 6 has developed several programmatic compatibility determinations (CD) (Exhibits XII4a-g) authorizing managers to accommodate certain requested uses or activities on easements. 

These CDs are not intended to cover any activities or proposed uses of any Service-administered 

fee lands (refuges and WPA’s, except Exhibit XII-4e and 4g which may apply to WPA’s). The 

requested activity must first successfully pass the flowchart process for it to be considered a 

compatible use. Appropriate Use and Compatibility must be addressed in every case, unless an 

Exchange of Interests is being considered or the use qualifies as a non-economic habitat 

management activity. For managers to use one of the programmatic CDs, the situation at hand 

must fit the discussion in the programmatic CD exactly. Otherwise, an individual CD will be 

required. Assurances have been incorporated into the process to protect the integrity of the 

NWRS, and to comply with policy requirements governing the System. As part of the 

compatibility evaluation process, managers must also address any associated or secondary 

impacts. This is further explained in Section B-7 of this chapter. 

Only two of the programmatic CDs involve the use of threshold levels; the others involve 

temporary impacts only to easement interests. Region 6 has defined “threshold” levels of impact 

which may occur as a result of authorizing a requested use, but will not materially interfere with 

or detract from the purposes for which the easement interest was acquired. These levels of impact 

are defined more fully in the programmatic CD on curtilage expansion (Exhibit XII-4a ) for 

threshold levels associated with uplands, and in the programmatic CD on Health and Safety 

wetland issues (Exhibit XII-4b) for threshold levels associated with protected wetlands. They are 

based on years of scientific evaluation of prairie pothole habitat and how habitat impacts affect 

waterfowl populations.

XII - 5 updated March 2011
56 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

These threshold levels of impact have been established at 0.4 acres of wetland, and not to exceed 

25% of the wetland basin, and/or 8 acres of easement-protected upland. These levels have been 

established based on biological models developed by the Habitat and Population Evaluation Team 

(HAPET) in Bismarck, ND. The justification for these levels is also found in the previouslymentioned programmatic CD’s. 

If the requested use passes the flowchart’s screens and filters, is found to be appropriate and 

compatible, and results in a permanent impact to the Service’s easement interests at or below the 

threshold levels, then the use can be approved, meaning that the impact will not result in a 

“material” interference or detraction from the purposes for which the easement area was acquired. 

Threshold levels should not be viewed as an automatic “allowance” or “manager’s discretion” for 

easement properties. Each proposal must pass all the screens and filters in the flowchart and be 

appropriate and compatible to be approved. The following guidelines will apply to authorized 

uses, WHICH HAVE SUCCESSFULLY PASSED ALL steps of the flowchart, relative to the 

concept of threshold levels: 

• Each easement contract will be authorized up to one threshold level of impact in total, 

whether it occurs all at one time, or in different authorizations for wetlands and/or uplands. 

• The Easement Use Evaluation form (Exhibit XII-3) will serve as the official record for each 

easement contract. 

• Authorized third party requests (road improvement projects, utility projects, water lines, etc.) 

will NOT count against the landowner’s aggregate potential threshold. 

• Easement contracts which are sub-divided by sale or which are less than 160 acres to begin 

with will be capped at an aggregate total which is pro-rated based on the threshold level of 8 

acres (i.e., an 80 acre parcel will be capped at 4 acres, etc.). This requirement applies to 

upland acres only. The established threshold levels for wetlands (0.4 acres) will apply even to 

subdivided wetland easement contracts. 

• If an easement contract has received past authorizations amounting to a fraction of the 

potential total, and subsequently the land is subdivided through sale, then the balance of future 

potential authorization will also be pro-rated, based on what was previously authorized, but 

will not exceed the total of potential authorization for the easement contract. 

• In the unlikely event that the threshold levels for a given easement contract have been reached 

through past authorizations, and another requested use meets the authorization criteria 

(flowchart process), the manager may appeal the case to the Standing Easement Review 

Committee for a decision. 

• If the appeal is denied, the only option at this point is an exchange of interests, even for 

below-threshold levels of impact. 

• Proposals which are authorized and result in ABOVE-threshold levels of impact must be 

accommodated through an exchange of interests (Exhibit XV-1). 

XII - 6 updated March 2011
EA Appendix A–Requests for Use or Modification of Easement Properties 57

Region 6 has adopted a process to replace values for any impact to refuge system interests, 

however slight. This process will be accomplished independently of compatibility requirements 

associated with such uses, and will not enter into, nor affect, any decisions made relative to 

Compatibility Policy requirements. 

The biological values for any habitat impacted below-threshold levels will preferably be replaced 

on-site. An informal replacement of lost values may be an option. It is anticipated some events 

will involve miniscule acreage for Health/Safety or Farm/Ranch-related impacts. For example, a 

landowner wishes to fill in part of a co-owned easement wetland basin in order to construct a 

fence on the property line. The fill may come from the “shoulder” of the wetland or from a spoil 

pile in the basin created by a previously-constructed livestock dugout. The end result in this case 

is no net loss of easement wetland acreage. 

Another option is to replace lost values on or off site with use of grant monies (Health/Safety and 

Farm/Ranch impacts only). In those cases where there is Public Service, Government, or 

Corporate involvement, cash receipts will be generated by the requestor which will be used to 

replace lost values on or off site. A good example for these scenarios would be restoration of a 

previously-drained wetland. 

The third option is the Madison Contributed Funds Account in those cases where revenues are 

generated by Public Service, Government, or Corporate requests – OR – use of Madison 

NAWCA grant money when replacement of lost values is associated with Health/Safety or 

Farm/Ranch impacts. Currently, there is ample opportunity on the Madison WMD to do 

wetland/upland restoration work. 

Authorizations for Health and Safety (green blocks on Easement Permit Flowchart) or from the 

“Other Request” category (orange blocks on the Easement Permit Flowchart) will not include a 

cash payment obligation for any below-threshold habitat restoration work; grant monies will be 

used as necessary for these entities for below threshold impacts. 

For any exchange process involving above-threshold acreage (NOTE: exchange agreements to 

accommodate wind energy infrastructure now involve a reversionary clause – see the Wind 

Energy chapter for more information), the exchange will be based upon the current market value 

of easement interest to be relinquished. Cash payments will be required of the requestors.

Replacement acreage priorities to be followed as part of an exchange are: 

Priority 1 - restorable acres/replace lost values on site. 

Priority 2 - restorable acres/replace lost values in project area. 

Priority 3 - restorable acres/replace lost values in State. 

Any exchange will be consistent with USFWS policy (Exhibit XV-1). 

XII - 7 updated March 2011
58 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Request

(Ch. XII) Region 6 

Flowchart

Revised March 2011 

Jurisdiction? No

(B, 1) 

No authority under the easement; 

other laws may apply 

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No (29.1 Criteria ) 

No (29.1 Criteria) 

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Refuge Mgmt. Activity? Yes

(seeding, burning, etc.) 

(B, 2) 

No

Issue Permit or Letter of 

Authorization if appropriate 

Public Service, 

Government, or 

Corporate Request 

(B, 5) Determine 

Type of 

Request (B, 3) 

All Other Requests 

(B, 6) 

Emergency 

(Health/Safety) 

(B, 4) 

Other Reasonable 

Alternatives? 

(B, 5, A) 

Deny

Request

Essential Need? 

(B, 5, B) 

Deny

Request

Compromise Integrity 

of Easement Area? 

(B, 5, C) 

Deny

Request

Request for Wind 

Energy Development? 

See Chapter XIV 

Temporary Impact in 

compliance with 4/5/02 Policy? 

(B, 5, D) 

Issue Permit or LoA 

 if Appropriate 

and Compatible 

Request fits “minor 

expansion” criteria? 

(B, 5, E) 

Issue Permit or LoA 

 if Appropriate 

and Compatible 

Impact at or 

below Threshold? 

(B, 5, F) 

Issue Permit, LoA, 

and/or ROW 

(B, 5, H) 

Appropriate & Compatible? 

(B, 5, G) 

Deny

Request

Consider an Exchange 

See Exhibit XV-1 

(B, 5, F & G) 

Temporary; 

Less than 30 days? 

(B, 4, A) 

30 days to 

one year? 

(B, 4, B) 

Recurring? 

(B, 4, B) 

Impact at or 

below Threshold 

(B, 4, C) 

Consider an Exchange 

See Exhibit XV-1 

(B, 4, D) 

Issue

Permit 

Issue Permit 

 if Appropriate 

and Compatible 

No longer an 

Emergency 

Supports Working 

Landscape Management 

Activities? 

(B, 6, A) 

Issue LoA if 

Appropriate 

and Compatible 

Deny

Request

Other Reasonable 

Alternatives? 

(B, 6, A) 

Deny

Request

Essential to 

Operation/Project? 

(B, 6, C) 

Deny

Request

Can the request be 

accommodated with a 

Temp. Permit? (< 1 yr) 

(B, 6, D) 

Issue Permit 

 if Appropriate 

and Compatible 

Impact at or 

below Threshold 

(B, 6, E) 

Appropriate & Compatible? 

(B, 6, F) 

Consider an Exchange 

See Exhibit XV-1 

(B, 6, F & G) 

Deny

Request

No (Assoc. Impacts) 

No (Assoc. Impacts) 

Issue Letter 

of Authorization 

XII - 8 updated March 2011
EA Appendix A–Requests for Use or Modification of Easement Properties 59

B. Process for Evaluating Requests for Use or Modification of Easement 

Properties:

This process is designed as a “screen-out” mechanism, meaning that a proposal must meet ALL 

the criteria (except bona fide health and safety issues) rather than any single criterion in the 

process to be considered.

Managers will use the Special Use Permit Flowchart to help guide the proposal (requested use) 

to a logical conclusion and decision. Exhibit XII-3 contains a form which follows the flow 

diagram, and this may also be helpful for managers to use in evaluating requested uses. A copy 

of this form must be retained in the permanent easement file as a record of your decision, and to 

provide a record of authorized uses for the easement area.

While the decision criteria used to evaluate a request for an easement use or modification are 

presented in a linear stepped process on the flow chart, the actual consideration of a request 

should be made with the majority of the steps in mind. If a request is likely to be found 

incompatible due to the loss of endangered species, such as the loss of prairie fringed orchids for 

stock water development, or the loss of a water bird nesting colony for farmstead expansion, 

discussion with the requestor should likely focus around avoiding those impacts. When 

evaluating an exchange which does not require compatibility, unique or rare values would be 

considered as part of the Environmental Site Assessment. Managers should keep in mind that 

some easements will protect unique or rare wildlife and habitats which the Service should 

maintain regardless of how well the request may fit the remainder of the criteria in the flow 

chart. 

1. Authority to Regulate the Proposed Use:

First, the wetland manager must determine if the Service has the authority to administer 

the proposed use. Does the Service have jurisdiction under the terms of the easement? If 

the answer is “NO,” then, while there may be other laws that regulate the use, the Service 

has no authority under the terms of the easement. The wetland manager should inform 

the requester that, although the Service does not have the authority under the easement, 

this does not exempt them from other laws and/or regulations which may regulate the 

request.

The Service occasionally receives requests from USDA Wildlife Services to spray 

cattails for the purpose of eliminating blackbird roosting habitat. When this request is on 

land protected by a wetland easement only, then the Service has no jurisdiction to restrict 

the use since the activity does not constitute a “drain, burn, fill, or level.” However, the 

Service would have jurisdiction when that same request is made on land protected by a 

grassland easement since the activity would effectively be “destroying the vegetative 

cover.”

2. Refuge Management Activity for Habitat Improvement:

If the Service has jurisdiction, then determine if the request can be considered a “refuge 

management activity,” defined as an activity that could be conducted by the Service or a 

XII - 9 updated March 2011
60 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Service-authorized agent to fulfill one or more purposes of the national wildlife refuge 

(area), or NWRS mission. Service-authorized agents may include state or federal 

agencies, educational institutions, contractors, private organizations or individuals. 

Qualifying refuge management activities are exempt from the compatibility process. 

These activities must benefit wildlife populations or easement habitat, they must further 

the purposes and goals of the Wetland Management District and the mission of the 

NWRS, and they must be commonly-accepted as practices which are normally 

accomplished by natural resource agencies to promote wildlife populations. Examples 

include, but are not limited to, prescribed burning of upland or wetland vegetation to 

enhance vigor or provide better breeding pair habitats in wetland, planting food plots for 

use by wintering wildlife, planted shelterbelts for cover and winter protection, 

interseeding upland areas to introduce more resilient or diverse native grasses and/or 

forbs, and restoration of previously-drained wetlands. Authorized refuge management 

activities are exempt from compatibility requirements, EXCEPT for Refuge Management 

Economic Activities which are NOT exempt from compatibility and must meet a higher 

standard as defined below. Refuge management activities which are also economic uses 

(e.g., early haying of a grassland easement) can be approved at this level without the need 

for using the rest of the flowchart, but managers must still develop Appropriate Use (AU) 

and Compatibility Determinations (CD) before the request is authorized (see discussion 

below for more detail). If, in the judgment of the wetland manager, requests do not fit 

logically within a refuge management activity category, then the request must be 

evaluated using the rest of the flowchart, including economic uses which do not qualify 

as refuge management activities. An example would be a request to mine top soil from a 

grassland easement or borrowing fill material to facilitate road construction. These are 

not refuge management activities as defined in this section, but are economic uses as 

defined in 50 CFR 29.1, so the proposals would have to be evaluated through the 

remainder of the flowchart. 

In general, any authorized upland habitat management activity, or combination of 

activities, must not exceed 8 acres per 160 acres of easement. Some activities, such as 

interseeding or reseeding upland areas or burning, will not be limited to the 8 acres per 

160 acres. These activities will generally also be limited in terms of length of time. A 

Special Use Permit can be issued for up to 5 years. Activities like native shrub plantings 

and authorized wildlife dugouts, however, will be more permanent modifications to the 

landscape than the 5 year permit limitation. In these cases, issue a Letter of 

Authorization rather than a Special Use Permit. 

There are also specific requirements associated with some of the Habitat Management Activities. 

See also Exhibit V-6 for additional conditions on other Habitat Management Activities. 

• Shelterbelts - to qualify as a habitat management activity, shelterbelts must be of native shrub 

species and be planted on non-native grassland areas; other requested tree/shrub plantings, 

such as field or farmstead windbreaks, will not fit this category, and must be evaluated with 

the remainder of the flowchart. Limited to no more than 8 acres/160 acres of easement. 

XII -10 updated March 2011
EA Appendix A–Requests for Use or Modification of Easement Properties 61

• Foodplots - positively NO foodplots will be authorized on native prairie grasslands protected 

by easement. Previously, Special Use Permits were limited to 5 years for non-native 

uplands. This time limit is no longer applicable, and a Letter of Authorization should now be 

used to permit food plots rather than an SUP; the LOA should consider the following 

conditions:

a. no food plots to be planted in wetlands; 

c. specify the type of crop, or crop rotation; 

d. no harvesting or grazing except after March 31, and prior to spring planting; 

e. must include a plan for re-establishment of grass after the food plot is terminated; 

f. limited to no more than 8 acres per quarter section; 

g. the use of insecticides is discouraged on the food plots; and 

h. NO native prairie shall be broken for food plots. 

The LOA can be revoked by either party at any time. Exhibit XII-8 contains an example 

of an LOA to use for food plots. 

• Burning of wetlands - will not be authorized more than once in every 3 years, or not to 

exceed 1/3 of the wetland easement acres annually, with individual permits issued each year. 

See Exhibit V-6 for additional required conditions.

• Wildlife ponds- which are constructed in accordance with NRCS specs for a wildlife 

development are permitted under this category. Dugouts for stockwater only are covered by 

the Programmatic CD (Exhibit XII 4-g). 

• Farming/Seeding of Wetlands - protected wetlands which are overlaid by a grassland 

easement are protected against farming and/or cultivation just the same as upland acres. As a 

general policy, requests for farming them will not be authorized. However, managers may 

authorize farming of wetlands with a permit and justification for the improvement of the 

area, the same way they are authorized to farm upland acres for the improvement of the area. 

This practice will be considered a habitat management activity if it results in an improvement 

of the area. It may be considered as a “refuge economic use” if removal and or harvesting of 

products is part of the authorization. Economic use activities require an individual CD 

written to the higher standard (see below). If the seeded wetland is grazed (anytime) or 

hayed after July 15, then it is NOT an economic use; if the area is cropped, and the crop 

harvested, then it IS an economic use. Non-economic uses considered to be habitat 

management activities do not require a compatibility determination. 

Food plots are NOT authorized in wetland basins as stated above. Wetlands within native 

prairie will NOT be farmed, seeded, or manipulated under any circumstances. Wetlands 

protected by only a wetland easement may be farmed when dry of natural causes without 

permission from the WMD. 

• Interseeding- Grassland improvement must be the goal of any authorized interseeding. This 

practice can be authorized under this category if, in the judgment of the wetland manager, a 

XII -11 updated March 2011
62 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

net improvement for wildlife will occur. Practices for the benefit of the landowner’s 

operation must be evaluated under the remainder of the flowchart. 

 Interseeding is a habitat management activity and exempt from compatibility determinations 

unless the use of glyphosate or any other contact herbicide on native prairie is being 

requested. Native prairie is defined as: Grasslands that do not have and never had a 

cropping history or any other type of modification to the original prairie excluding burning, 

haying, grazing or grass tolerant herbicide application. The request shall identify the species 

composition of the original planting in non native grasslands or re-established native 

grasslands prior to any approval for interseeding. 

 Interseeding into native prairie must be with native grasses and forbs only. The use of 

glyphosate or any contact herbicide to eliminate certain exotic grasses (crested wheatgrass, 

smooth brome, or Kentucky bluegrass) can have detrimental effects on native grasses and 

forbs especially cool season native grasses and will require a compatibility determination. If 

permitted, this practice should occur in the early spring prior to any warm season grass or 

warm season forb emergence. Wetland managers must inspect the proposed native prairie 

tract and identify any cool season native grasses or forbs that could be affected prior to 

completion of the compatibility determination or any approvals. Interseeding is not limited 

to the 8 acre per 160 acres requirement. Additionally, an easement use evaluation form must 

be filled out and placed in the easement file for any interseeding activity. 

• Wetland Restorations - are authorized on easement properties. They can be either 

permanent, which requires either another easement agreement or an amendment, or under a 

term agreement, such as a Partners for Fish and Wildlife Agreement, or in conjunction with a 

USDA or CRP requirement. See Exhibit V-6 (11) for additional information. 

If the proposed activity qualifies under any of these criteria, then issue a Special Use Permit or 

Letter of Authorization. A compatibility determination is not required for practices implemented 

under this category, except for those that are determined to be economic uses. 

 Refuge Management Economic Activities:

If the requested use is considered to be a “refuge management economic activity,” then it must 

meet a higher standard of compatibility by “contributing to the achievement of the national 

wildlife refuge purposes or the National Wildlife Refuge System mission.” If the request is 

approved, the wetland manager must describe how the economic use contributes to the 

achievement of the purposes and mission statement and explain such in the CD. The “normal” 

compatibility standard of not “interfering with or detracting from” the purposes or mission will 

not suffice for economic use requests. 

Economic Uses are defined in 50 CFR 29.1 as “including, but not limited to grazing livestock, 

harvesting hay and stock feed, removing timber, firewood or other natural products of the soil, 

removing shell, sand, or gravel, cultivating areas, or engaging in operations that facilitate 

approved programs on national wildlife refuges.” Another way of defining an economic use is if 

the activity results in the “harvest of the interest” the Service acquired in the easement.

XII -12 updated March 2011
EA Appendix A–Requests for Use or Modification of Easement Properties 63

A differentiation is made between refuge economic uses and potential commercial uses. 

Authorizing a communications cable to cross easement properties is a use request from a 

commercial entity, but it does not fit the definition of “economic use” for this section. Other 

examples of commercial uses which do not meet the definition of a “refuge economic use” 

include: buried water pipelines completed by incorporated rural water companies, electric utility 

cables, television cable crossings. Another way of looking at this is if the use results in only an 

“occupation” of the easement property, then it is probably not an economic use. If the use results 

in a “withdrawal” of a product, then it probably is an economic use. 

If the request falls under the category of a “refuge management economic use,” then the manager 

must complete a CD, evaluated on the higher standard, for RO approval. After approval, issue a 

Special Use Permit or letter of authorization. If the use request is for early haying of a grassland 

easement for management purposes, there is a programmatic CD which can be used if it fits the 

exact circumstances of the request at hand. (Exhibit XII-4c) 

“8 acres per contract” vs. “8 acres per quarter”

Since the release of the first edition of the Easement Administrative and Enforcement Manual in 

December 2005, confusion and disagreements over the proper applications of the “8 acre per 

contract” and “8 acre per quarter” standards have surfaced. An attempt is made here to clarify 

these two standards, including an explanation of their genesis and their intended applications as 

they relate to administering proposed modifications of easement properties. 

“Eight acres per contract” refers to a threshold value that Region 6 defined as a material

interference or detraction, and is used to assist in the determination of whether or not a proposed 

impact to a grassland easement is compatible. The Compatibility Policy of 2000 defines a 

compatible use as a wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge that, based 

on sound professional judgment, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment 

of the mission of the NWRS or the purpose of the refuge.

Making this determination is a threshold issue. By way of programmatic compatibility 

determinations completed in 2005, Region 6 defined the threshold levels of impact for not only 

grassland easements (8 acres), but also for wetland easements (0.4 acres, not to exceed 25% of 

the total wetland basin). These levels of impact are more fully defined in the Justification 

sections of the CDs, and are based on years of scientific data which suggest these levels of 

impact will not result in the destruction of habitats capable of supporting one pair of ducks. In 

other words, impacts exceeding these levels could diminish an easement’s capacity for providing 

habitat for nesting waterfowl (i.e., one pair of ducks) which Region 6 has determined constitutes 

a “material interference or detraction from” the easement’s purpose. 

Neither the Easement Manual, nor the programmatic CD defining the 8 acres per contract, 

precludes a wetland manager from drafting a compatibility determination which finds levels of 

impact exceeding 8 acres compatible. However, the onus is on the manager to successfully 

argue that the level of impact does not materially interfere with or detract from the NWRS 

mission or purpose of the easement; and, given the background and justifications included in the 

existing programmatic CDs, this argument would be difficult, if not impossible, to uphold. 

XII -13 updated March 2011
64 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

“Eight acres per quarter” refers to the amount of impact that will generally be tolerated on 

grassland easements for those modifications that can be considered habitat or refuge 

management activities (the terms “habitat” and “refuge” are used interchangeably for this 

discussion). Unless also an economic use, habitat management activities are exempt from 

compatibility requirements; thus, no CD is necessary for their approval. 

Habitat management activities are defined as those that could be conducted by the Service or a 

Service-authorized agent to fulfill one or more purposes of the easement area or the NWRS 

mission. Examples could include shelterbelts, food plots, wildlife ponds, wetland restorations, 

and interseeding. Most habitat management activities are generally limited to 8 acres per 160 

acres, but not all are. Interseeding and burning, for example, are not limited to this acreage. The 

foundation for 8 acres per 160 acres likely came from previous easement manuals which 

contained flexibility to allow “minor changes” in the easement up to 5% of the easement area. 

Five percent of 160 acres is 8 acres. 

The fact that habitat management activities are generally allowed on up to 8 acres per quarter (or 

5% of the easement area), and that the Region 6-defined level of impact deemed less than a 

material interference or detraction is 8 acres (per contract of at least 160 acres), is merely 

coincidental. One had absolutely no influence on the establishment of the other. 

Further discussion on both standards can be found elsewhere in the Manual. Specifically, 

discussions, rationale, and justifications for the 8 acres per contract standard as it relates to 

Compatibility can be found elsewhere in Chapter XII-a, and in programmatic CDs included as 

Exhibits XII 4-a and XII 4-b. Text pertaining to the 8 acres per quarter standard as it relates to 

habitat management activities can also be found elsewhere in Chapter XII-a, and background 

information concerning the intent to incorporate flexibility in easement administration is well 

covered in Chapter I.

Finally, extreme diligence and care must be exercised by all individuals when discussing 

easement restrictions with landowners, especially during the negotiation phase of acquisition.

Prior to the sale of the easement, landowners must be made to understand the terms of the 

easement contract exactly, and should have no expectation of being allowed to negatively impact 

the protected easement interests in the future. While the Service wishes to maintain flexibility to 

address legitimate needs to modify easement areas, the landowner must not be given the 

impression that any modification is guaranteed. In other words, the ability and decision on 

whether or not to allow an impact on a grassland easement contract belongs solely to the Service, 

and may only be exercised after an exhaustive review process through the flowchart. It is not the 

landowner’s “allowance,” nor is it at the landowner’s discretion to impact those acres whenever 

he/she sees fit. In other words, the landowner has no flexibility to impact a grass easement in a 

way that is restricted by the easement contract. Rather, the Service has limited flexibility to 

permit legitimate needs to modify easement lands when the impacts are deemed less than 

material. 

XII -14 updated March 2011
EA Appendix A–Requests for Use or Modification of Easement Properties 65

3. Determining the Type of Requested Use of Easement Property:

If the request is not a Habitat Management Activity, then managers must categorize the 

type of request. The request can be one of three alternatives: 

• Health, Safety, or Major Threat to Public or Private Property - Use Green-colored blocks 

through the center of the Easement Request Flow Chart 

• Public Service, Government-sponsored or supported, or Corporate-type requests - Use the 

blue-colored blocks on the left side of the Flowchart 

• All Other Requests - Use the orange-colored blocks on the right side of the Flowchart 

If the requested use successfully passes the flowchart, then managers should review 

Exhibit V-6 to check for conditions and/or stipulations for some of the more commonly 

requested uses of easement properties. This exhibit also contains conditions and/or 

stipulations for commonly requested habitat management activities. Region 6 has 

developed seven programmatic CD’s which can be used to address compatibility if the 

circumstances fit the description in the CD. If not, then an individual CD will need to be 

developed.

The seven programmatic compatibility determinations are: 

• a CD (Exhibit XII-4a) to address necessary expansions of building sites, etc. 

involving established threshold levels for upland habitats. 

• a CD (Exhibit XII-4b) to address resolving chronic Health and Safety issues 

involving “non-material” impacts to protected wetlands (below threshold levels). 

• a CD (Exhibit XII-4c) covering authorized early haying of grassland easements for 

management purposes. This activity represents an economic use, so the CD is written 

to achieve the higher standard. 

• a CD (Exhibit XII-4d) to address temporary impacts (only) to protected wetlands to 

resolve Health and Safety issues. 

• a CD (Exhibit XII-4e) to evaluate proposed uses which are consistent with the Region 

6 policy letter of April 5, 2002 (Exhibit XII-7) involving impacts to easement 

interests resulting in only temporary and minor impacts. 

• a CD (Exhibit XII-4f) to be used in conjunction with pipelines for livestock water 

crossing grassland easements. (Previously completed). 

• a CD (Exhibit XII-4g) to be used for dugouts for livestock water on easements and 

WPAs (completed in 2008). 

XII -15 updated March 2011
66 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Region 6 has a long standing policy that activities which may impact native prairie will not be 

authorized. While, in general, this is still the case, impacts which may result to native prairie 

from legitimate activities which pass the flowchart may be acceptable. However, ALL other 

alternatives must be exhausted before authorization is given to impact native prairie. An 

example would be the need to reroute a driveway access to a residence as a result of flooding, 

and there is no alternative but to route the new access through native prairie. 

4. Health and Safety or Major Threat to Personal or Public Property:

Situations involving health, safety, or major threats to buildings, roads, and infrastructureExamples: Basement flooding caused by high water in a nearby wetland, barnyard or feedlot 

flooding, driveway or other road flooding, or threat to domestic water supply or sewer system. 

Most health and safety issues will likely involve protected wetlands, but could also occur with 

protected uplands such as tall, dry, easement-protected grasslands adjacent to farm buildings 

constituting a fire hazard.

A landowner’s inability to hay or farm wetlands during wet periods or in high water years, will 

not be considered as health or safety issues. 

For situations which involve health, safety, or major threats to landowner appurtenances which 

cannot be resolved without violating the easement and for which no reasonable alternative exists, 

the wetland manager, upon verification of the circumstances, is authorized to allow alteration of 

a wetland(s) or grasslands under easement under the following guidelines (continue to evaluate 

the proposal under the “Health and Safety” provisions of the flowchart [green-colored boxes 

through the center]). 

A. If the needed relief can be accomplished within 30 days, then issue a Special Use Permit 

with stipulations and restoration requirements (if necessary). This action is considered a 

temporary action, and a Compatibility Determination is not required if resolution can be 

achieved in under 30 days. See next paragraph. 

Emergencies Defined under Compatibility: The Refuge Administration Act states that 

the Secretary may temporarily suspend, allow, or initiate any use in a refuge if the 

Secretary determines it is necessary to immediately act in order to protect the health and 

safety of the public or any fish or wildlife population. Authority to make decisions under 

this emergency power is delegated to the refuge manager. Temporary actions should not 

exceed 30 days and will usually be of shorter duration. Such emergency actions are not 

subject to the compatibility determination process. When using this authority, the refuge 

manager will notify the Regional Chief in advance of the action, or in cases where the 

nature of the emergency requires immediate response, as soon as possible afterwards, and 

typically no later than the start of business on the first normal workday following the 

emergency action. The refuge manager will create a written record (see Exhibit XII-3) of 

the decision, the reasons supporting it, and why it was necessary to protect the health and 

safety of the public or any fish or wildlife population.

B. If the situation requires longer than 30 days to remedy, then an AU & CD will also be 

required. Determine if one of the programmatic CD’s will fit; if not, then an individual 

XII -16 updated March 2011
EA Appendix A–Requests for Use or Modification of Easement Properties 67

CD will be necessary. This action is also considered a temporary action and can be 

authorized with a Special Use Permit. If the situation is still unresolved at the end of 1 

year, the manager may issue another one-year permit. If it is apparent and obvious that 

temporary actions will not satisfactorily resolve the issue, then consider a more 

permanent solution. 

C. If a permanent impact to an easement interest will likely result, determine the least 

amount of impact required to resolve the H&S problem. If the request can be 

accomplished within the specified threshold levels (see Flowchart and Exhibit XII-4a or b 

for defined threshold levels for wetland and upland impacts), then the action can be 

considered compatible if either of these two programmatic CDs fit the circumstances of 

the issue at hand. As an alternative, managers may need to develop an individual CD. 

D. If the required level of impact exceeds the threshold levels, then an exchange of rights or 

interests will be necessary in order to accommodate the request. If an exchange is 

necessary in order to accommodate the request, the exchange will be based upon the 

current market value of the easement interest that will be relinquished. The Easement 

Exchange process is detailed in Exhibit XV-1. A CD will not be required for the 

exchange, but NEPA compliance must be addressed. A Land or Interest Exchange 

Checklist (Exhibit XV-2) will also be required. It will be completed jointly by the 

management office requesting the exchange and the servicing Realty Office, and a 

biological analysis of the property to be relinquished must be completed as part of the 

Exchange proposal. 

In very rare instances, health and safety issues may involve “economic uses” of easement 

properties as defined in 50 CFR 29.1. An example would be allowing a county or 

township to remove clay from a grassland easement to build up the road through a 

flooded wetland. The extraction of the clay material, even though deemed to be a 

temporary impact, and necessary to avert a Health and Safety issue would still have to 

meet the higher compatibility standard of benefiting the refuge area.

The Service would have no jurisdiction, however, if fill material was borrowed from an 

upland site on a wetland easement (only) with no involvement of the protected wetlands. 

5. Public Service, Government-supported, and/or Corporate Requests:

Does the proposal qualify as a Public Service request such as a highway improvement project, 

rural water system, electric transmission lines, fiber optic cables, and other area-wide projects 

which promote the greater public good? Is the proposal related to a request from a local, State, 

or other Federal unit of government, or a proposal which is sponsored or supported by a unit of 

government? Generally, these are requests by municipalities, other governmental entities, or 

utility companies to extend city boundaries, build relay towers, relocate sewage lagoons, relocate 

landfills, etc. The third category of possible requests to be evaluated under this part of the 

flowchart are requests which may be received from corporate entities such as an ethanol 

production plant, a major pipeline crossing, a manufacturing plant, or wind energy development 

proposals. Requests which fall under this heading will be evaluated under the blue boxes on the 

flowchart. 

XII -17 updated March 2011
68 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

A. First, the manager must ascertain and the requester must be able to demonstrate that there 

are no reasonable alternatives off easement property which will accommodate the 

requester’s need. For example, can the activity be accomplished on non-easement 

property without causing undue economic hardship or has there been a past precedent for 

an alternative being proposed and used? Alternatives to the request should be thoroughly 

explored with the goal of developing an acceptable alternative that will not result in the 

development of any portion of the Service’s easement interest. If the requester’s needs 

can be met on nearby or adjacent non-easement land, then reasonable alternatives are 

deemed to exist and the proposal must be denied. The manager should always try to 

determine if the requester can work around the easement interest. In some cases the 

project can be modified, the change is not significant and the easement interest is not 

affected. If the development can take place on non-easement lands, there is no need for 

further consultation. 

Determining a reasonable alternative is a collaborative process with the requestor. Often, 

during this discussion cumulative impacts may be reduced, but not eliminated. For 

example, during discussions regarding a wind development site, a manager may reduce 

the proposed miles of service roads and the number of towers on grassland easements; or 

during discussions on a pipeline project, a manger may reduce the number of easement 

tract crossings or successfully route the line around individual easement wetlands. At a 

point in these discussions, a manager can develop a feel for what may be a reasonable 

alternative. The reasonable alternative may include some easement impacts, but they 

have been reduced and minimized through discussion with a requestor. This discussion 

also helps the manager develop a feel for the nature of the request and whether it fits the 

category of essential need.

If there seems to be no reasonable alternative to the proposed action on easement 

property, then move down to the next block. If there are reasonable alternatives, then the 

proposal is denied. 

B. The next evaluation is to determine whether the proposal is essential. This area requires 

the proposal to be an essential need. Is it necessary for the greater public benefit? Is it 

essential to promote the general public welfare? Convenience requests are generally not 

essential. A rural water system installation which cannot be rerouted to avoid Service 

interests would be an example of an essential need in this category of requested uses.

The proposal must meet a level of importance beyond mere convenience and be 

absolutely necessary or indispensable. If the proposal is determined not essential or 

absolutely necessary, then it will not be authorized. 

C. If the proposed use of the easement area is essential to the project, and there are no 

reasonable alternatives to accomplishing the proposal on easement property, then 

evaluate whether the project will seriously affect the integrity of the easement. If the 

proposal will destroy the very nature or integrity of the easement, defined as affecting a 

high proportion of the easement area, or seriously degrading the quality of the easement 

through fragmentation, then the project will be denied. Proposals which result in only a 

corridor or ROW request or an expansion of an existing right-of-way are likely not of the 

magnitude that will destroy the integrity of the easement area. Proposals resulting in the 

XII -18 updated March 2011
EA Appendix A–Requests for Use or Modification of Easement Properties 69

destruction of an easement area that extends beyond a corridor or the destruction of a 

significant proportion of the easement interest should be determined to violate the 

integrity of the easement area, and should be denied. When considering proposals for 

wind projects, pipelines, etc. involving several easement contracts, the “easement area” is 

the total area protected by the easements, rather than each easement contract independent 

of one another. 

If the proposal passes the previous three filters, then it will likely be authorized, but must 

still be evaluated by the remainder of the dark blue blocks on the flowchart to determine 

how the proposal will be authorized. 

At this point, if the request is related to Wind Energy Development, go to Chapter 

XIV for further guidance. 

D. Determine if the project can be accommodated under the specifications of a “Minor 

Disturbance Project.” See Exhibit XII-7 for the regional policy on minor disturbancetype projects.

If impacts are determined to be only temporary and minimal, then a formal right-of-way 

permit from the Regional Office may not be necessary. This policy now allows managers 

to forego the formal ROW process, and instead, issue a Special Use Permit directly from 

their office if the following conditions and circumstances apply: 

• Impacts to Service-acquired interests are determined to be temporary and minor or 

less. Examples are cited in the policy. 

• The ROW requester must understand that the permit is for the installation or initial 

construction only, and any subsequent need to complete work on the easement 

property will necessitate another permit process, which will be evaluated individually 

in each case. 

• If permanent impacts occur, however, slight, appropriate use and compatibility 

determinations must be completed, and determinations of “appropriate” and 

“compatible” must be obtained for this process to be used. See Exhibit XII-4e for a 

copy of the Programmatic CD which may cover this issue. If none of the acquired 

rights are impacted, then a CD will not be necessary, but managers should document 

the fact that compatibility was considered and evaluated during the process. 

If the proposal meets these criteria, then issue a Special Use Permit with stipulations for 

site restoration, etc. and use the Programmatic CD developed for this situation (Exhibit 

XII-4e). The requester may desire a ROW permit to allow for future needed 

maintenance. If so, then pursue a formal ROW as discussed in Chapter XIII. 

E. If the proposal will not qualify under the minor disturbance guidelines, then determine if 

the proposal will qualify as a “minor expansion of an existing right-of-way.” This 

category of requests is the ONLY place where “mitigation” can be used to offset impacts 

XII -19 updated March 2011
70 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

to Service interests as a result of the project. See Chapter XIII-C and Exhibit XIII-2 for 

additional guidance. 

Managers are encouraged to use the “minor expansion” category whenever possible to 

avoid the need for an exchange. Some guidelines are available in the 2000 Compatibility 

Policy on what constitutes a “minor expansion.” If the request will qualify under this 

category, then individual appropriate use and compatibility determinations must be 

prepared referencing the required mitigation and stipulations to achieve compatibility. A 

Special Use Permit with site restoration requirements, and, at a minimum, a completed 

NEPA Compliance Checklist (Exhibit II-8) should also be prepared. A formal ROW 

permit will also probably be needed. Check with your ROW specialist in the Regional 

Realty Office for guidance, and also review the guidelines found in Chapter XIII. 

F. If the request will not qualify under either of the two previously-discussed scenarios 

(paragraphs D and E above), next consider if the project can be accomplished within the 

established threshold levels for protected wetland and upland habitats. If not, then 

managers must consider an exchange option according to the criteria found in Exhibit 

XV-1.

G. If the request will result in an impact to easement interests at or below threshold levels, 

then managers must address Appropriate Use and Compatibility with either one of the 

Programmatic CD’s (if the circumstances fit the situation) or an individual CD. Other 

compliance requirements must also be satisfied (NEPA, CR, Endangered Species, etc).

If the proposal is determined to be not compatible because of secondary or associated 

impacts, then the request must be denied. It is expected that secondary or associated 

impacts will be evident much earlier in the process. Rarely will a proposal pass all the 

screens and filters, and then be denied at this level. When secondary impacts that will 

render a proposal not compatible are known, there is no need to proceed through the 

flowchart since the use will not be allowed anyway. Furthermore, because an exchange of 

easement rights requires the preparation of a Biological Analysis wherein the manager 

must ensure no impacts to critical habitat or special emphasis species (basically 

secondary or associated impacts), these impacts would preclude an exchange as well.

These proposals must be denied. Section B-7 below has more information on Associated 

Impacts. 

If a request passes all the previous filters and decision points, but is not compatible 

because it cannot meet the higher standard required of economic uses (shown as “29.1 

criteria” on the flowchart, meaning related to the economic use discussion in 50 CFR 

29.1), then an exchange may likely be the most logical choice. 

H. If the proposal is determined to be compatible, then managers will issue a permit or a 

letter of authorization. In addition, a right-of-way permit from the Regional Office may 

be required. See Chapter XIII for guidance on ROW permits. 

Requesters which are approved under this category will be required to replace the values 

of any resulting “below-threshold” level of impact which may result from authorizing the 

XII -20 updated March 2011
EA Appendix A–Requests for Use or Modification of Easement Properties 71

activity. See the earlier discussion and flowchart on the replacement of lost values for 

more guidance. 

6. Other Requests:

Other requests are those which do not fit logically within either the Health and Safety category, 

or the Public Service Request category. (Orange-colored Blocks of the Flowchart). 

The Region 6 easement program has the unique opportunity to protect functioning grassland and 

wetland landscapes; mainly because these landscapes still exist at levels capable of supporting 

populations of migratory birds. Biologists have recognized that to conserve migratory bird 

populations, the protection of landscapes which attract breeding birds to a suitable breeding area 

is more effective than attempting to modify landscapes surrounding isolated habitat patches.

This is an extremely important point which cannot be overstated. The Region 6 wetland and 

grassland easement programs protect landscapes in the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) states. The 

protection of landscapes accomplishes the primary goal of the Small Wetlands Acquisition 

Program, which is to provide for the long-term viability of the breeding waterfowl population 

and production through the preservation of existing habitats. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (NWRSIA) provides clear direction to 

the Secretary, and thus to the Service, for administering the Refuge System, of which easements 

are a part. Specifically, the NWRSIA states “...the Secretary shall...(B) ensure that the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained...(C) 

plan and direct the continued growth of the System in a manner that is best designed to 

accomplish the mission of the System, to contribute to the conservation of the ecosystems of the 

United States, to complement efforts of the States and other Federal agencies to conserve fish 

and wildlife and their habitats, and to increase support for the System and participation from 

conservation partners and the public...(E) ensure effective coordination, interaction, and 

cooperation with owners of land adjoining refuges and the fish and wildlife agency of the States 

in which the units of the System are located...” (emphasis added). 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health

The Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 3) describes the 

relationships among refuge purposes, System mission (both considered in determining 

compatibility of a proposed use), and maintaining biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health. Specifically, “Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health 

can be described at various landscape scales from refuge to ecosystem, national, and 

international. Each landscape scale has a measure of biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health dependent on how the existing habitats, ecosystem processes, and wildlife 

populations have been altered in comparison to historic conditions. Levels of biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health vary among refuges, and often within refuges over 

time. Individual refuges contribute to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at 

XII -21 updated March 2011
72 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

larger landscape scales, especially when they support populations and habitats that have been lost 

at an ecosystem, national, or even international scale. In pursuit of refuge purposes, individual

refuges may at times compromise elements of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health at the refuge scale in support of those components at larger landscape scales (emphasis 

added). When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge managers 

will consider their refuges' contribution to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health at multiple landscape scales.” 

Continued Growth of the System

To date, the Service has protected approximately 2.7 million acres in the PPR of Region 6 with 

easements. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA), as amended 

in 1997, directs the Secretary to “plan and direct the continued growth of the System in a manner 

that is best designed to...contribute to the conservation of ecosystems...” (emphasis added). To 

this end, the Service has identified a need to conserve an additional 10 million acres of 

grasslands and 1.8 million acres of wetlands in the PPR; the amount of ecosystem conservation 

needed to support current waterfowl population levels. The vehicle to deliver this conservation 

needs to be ecologically effective, socially acceptable, and economically feasible. Easements 

represent the only realistic option for achieving the conservation goals while satisfying these 

criteria. 

The conservation of grassland/wetland ecosystems in the PPR requires an understanding that 

these habitats exist in a working landscape where the human economic environment is centered 

on farming and ranching. In addition to requiring the growth of the Refuge System in a manner 

best designed to conserve ecosystems, the NWRSAA calls on the Secretary to “...ensure 

effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with owners of land adjoining refuges...”

Since the Service only purchases easements from willing sellers, the continued growth of the 

Refuge System in order to achieve the conservation of the grassland ecosystem (as mandated by 

the Act) requires effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with owners of land 

adjoining refuges. On easements, the coordination and cooperation takes place on lands where 

the Service has acquired a partial interest and the human economic environment is centered on 

farming and ranching. Landowners on working landscapes will have requests for uses that 

include development of easement lands for legitimate needs that support their farming and/or 

ranching livelihood. In limited cases, requests for development of easement lands related to ongoing management of grassland resources need to be considered.

North Dakota has approximately 30,000 family farms and ranches; South Dakota has nearly 

35,000. More than 39 million acres in North Dakota, and nearly 44 million in South Dakota – 

approximately 90% of the states’ total land area – are in farms and ranches. It is abundantly 

clear the Service can contribute to the conservation of the grassland/wetland ecosystem of the 

PPR by ensuring the continued growth of the Refuge System through effective coordination, 

interaction and cooperation with farmers and ranchers. However, the same cannot be said about 

XII -22 updated March 2011
EA Appendix A–Requests for Use or Modification of Easement Properties 73

all categories of landowners. Residents in rural subdivisions, hobby farmers, or those who 

purchase/own lands primarily for recreational pursuits cannot collectively contribute to the 

conservation of the landscape as can the agriculture community. Therefore, requests for 

structural additions from other than an agriculture-related landowners do not meet the 

requirements set forth by 601 FW 3 (“...individual refuges may at times compromise elements of 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at the refuge scale in support of those 

components at larger landscape scales...”).

The NWRSAA, as amended, clearly allows the refuge manager to permit a use of easement 

lands, even though that use would otherwise violate the provisions of the easement, as long as 

the use does not materially interfere with or detract from the purpose of the easement or the 

mission of the System. The basis for this determination is the manager’s sound professional 

judgment based on his experience and knowledge of the easement area and proximate landscape. 

Notwithstanding the fact that incompatible uses cannot be allowed, the NWRSAA requires the 

manager to strive for effective cooperation, coordination, and interaction with owners of 

easement properties; and uses that contribute to the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Prairie Pothole landscape may be considered even though they may 

compromise these same elements at the local scale. In other words, the only requests that can be 

considered to contribute to the biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of the 

landscape while compromising those same elements on the easement, are those that also ensure 

the continued growth of the System so that the prairie pothole ecosystem can be conserved. 

A. Is the proposal in support of a working landscape management activity? 

Specifically, 

1. Does the proposal relate to the management/operation of the easement interest in a 

manner which supports the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of 

the easement? 

AND

2. Does the proposal adhere to the spirit of cooperation and coordination with the owner 

of the land in a manner which supports biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the prairie pothole landscape by fostering continued broad 

support of the easement program? 

In considering #1: For example, is the request for a facility on the easement which will 

improve the landowner’s ability to better manage the habitat? Examples might include a 

calving shed on a grassland easement, or an equipment storage building to house spray 

equipment. Farmstead expansion may be considered if the expansion can be construed as 

XII -23 updated March 2011
74 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

cooperation with the landowner in a manner which supports the accomplishment of the 

System’s mission. Requests that are not related to the management of the easement lands 

for the benefit of migratory birds will not be allowed. Examples include the construction 

of hunting lodges, convenience stores, or houses where those structures are not directly 

tied to the management of the land. 

In considering #2: In the foreseeable future working farms and ranches will continue to 

be where the Service adds to the habitat base. Therefore, it is only through effective 

cooperation, coordination, and interaction with these landowners that conservation of the 

prairie pothole landscape will be achieved. There are cases where uses requested by 

these landowners can only be met on habitat protected by conservation easements. 

Examples may include building a house for a son or daughter involved in the operation, 

building or enlarging a livestock facility or a grain handling operation. These types of 

requests are integral to working landscape management. Uses that contribute to the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the prairie pothole landscape

may be considered even though they may compromise these same elements at the local 

scale. Conversely, requests from landowners and prospective buyers that are not 

associated with the working agricultural landscape have more flexibility and options to 

for their development or use on land that is not encumbered by a Service easement. 

These types of development or use requests on Service easements do not contribute to 

fulfilling the easement program purpose and Refuge system mission and are not 

appropriate.

The Service has approached farmstead expansion types of requests in a variety of ways in 

the past. The 1992 and 1997 revised Administration and Enforcement Guidelines and 

Procedures for Perpetual Grassland Easements and 1998 Grassland Easement 

Administration - 5 Percent Rule memo authorized the development of 5% or 20 acres 

(whichever was less) per section on grassland easement tracts. This policy changed again 

with the release of the 2005 Administration and Enforcement Manual, which under 

certain conditions, authorized development of .4 acres of wetland not to exceed 25% of a 

basin, and/or 8 acres of easement protected upland. 

If there is historical file documentation that authorizes an easement development request 

based on past policy, or a landowner is specific about their understanding that 5 % of a 

grassland easement could be developed on an easement that was purchased between 1992 

and 2005, those requests should be honored. 

Potentially-authorized impacts to wetlands must be necessary to implement an 

operational improvement or to accommodate a request in support of the owner’s 

operation. Requests to impact protected wetlands strictly for the gain in crop production, 

etc. will obviously be denied. 

XII -24 updated March 2011
EA Appendix A–Requests for Use or Modification of Easement Properties 75

B. Next, ascertain, and the requester must be able to demonstrate, that there are no 

reasonable alternatives off easement property which will accommodate the requestor’s 

need. For example, can the activity be accomplished on non-easement property without 

causing undue economic hardship, or has there been a past precedent for an alternative 

being proposed and used? It is the responsibility of the wetland manager to determine if 

the request can be met on land where the Service does not have an easement interest. 

Alternatives must be thoroughly explored with the goal of developing an acceptable 

alternative that will not impact the Service’s easement interest. If the landowner’s needs 

can be met on non-easement property such as adjacent cropland, then filling of a 

protected wetland for a grain bin or digging up protected grassland to plant a food plot, 

while maybe preferable to a landowner, should not be authorized. As is the case with the 

other flowchart categories, the wetland manager should always try to determine if the 

requester can work around the easement interest. In some cases the project can be 

modified, the change is not significant, and the easement interest is not affected. If the 

development can take place on non-easement lands there is no need for further 

consultation.

As stated earlier, determining a reasonable alternative is a collaborative process with the 

requestor. Often, during this discussion cumulative impacts may be reduced, but not 

eliminated. For example, during discussions regarding a wind development site a 

manager may reduce the proposed miles of service roads and the number of towers on 

grassland easements, or during discussions on a pipeline project a manger may reduce the 

number of easement tract crossings or successfully route the line around individual 

easement wetlands. At a point in these discussions a manager can develop a feel for what 

may be a reasonable alternative. The reasonable alternative may include some easement 

impacts, but they have been reduced and minimized through discussion with a requestor. 

This discussion also helps the manager develop a feel for the nature of the request and 

whether it fits the category of essential need.

If there seems to be no reasonable alternative to the proposed action on easement 

property, then move down to the next block. If there are reasonable alternatives, then the 

proposal must be denied. 

C. This area requires the proposal to be an essential need. Is it necessary to the operation of 

the farm, or an essential need for operational viability? Convenience requests are 

generally not essential. The proposal must meet a level of importance beyond mere 

convenience and be absolutely necessary or indispensable. If the proposal is deemed to 

be not essential or absolutely necessary, then it must be denied.

As an example, a landowner needing to build a vehicle and equipment crossing through a 

protected wetland to gain access to a previously inaccessible piece of property should be 

evaluated as follows: If the inaccessible land is 2 acres, then it probably not an essential 

need, but if it is 60 or 70 acres, then it may be essential that the landowner be able to 

access this land. Proposals related to the need to make substantial economic 

improvements in farm and ranch operations will likely be considered essential. 

XII -25 updated March 2011
76 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

D. Can the proposal be accomplished with only temporary and minor impacts? 

If the proposal can be accomplished with only a temporary impact to Service interests, 

then issue a Special Use Permit with needed stipulations and conditions. Managers will 

also need to address Appropriate Use, Compatibility, and NEPA Compliance. Examples 

of the NEPA Compliance Checklist are found in Exhibit II-8. Also consult your 

Regional Cultural Resources staff. Managers need to remember that if the activity 

qualifies as an “economic use,” then the CD must be written to the higher standard of 

“contributing to the achievement of the mission and the purposes of the refuge area.” 

E. If the proposal will result in an impact that is not temporary and minor, then next 

consider whether the resulting impact can be completed within the designated threshold 

levels as described in Exhibits XII-4a and 4b.

F. If the resulting impacts are at or BELOW threshold levels, then managers must address 

Appropriate Use and Compatibility, with either a programmatic (if they apply) or with an 

individual CD. An individual CD will need to be approved at the regional level before 

proceeding with the request. Also consult the General NEPA guidance found in Chapter 

II to evaluate the proposal under these standards. Issue a Letter of Authorization. 

If the proposal is determined to be not compatible because of secondary or associated 

impacts, then the request must be denied. It is expected that secondary or associated 

impacts will be evident much earlier in the process. Rarely will a proposal pass all the 

screens and filters, and then be denied at this level. When secondary impacts that will 

render a proposal not compatible are known, there is no need to proceed through the 

flowchart since the use will not be allowed anyway. Furthermore, because an exchange of 

easement rights requires the preparation of a Biological Analysis wherein the manager 

must ensure no impacts to critical habitat or special emphasis species (basically 

secondary or associated impacts), these impacts would preclude an exchange as well.

These proposals must be denied. Section B-7 below has more information on Associated 

Impacts. 

If a request passes all the previous filters and decision points, but is not compatible 

because it cannot meet the higher standard required of economic uses (shown as “29.1 

criteria” on the flowchart, meaning related to the economic use discussion in 50 CFR 

29.1), then an exchange may likely be the most logical choice. 

In some cases, landowners may not be comfortable with just a Letter of Authorization 

from the wetlands manager. If the landowner will not accept a Letter of Authorization, 

and requests that the below-threshold impacted area be exchanged, then his request can 

be accommodated. However, he will have to wait until Realty can schedule a review of 

the involved properties, and he will have to pay for the released interests, or offer an 

exchange acceptable to the wetlands manager. 

G. If the proposal meets all the criteria listed in the flowchart (an approved expansion or 

related to a bona-fide farm/ranch operation, no reasonable alternatives, is essential), and 

the level of impact is ABOVE the approved threshold levels, then the request can be 

XII -26 updated March 2011
EA Appendix A–Requests for Use or Modification of Easement Properties 77

considered for an exchange. Follow the procedure outlined in Exhibit XV-1, including 

the “replacement of habitat value” concept. A biological analysis of the property to be 

exchanged must be completed as part of the exchange proposal. 

Although a CD will not be required when an exchange of interests is used, compliance 

with NEPA must be addressed and a biological analysis of the property to be relinquished 

must be completed. See General Guidance in Chapter II for NEPA guidance. 

7. ASSOCIATED or SECONDARY IMPACTS:

Associated Impacts are defined as impacts not directly caused by the proposed activity, but 

which may result because of the proposed activity. When managers evaluate potential impacts 

under the compatibility process, managers use their “sound professional judgment” to determine 

whether direct impacts are compatible or not. Managers must also evaluate whether allowing a 

proposed project to go forward will result in additional impacts occurring to resources intended 

to be protected under these preservation programs (See Exhibit II-3 for Easement Program 

Goals).

The 2000 Compatibility Policy states that managers must consider not only direct impacts of a 

use, but also the indirect impacts associated with the use and the cumulative impacts of the use 

when conducted in conjunction with other existing or planned uses of the refuge area. Some 

potential associated impacts can be resolved through stipulations; others may not be able to be 

resolved and will render the proposal “Not Authorized” if the documented associated impacts 

cannot be resolved with stipulations. 

As the flowchart indicates, every effort should be made to resolve the issue/problem with 

temporary measures, whether an emergency action or not. If the issue cannot be resolved 

satisfactorily with temporary measures, and the resulting impact is above the threshold levels, 

then an exchange may be necessary. An exchange of rights is virtually the last option to consider.

All other options to resolve the issue must be evaluated before an exchange is considered, 

including avoiding the easement property all together. 

XII -27 updated March 2011

EA Appendix B

Public Scoping Report

This appendix describes the public scoping process 

for the proposed DGCA project, which entailed 

comment collection, analysis, and summarization by 

topic.

Methods for Comment Collection 

and Analysis

The objective of the scoping process was to gather 

the full range of comments, questions, and concerns 

that the public has about the proposed action. The 

Service issued a scoping notice on December 1, 2010 

(refer to the news release on the next two pages) 

to all media outlets in Montana, North Dakota, and 

South Dakota and to several major, daily papers 

in Minnesota and Iowa. This information was also 

posted to the Service’s Web pages and Facebook and 

Twitter profiles. Due to the holiday season, the Service extended the public scoping period by 2 weeks, 

until January 14, 2011 (refer to this news release following the first release); with this extension, there 

was a total of 45 days for the public comment period.

The Service mailed a four-page fact sheet to 1,275 

individuals and organizations; in addition, 1,737 postcards were mailed out to individuals informing them 

of the project. Names on the mailing list came from 

previous Service projects where groups or individuals had expressed interest in the general area or in 

easement programs.

For face-to-face interaction with the public, the 

Service conducted three scoping meetings on December 14, 15, and 16, 2010—at Minot, North Dakota; Jamestown, North Dakota; and Huron, South 

Dakota; respectively. Public attendees at the three 

scoping meetings totaled 93 individuals.

All comments received on the Service’s NEPA 

documents become part of the official public record. 

Requests for information contained in comments are 

handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, NEPA (40 CFR § 1506.6(f)), and other 

Department of the Interior and Service policies and 

procedures. In compliance with Service policy about 

disclosure of personal information, the Service will 

not publish in this document the name, address, 

or other personal information of an individual who 

commented unless that information was spoken in 

a public meeting; this does not apply to agencies or 

organizations.

Summary of Scoping Comments

The public offered comments and asked questions 

at the public meetings held December 14–16, 2010. 

In addition, individuals and organizations submitted 

comments in writing during the 45-day public scoping period that ended January 14, 2011. In summary, 

the Service received 1,469 emails, 24 written letters, 

and 60 phone calls.

The planning team made every effort to document and review all of the comments, questions, 

and issues—whether from written submissions or 

recorded at public meetings—and then organize the 

information by topic in a spreadsheet. Regardless 

of whether comments and questions were general in 

nature or about specific points of concern, they were 

added to the spreadsheet one time for each comment 

or question. Comments are considered to be of equal 

importance; however, public scoping is not a voting 

process. Figure 8 shows the proportion of comments 

by each topic.

Most of the comments reflected concern about 

the loss of wetland and grassland and stated general 

support for the proposed project, while comments 

against the proposal emphasized the need for easements of shorter duration, that is, not perpetual. 

Below is a summary of the comments and questions 

raised during public scoping.

Purpose and Need

Comments

■ Government assistance is not needed because 

farmers and ranchers already do a good job.

■ The Service should educate farmers to conserve 

wildlife and habitat.

■ The project would enhance beef production and 

ranching operations.

■ The swampbuster provision does not work.

■ The project would increase water quality.

■ The project would reduce flooding issues.

■ There needs to be more grassland focus.
80 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area
EA Appendix B–Public Scoping Report 81
82 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area
EA Appendix B–Public Scoping Report 83
84 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

■ More than 800 landowners are currently on a 

waiting list.

■ Landowners should manage their own land.

■ This is the same situation as in 1960.

■ This project is in line with the vision for Refuge 

System growth and America’s Great Outdoors.

■ The project is important for outdoor recreation.

■ The project size and scope need to be increased.

■ The project should be expanded to all of North 

Dakota and South Dakota.

■ More of Montana, Minnesota, Nebraska, 

Wyoming, and Iowa should be included.

Questions

■ Why is there a need for this project if there is 

such a long waiting list of landowners?

■ Why is more Federal ownership needed?

■ Can Congress deauthorize easements?

■ No ducks or geese are threatened or endangered, 

so why is there a need?

Figure 8. Graph of percentage of public scoping comments, by category, about the proposed Dakota Grassland 

Conservation Area.

■ Why should North Dakota be concerned about 

producing migratory birds that leave?

■ Why is there an urgency?

■ Why does this project identify two sets of goals?

Perpetual Nature of Easements

Comments

■ The Service needs to consider term easements 

(e.g., 20-, 30-, or 40-year easements).

■ Perpetual easements punish future generations.

■ There is opposition to perpetual easements.

■ Future generations would have their property 

rights removed.

■ Converting native prairie to agriculture is 

perpetual.

■ Perpetual easements protect valuable habitats.

■ All easements should be perpetual.
EA Appendix B–Public Scoping Report 85

■ Even though easements are perpetual, the easement program is still voluntary.

■ Most landowners on the waiting list are absentee 

landowners.

Questions

■ Will future generations be able to produce 

enough food?

■ Would there be an option to buy out 10 percent of 

an easement?

Impacts to Local Taxes and Land Values

Comments

■ The Service would need to compensate the tax 

base.

■ Other land to farm is getting increasingly harder 

to buy.

■ Easements are detrimental to efficiency and 

profitability.

■ This project would take land away from private 

ownership.

■ This project would keep lands in families and 

private ownership.

■ It is important to maintain some agriculture on 

the landscape.

■ Lands with easements are valued lower.

Questions

■ Do easements take land off the local tax rolls?

■ How would this affect the local tax base?

■ Would an easement payment be subject to taxes?

■ Is property assessed at one fee and an easement 

at another fee?

■ How would this affect the new agricultural 

assessment law in South Dakota?

Impacts on Local Communities

Comments

■ The project would impact agricultural service 

providers.

■ Easements are a cost to small farming operations 

due to flooding.

■ The NRCS will not process a 1026 until the Service approves; the process needs to speed up.

■ More wildlife would lead to increased tourism.

■ Native grasslands are truly a national treasure.

■ Easements should not have an effect on others 

(townships and counties), particularly for road 

projects.

Question

■ Will a socioeconomic analysis be conducted?

Terms of Easement Payments

Comments

■ The Service needs to consider annual payments.

■ The Service should consider term easements to 

also pay future generations.

Question

■ Is it a one-time payment for an easement or 

would there be another signup in 20 years?

Easement Terms and Limitations 

(Requested Uses)

Comments

■ Easements should be purchased on all lands 

within a drainage system.

■ Farming in wetlands should not be allowed.

■ Easements prevent orderly water management.

■ Wind energy should be considered compatible 

with easements and conservation.

■ The Service needs to consider the recent FACA 

wind energy guidelines.

■ The LPP should address prairie dog management.

■ The Service should change the term “requested 

uses” to “habitat allowances.”

■ The Service needs to resolve easement conflicts.

■ Public access should be allowed.

Questions

■ Who has jurisdiction of easements that border 

lands without easements?

■ What are limited circumstances?

■ Can Congress change easement terms?

■ What uses can be conducted on grassland easements?

■ Can the landowner burn in a grassland easement?

■ Why does the Service limit haying and seed 

harvest?

■ Can “interseeding” be conducted?

■ Can trees be planted on easements?

■ Can wind energy development occur on easements?

■ Why does the Service have jurisdiction over 

placement of wind turbines?

■ What are the Service setbacks on wind farms?

■ What would be allowed for access roads to wind 

farms on both wetland and grassland areas considered for easement?

■ How would ground-water usage next to wetland 

easements be affected?

■ Who has jurisdiction of wetland easements, for 

example, tiling around a wetland?
86 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

■ Would tiling be allowed in a wetland basin?

■ How does this project compare to how NRCS 

determines a wetland?

■ Does the Service wetland determination compare 

with the NRCS determination and does it matter?

Funding Sources and Administrative Costs

Comments

■ The Federal budget cannot afford this.

■ LWCF money should be used to pay down the 

Federal deficit.

■ The Service should also consider other funds.

Questions

■ How many employees would be needed?

■ Where would the money come from?

■ How much funding is estimated for this project?

■ Are there surplus dollars in LWCF today?

Wetland and Grassland Loss

Comments

■ There is a small amount of native prairie left.

■ The Service needs to focus on grassland easements, because the wetlands would also be 

incorporated.

■ The Prairie Pothole Region is important to many 

populations of wildlife.

■ This project is necessary to decrease wetland and 

grassland loss.

■ Wetland and grassland habitats are vanishing 

rapidly.

■ Sufficient habitat is already in place.

Questions

■ How many wetlands have been lost in last 10 

years?

■ How is wetland loss determined?

■ Have wetland definitions changed since 1960?

■ What is native prairie?

■ Why does the Service buy easements on more 

land than just native prairie?

■ How does the Service know land has not been 

previously disturbed?

■ What is the situation with urban sprawl and its 

effects?

Realty and Appraisal

Comment

■ The Service needs to clarify easement appraisals 

and valuation.

Questions

■ Does this process require Governor approval?

■ How are properties evaluated?

■ Would the Service be interested in “go-back” 

grass or restored grasslands?

■ Is there a minimum tract size?

■ How many acres are proposed in South Dakota?

Miscellaneous

Comments

■ The Service should work more with agricultural 

groups.

■ The Service should not support North Dakota 

and South Dakota, because they restrict out-ofstate hunters.

■ The Service should work more with USDA and 

encourage conservation through farm program 

incentives.

■ Easements can be purchased to offset depredation, and the Service should investigate that.

■ Landowners with threatened and endangered 

species should be compensated.

■ The project would increase public education 

about wetland and grasslands.

■ The Service needs to allow ample time for the 

public to comment.

■ The Service needs to conduct an EIS.

■ The Service needs to use the Endangered Species 

Act as leverage.

■ The Service should resolve easement conflicts.

■ The project name should be changed.

Questions

■ How many wetland acres are needed in a quarter 

section of land?

■ Does the goal for 240,000 acres of wetland include 

upland buffers?

■ Are perpetual easements possible in North 

Dakota?

■ What repercussions would there be for easement 

violations?

■ What is the situation with the recent sale of land 

in Kidder County?

■ Is this project for Louisiana hunters?
EA Appendix B–Public Scoping Report 87

List of Agencies and Organizations 

that Submitted Comments

Archery Trade Association

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Badlands Conservation Alliance

Bear Trust International

Boone and Crockett Club

Bowhunting Preservation Alliance

BP Wind Energy

Campfire Club of America

Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation

Congressman Denny Rehberg

Conservation Force

Dallas Safari Club

Delta Waterfowl

Ducks Unlimited

International Hunter Education Association

Izaak Walton League of America

Maryland Ornithological Society

Masters of Foxhounds Association

Mule Deer Foundation

National Shooting Sports Foundation

National Trappers Association

National Wild Turkey Federation

National Wildlife Federation

National Wildlife Refuge Association

North American Bear Foundation

North American Grouse Partnership

North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society

North Dakota Grain Growers Association

Orion–the Hunters’ Institute

Pheasants Forever

Quail Forever

Quality Deer Management Association

Sand County Foundation

South Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society

South Dakota Farm Bureau Federation

South Dakota Wildlife Federation

Texas Wildlife Association

The Nature Conservancy

The Wildlife Society

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Tread Lightly

Whitetails Unlimited

Wild Sheep Foundation

Wildlife Forever

Wildlife Management Institute

Summary of Future Actions

Although the formal scoping period is complete, 

another opportunity for official public involvement 

will be available during the 30-day public comment 

period on this EA and the associated draft LPP. 

At any time during the NEPA process, the Service 

welcomes comments from the public, which can be 

directed to the following:

■ Project email: dgca_comments@fws.gov

■ Nick Kaczor, Planning Team Leader

Attn: Proposed DGCA 

Division of Refuge Planning

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300

Lakewood, Colorado 80228

Phone: 303/236 4387

Fax: 303/236 4792

■ Lloyd Jones, Refuge Manager

Attn: Proposed DGCA 

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex

3275 11th Street Northwest

Coleharbor, North Dakota 58531

Phone: 701/442 5474

Fax: 701/442 5546

EA Appendix C

List of Preparers

Author Position Work Unit

Dave Azure Easement coordinator USFWS, Region 6, law enforcement, Jamestown, North 

Dakota

Chuck Bosch Realty specialist USFWS, North Dakota Wetlands Acquisition Office, 

Bismarck, North Dakota

Clarke Dirks Project leader USFWS, Huron Wetland Management District, Huron, 

South Dakota

Jackie Jacobson Visitor services manager USFWS, Audubon National Wildlife Refuge, Coleharbor, 

North Dakota

Lloyd Jones Project leader USFWS, Audubon National Wildlife Refuge, Coleharbor, 

North Dakota

Nick Kaczor Planning team leader, 

wildlife refuge specialist

USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, 

Lakewood, Colorado

Chuck Loesch Wildlife biologist USFWS, HAPET, Bismarck, North Dakota

David C. Lucas Chief, Division of Refuge 

Planning

USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, 

Lakewood, Colorado

Neal Niemuth Wildlife biologist USFWS, HAPET, Bismarck, North Dakota

Deb Parker Writer-editor USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, 

Lakewood, Colorado

Casey Stemler Wildlife biologist USFWS, Region, Migratory Birds, Lakewood, Colorado

Paul Van Ningen Project leader USFWS, Long Lake Wetland Management District, 

Moffit, North Dakota

Barry Williams Archeologist USFWS, Region 6, National Wildlife Refuge System, 

Bismarck, North Dakota

EA Appendix D

Species Lists

Plants

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Boxelder shrub Acer negundo

Yarrow Achillea lanulosa

Indian ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens

Baneberry Actaea rubra

Rough gerardia Agalinis aspera

Slender gerardia Agalinis tenuifolia

Lavender hyssop Agastache foeniculum

False dandelion Agoseris glauca

Agrimony Agrimonia striata

Crested wheatgrass Agropyron desertorum

Ticklegrass Agrostis hyemalis

Autumn bent Agrostis perennans

Redtop Agrostis stolonifera

Nodding onion Allium cernuum

Pink wild onion Allium stellatum

White wild onion Allium textile

Few-flowered aster Almutaster pauciflorus

Shortawn foxtail Alopecurus aequalis

Carolina foxtail Alopecurus carolinianus

Marsh foxtail Alopecurus geniculatus

Tumbleweed Amaranthus albus

Tumbleweed Amaranthus graecizans

Rough pigweed Amaranthus retroflexus

Common ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia

Western ragweed Ambrosia psilostachya

Giant ragweed Ambrosia trifida

Juneberry Amelanchier alnifolia

Leadplant Amorpha canescens

Dwarf wild indigo Amorpha nana

Big bluestem Andropogon gerardi

Western rock jasmine Androsace occidentalis

Pygmy flower Androsace septentrionalis

Meadow anemone Anemone canadensis

Candle anemone Anemone cylindrica

Anemone multi Anemone multifida

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Pasqueflower Anemone patens

Wood anemone Anemone quinquefolia

Tall anemone Anemone virginiana

Dill Anethum graveolens

Field pussytoes Antennaria neglecta

Pussytoes Antennaria parvifolia

Plainleaf pussytoes Antennaria plantaginifolia

Rose pussytoes Antennaria rosea

Spreading dogbane Apocynum androsaemifolium

Hemp dogbane Apocynum cannabinum

Prairie dogbane Apocynum sibiricum

Rockcress Arabis divaricarpa

Tower mustard Arabis glabra

Rockcress Arabis hirsuta

Rockcress Arabis holboellii

Wild sarsaparilla Aralia nudicaulis

Common burdock Arctium minus

Bearberry Arctostaphylos uva-ursi

Silverweed Argentina anserina

Red threeawn Aristida purpurea

Arnica Arnica fulgens

Wormwood Artemisia absinthium

Biennial wormwood Artemisia biennis

Dwarf sagebrush Artemisia cana

Western sagebrush Artemisia caudata

Silky wormwood Artemisia dracunculus

Silver wormwood Artemisia filifolia

Fringed sagewort Artemisia frigida

Longleaf wormwood Artemisia longifolia

White sage Artemisia ludoviciana

Green milkweed Asclepias hirtella

Oval-leaf milkweed Asclepias ovalifolia

Showy milkweed Asclepias speciosa

Common milkweed Asclepias syriaca

Whorled milkweed Asclepias verticillata

Asparagus Asparagus officinalis
92 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Slimstem reedgrass Calamagrostis stricta

Prairie sandreed Calamovilfa longifolia

Yellow evening primrose Calylophus serrulatus

Hedge bindweed Calystegia sepium

Littlepod false flax Camelina microcarpa

Gold-of-pleasure Camelina sativa

Creeping bellflower Campanula rapunculoides

Harebell Campanula rotundifolia

Shepherd’s purse Capsella bursa-pastoris

Caragana Caragana arborescens

Hoary cress Cardaria draba

Musk thistle Carduus nutans

Sedge Carex aenea

Assiniboia sedge Carex assiniboinensis

Wheat sedge Carex atherodes

Golden sedge Carex aurea

Bebb’s sedge Carex bebbii

Bicknell’s sedge Carex bicknellii

Shortbeak sedge Carex brevior

Douglas’ sedge Carex douglasii

Needleleaf sedge Carex duriuscula

Threadleaf sedge Carex filifolia

Heavy sedge Carex gravida

Deer sedge Carex hallii

Sun sedge Carex inops

Inland sedge Carex interior

Smoothcone sedge Carex laeviconica

Woolly sedge Carex lanuginosa

Mead’s sedge Carex meadii

Troublesome sedge Carex molesta

Peck’s sedge Carex peckii

Pennsylvania sedge Carex pensylvanica

Clustered field sedge Carex praegracilis

Knotsheath Carex retrorsa

Beaked sedge Carex rostrata

Rocky Mountain sedge Carex saximontana

Sprengel’s sedge Carex sprengelii

Manyhead sedge Carex sychnocephala

Rigid sedge Carex tetanica

Fox sedge Carex vulpinoidea

Caraway Carum carvi

Downy paintbrush Castilleja sessiliflora

Brookgrass Catabrosa aquatica

Climbing bittersweet Celastrus scandens

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

White aster Aster ericoides

Smallflower aster Aster falcatus

Smooth blue aster Aster laevis

Aromatic aster Aster oblongifolius

Simple aster Aster simplex

Purple milkvetch Astragalus agrestis

Two-grooved milkvetch Astragalus bisulcatus

Canada milkvetch Astragalus canadensis

Ground plum milkvetch Astragalus crassicarpus

Slender milkvetch Astragalus flexuosus

Tufted milkvetch Astragalus gilviflorus

Vetch adsug Astragalus laxmannii

Lotus milkvetch Astragalus lotiflorus

Missouri milkvetch Astragalus missouriensis

Narrowleaf poisonvetch Astragalus pectinatus

Creamy poisonvetch Astragalus racemosus

Looseflower milkvetch Astragalus tenellus

Silverscale saltbush Atriplex argentea

Rillscale Atriplex dioica

Garden orach Atriplex hortensis

Salt sage Atriplex nuttallii

Spearscale Atriplex patula

Redscale Atriplex rosea

Russian pigweed Axyris amaranthoides

Kochia Bassia scoparia

American sloughgrass Beckmannia syzigachne

Hoary false alyssum Berteroa incana

Paper birch Betula papyrifera

Nodding beggarticks Bidens cernua

Beggarticks Bidens frondosa

Beggarticks Bidens vulgata

Violet boltonia Boltonia asteroides

Sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula

Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis

False boneset Brickellia eupatorioides

Fringed brome Bromus ciliatus

Smooth brome Bromus inermis

Japanese brome Bromus japonicus

Brome lati Bromus latiglumis

Nodding brome Bromus porteri

Downy brome Bromus tectorum

Buffalograss Buchloe dactyloides

Blue joint Calamagrostis canadensis

Plains reedgrass Calamagrostis montanensis
EA Appendix D–Species Lists 93

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Hackberry Celtis occidentalis

Common pimpernel Centunculus minimus

Prairie chickweed Cerastium arvense

Nodding chickweed Cerastium brachypodum

Powderhorn cerastium Cerastium nutans

Winterfat Ceratoides lanata

Hornwort Ceratophyllum demersum

Little rose Chamaerhodos erecta

Ridge-seeded spurge Chamaesyce glyptosperma

Thyme-leaved spurge Chamaesyce serpyllifolia

Lambsquarters Chenopodium album

Pitseed goosefoot Chenopodium berlandieri

Aridland goosefoot Chenopodium disiccatum

Fremont’s goosefoot Chenopodium fremontii

Oakleaf goosefoot Chenopodium glaucum

Narrowleaf goosefoot Chenopodium leptophyllum

Akali blite Chenopodium rubrum

Maple-leaved goosefoot Chenopodium simplex

Chenopodium Chenopodium strictum

Woodreed Cinna arundinacea

Drooping woodreed Cinna latifolia

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense

Prairie thistle Cirsium canescens

Wavyleaf thistle Cirsium undulatum

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare

Rocky Mountain beeplant Cleome serrulata

Collomia Collomia linearis

Bastard toadflax Comandra umbellata

Dayflower Commelina communis

Hare’s ear mustard Conringia orientalis

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis

Horseweed Conyza canadensis

Redosier dogwood Cornus sericea

Golden corydalis Corydalis aurea

American hazelnut Corylus americana

Roundleaf hawthorn Crataegus chrysocarpa

Northern hawthorn Crataegus rotundifolia

Fleshy hawthorn Crataegus succulenta

Hawksbeard Crepis occidentalis

Hawksbeard Crepis runcinata

Buttecandle Cryptantha celosioides

Buttonbush dodder Cuscuta cephalanthi

Scaldweed Cuscuta gronovii

Bigseed alfalfa dodder Cuscuta indecora

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Wild parsley Cymopterus acaulis

Brook flatsedge Cyperus bipartitus

Redroot cyperus Cyperus erythrorhizos

Slender flatsedge Cyperus odoratus

Bearded flatsedge Cyperus squarrosus

Common bladder fern Cystopteris fragilis

Longbract frog orchid Dactylorhiza viridis

Western prairie clover Dalea candida

Purple prairie clover Dalea purpurea

Poverty oatgrass Danthonia spicata

Little larkspur Delphinium bicolor

Tufted hairgrass Deschampsia caespitosa

Tansy mustard Descurainia pinnata

Flixweed Descurainia sophia

Canada tickclover Desmodium canadense

Leiberg’s panicum Dichanthelium leibergii

Wilcox’s panicum Dichanthelium wilcoxianum

Saltgrass Distichlis stricta

Shooting star Dodecatheon pulchellum

Woodland draba Draba nemorosa

Dragonhead Dracocephalum parviflorum

Purple coneflower Echinacea angustifolia

Blacksamson echinacea Echinacea angustifolia

Barnyard grass Echinochloa crusgalli

Wild cucumber Echinocystis lobata

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia

Silverberry Elaeagnus commutata

Needle spikesedge Eleocharis acicularis

Flatstem spikesedge Eleocharis compressa

Spikerush Eleocharis erythropoda

Spikerush Eleocharis macrostachya

Blunt spikesedge Eleocharis obtusa

Common spikerush Eleocharis palustris

Waterpod Ellisia nyctelea

Canada wildrye Elymus canadensis

Thickspike wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus

Quackgrass Elymus repens

Slender wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus

Virginia wildrye Elymus virginicus

Fireweed Epilobium angustifolium

Tall annual willowherb Epilobium brachycarpum

Willowherb Epilobium ciliatum

Bog willowherb Epilobium leptophyllum

Field horsetail Equisetum arvense
94 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Everlasting Gnaphalium palustre

Hedge hyssop Gratiola neglecta

Curlycup gumweed Grindelia squarrosa

Broom snakeweed Gutierrezia sarathrae

Perennial baby’s breath Gypsophila paniculata

Wood stickseed Hackelia deflexa

Stickseed Hackelia floribunda

Lanceleaf goldenweed Haplopappus lanceolatus

Spring ironplant Haplopappus spinulosus

Rough pennyroyal Hedeoma hispida

Sweet vetch Hedysarum boreale

Sneezeweed Helenium autumnale

Common sunflower Helianthus annuus

Maximilian sunflower Helianthus maximiliani

Nuttall’s sunflower Helianthus nuttallii

Plains sunflower Helianthus petiolaris

Stiff sunflower Helianthus rigidus

Jerusalem artichoke Helianthus tuberosus

Spikeoat Helictotrichon hookeri

Seaside heliotrope Heliotropium curassavicum

Cowparsnip Heracleum sphondylium

Dames rocket Hesperis matronalis

Intermediate needle and 

thread

Hesperostipa comata

Shortbristle needle and 

thread

Hesperostipa spartea

Golden aster Heterotheca villosa

Alum root Heuchera richardsonii

Flower of an hour Hibiscus trionum

Hawkweed Hieracium umbellatum

Sweetgrass Hierochloe odorata

Mare’s-tail Hippuris vulgaris

Foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum

Barley Hordeum vulgare

Common hop Humulus lupulus

Fineleaf hymenopappus Hymenopappus filifolius

Slimleaf hymenopappus Hymenopappus tenuifolius

Henbane Hyoscyamus niger

Yellow stargrass Hypoxis hirsuta

Povertyweed Iva axillaris

Marsh elder Iva xanthifolia

Alpine rush Juncus alpinoarticulatus

Baltic rush Juncus arcticus

Toad rush Juncus bufonius

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Water horsetail Equisetum fluviatile

Smooth horsetail Equisetum laevigatum

Teal lovegrass Eragrostis hypnoides

Rubber rabbitbrush Ericameria nauseosa

Tufted fleabane Erigeron caespitosus

Fernleaf fleabane Erigeron compositus

Smooth fleabane Erigeron glabellus

Spearleaf fleabane Erigeron lonchophyllus

Philadelphia fleabane Erigeron philadelphicus

Low fleabane Erigeron pumilus

Daisy fleabane Erigeron strigosus

Yellow buckwheat Eriogonum flavum

Erigonum Eriogonum pauciflorum

Cottongrass Eriophorum viridicarinatum

Dog mustard Erucastrum gallicum

Western wallflower Erysimum asperum

Wormseed wallflower Erysimum cheiranthoides

Smallflower wallflower Erysimum inconspicum

Pincushion cactus Escobaria vivipara

Spotted joepyeweed Eupatorium maculatum

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula

Narrowleaf goldenrod Euthamia graminifolia

Rough fescue Festuca campestris

Bluebunch fescue Festuca idahoensis

Sheep’s fescue Festuca ovina

Wild strawberry Fragaria virginiana

Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica

Spotted fritillary Fritillaria atropurpurea

Blanketflower Gaillardia aristata

Catchweed bedstraw Galium aparine

Northern bedstraw Galium boreale

Small bedstraw Galium trifidum

Sweet-scented bedstraw Galium triflorum

Scarlet gaura Gaura coccinea

Northern gentian Gentiana affinis

Annual gentian Gentianella amarella

Gentian Gentianopsis crinita

Yellow avens Geum aleppicum

Purple avens Geum triflorum

Sea milkwort Glaux maritima

Northern mannagrass Glyceria borealis

Tall mannagrass Glyceria grandis

Fowl mannagrass Glyceria striata

Wild licorice Glycyrrhiza lepidota
EA Appendix D–Species Lists 95

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Dudley’s rush Juncus dudleyi

Inland rush Juncus interior

Longstyle rush Juncus longistylis

Knotted rush Juncus nodosus

Torrey’s rush Juncus torreyi

Dwarf juniper Juniperus communis

Creeping juniper Juniperus horizontalis

Rocky Mountain red cedar Juniperus scopulorum

Junegrass Koeleria macrantha

Western wild lettuce Lactuca ludoviciana

Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola

Blue lettuce Lactuca tatarica

Low stickseed Lappula occidentalis

Blue stickseed Lappula squarrosa

Yellow vetchling Lathyrus ochroleucus

Marsh vetchling Lathyrus palustris

Duckweed Lemna spp.

Common motherwort Leonurus cardiaca

Peppergrass Lepidium densiflorum

Bushy peppergrass Lepidium ramosissimum

Bearded sprangletop Leptochloa fusca

Alpine bladderpod Lesquerella alpina

Silver bladderpod Lesquerella ludoviciana

Rocky Mountain blazing 

star

Liatris ligulistylis

Dotted blazing star Liatris punctata

Wood lily Lilium philadelphicum

Mudwort Limosella aquatica

Butter and eggs Linaria vulgaris

Blue flax Linum perenne

Stiffstem flax Linum rigidum

Grooved flax Linum sulcatum

Common flax Linum usitatissimum

Drummond’s halfchaff 

sedge

Lipocarpha drummondii

Hoary puccoon Lithospermum canescens

Narrowleaf stoneseed Lithospermum incisum

Kalm’s lobelia Lobelia kalmii

Palespike lobelia Lobelia spicata

Perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne

Persian ryegrass Lolium persicum

Desert biscuitroot Lomatium foeniculaceum

Bigseed biscuitroot Lomatium macrocarpum

Northern Idaho biscuitrootLomatium orientale

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Wild honeysuckle Lonicera dioica

Tatarian honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica

Prairie bird’s-foot trefoil Lotus unifoliolatus

Matrimony vine Lycium barbarum

Clubmoss Lycopodium spp.

Lichens Lycopodium spp.

American bugleweed Lycopus americanus

Rough bugleweed Lycopus asper

Rush skeletonplant Lygodesmia juncea

Fringed loosestrife Lysimachia ciliata

Loosestrife Lysimachia hybrida

Tufted loosestrife Lysimachia thrysiflora

Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria

Canescent aster Machaeranthera canascens

Goldenweed Machaeranthera grindeliode

Starry false lily of the 

valley

Maianthemum stellatum

Common mallow Malva neglecta

Pepperwort Marsilea vestita

Mayweed Matricaria discoides

Wild chamomile Matricaria maritima

Black medick Medicago lupulina

Alfalfa Medicago sativa

White sweetclover Melilotus alba

White sweetclover Melilotus albus

Yellow sweetclover Melilotus officinalis

Field mint Mentha arvensis

Tenpetal blazingstar Mentzelia decapetala

Prairie bluebells Mertensia lanceolata

Oblongleaf bluebells Mertensia oblongifolia

Hairy four o’clock Mirabilis hirsuta

Narrowleaf four o’clock Mirabilis linearis

Heartleaf four o’clock Mirabilis nyctaginea

Wild bergamot Monarda fistulosa

Povertyweed Monolepis nuttalliana

Scratchgrass Muhlenbergia asperfolia

Plains muhly Muhlenbergia cuspidata

Marsh muhly Muhlenbergia racemosa

Mat muhly Muhlenbergia richardsonis

Leafy musineon Musineon divaricatum

Mousetail Myosurus minimus

Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum

Green needlegrass Nassella viridula

Woolly gilia Navarretia intertexta
96 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Catnip Nepeta cataria

False dandelion Nothocalais cuspidata

Gumbo lily Oenothera caespitosa

Yellow lavauxia Oenothera flava

Nuttall’s eveningprimroseOenothera nuttallii

Common eveningprimroseOenothera villosa

Sneezewort aster Oligoneuron album

Stiff goldenrod Oligoneuron rigidum

False gromwell Onosmodium molle

Brittle pricklypear Opuntia fragilis

Plains pricklypear Opuntia polyacantha

Clustered broomrape Orobanche fasciculata

Broomrape Orobanche ludoviciana

Yellow owl’s-clover Orthocarpus luteus

Longstyle sweetroot Osmorhiza longistylis

Common yellow oxalis Oxalis stricta

Late yellow locoweed Oxytropis campestris

Purple locoweed Oxytropis lambertii

Showy locoweed Oxytropis splendens

Gray ragwort Packera cana

Witchgrass Panicum capillare

Witchgrass Panicum virgatum

Pennsylvania pellitory Parietaria pensylvanica

Northern grass of 

Parnassus

Parnassia palustris

Whitlowwort Paronychia sessiliflora

Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithiii

Wild parsnip Pastinaca sativa

Silver-leaf scurfpea Pediomelum argophyllum

Breadroot Pediomelum esculentum

White beardtongue Penstemon albidus

Narrow beardtongue Penstemon angustifolius

Crested beardtongue Penstemon eriantherus

Slender beardtongue Penstemon gracilis

Smooth blue beardtongue Penstemon nitidus

Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea

Timothy Phleum pratense

Hood’s phlox Phlox hoodii

Common reed Phragmites australis

Clammy groundcherry Physalis heterophylla

Virginia groundcherry Physalis virginiana

Obedient plant Physostegia parviflora

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Littleseed ricegrass Piptatherum micranthum

Scouler’s popcornflower Plagiobothrys scouleri

Prairie plantain Plantago elongata

Alkali plantain Plantago eriopoda

Common plantain Plantago major

Buckhorn Plantago patagonica

Northern green orchid Plantanthera aquilonis

Western prairie fringedorchid (threatened)Plantanthera praeclara

Plains bluegrass Poa arida

Canada bluegrass Poa compressa

Early bluegrass Poa cusickii

Inland bluegrass Poa nemoralis

Foul bluegrass Poa palustris

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis

Canby’s bluegrass Poa secunda

Clammyweed Polanisia dodecandra

White milkwort Polygala alba

Seneca snakeroot Polygala senega

Whorled milkwort Polygala verticillata

Smooth Solomon’s seal Polygonatum biflorum

Erect knotweed Polygonum achoreum

Swamp smartweed Polygonum amphibium

Common knotweed Polygonum arenastrum

Wild buckwheat Polygonum convolvulus

Pale smartweed Polygonum lapathifolium

Pennsylvania smartweed Polygonum pensylvanicum

Lady’s-thumb Polygonum persicaria

Bushy knotweed Polygonum ramosissimum

Balsam poplar Populus balsamifera

Cottonwood Populus deltoides

Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides

Common purslane Portulaca oleracea

Curlyleaf pondweed Potamogeton crispus

Tall cinquefoil Potentilla arguta

Early cinquefoil Potentilla concinna

Graceful cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis

Woolly cinquefoil Potentilla hippiana

Norwegian cinquefoil Potentilla norvegica

Bushy cinquefoil Potentilla paradoxa

Prairie cinquefoil Potentilla pensylvanica

Brook cinquefoil Potentilla rivalis

Prairie rattlesnakeroot Prenanthes racemosa

Fairybells Prosartes trachycarpa
EA Appendix D–Species Lists 97

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Selfheal Prunella vulgaris

American plum Prunus americana

Pin cherry Prunus pensylvanica

Sandcherry Prunus pumila

Chokecherry Prunus virginiana

Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicatum

Silverleaf scurfpea Psoralea argophylla

Breadroot scurfpea Psoralea esculenta

Lemon scurfpea Psoralidium lanceolatum

Alkaligrass Puccinellia nuttalliana

Bur oak Quercus macrocarpa

Early wood buttercup Ranunculus abortivis

Shiny-leaved buttercup Ranunculus glaberrimus

Macoun’s buttercup Ranunculus macounii

Labrador buttercup Ranunculus rhomboideus

Prairie coneflower Ratibida columnifera

Common buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica

Aromatic sumac Rhus aromatica

Wild black currant Ribes americanum

Buffalo currant Ribes aureum

Low wild gooseberry Ribes hirtellum

Bristly gooseberry Ribes oxyacanthoides

Bog yellow cress Rorippa palustris

Prairie rose Rosa arkansana

Smooth rose Rosa blanda

Prairie wild rose Rosa setigera

Woods’ rose Rosa woodsii

Red raspberry Rubus idaeus

Black-eyed susan Rudbeckia hirta

Western dock Rumex aquaticus

Curly dock Rumex crispus

Field dock Rumex longifolius

Golden dock Rumex maritimus

Mexican dock Rumex salicifolius

Narrowleaf dock Rumex stenophyllus

Ditchgrass Ruppia maritima

Saltwort Salicornia rubra

Peachleaf willow Salix amygdaloides

Bebb willow Salix bebbiana

Sageleaf willow Salix candida

Pussy willow Salix discolor

Diamond willow Salix eriocephala

Narrowleaf willow Salix exigua

Shining willow Salix lucida

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Laurel willow Salix pentandra

Meadow willow Salix petiolaris

Russian thistle Salsola tragus

Black snakeroot Sanicula marilandica

Bouncing bet Saponaria officinalis

Tumblegrass Schedonnardus paniculatus

False melic Schizachne purpurascens

Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium

Three-square bulrush Schoenoplectus americanus

Tule bulrush Schoenoplectus lacustris

Cosmopolitan bulrush Schoenoplectus maritimus

Softstem bulrush Schoenoplectus 

tabernaemontani

Sprangletop Scolochloa festucacea

Figwort Scrophularia lanceolata

Blue skullcap Scutellaria lateriflora

Small clubmoss Selaginella densa

Swamp ragwort Senecio congestus

Lambstongue ragwort Senecio integerrimus

Prairie ragwort Senecio plattensis

Yellow foxtail Setaria glauca

Green foxtail Setaria viridus

Buffaloberry Shepherdia argentea

Little bluestem Shizachyrium scoparius

Sleepy catchfly Silene antirrhina

Smooth catchfly Silene cserei

Drummond’s cockle Silene drummondii

White cockle Silene latifolia

Bladder campion Silene vulgaris

Charlock Sinapis arvensis

Tumbling mustard Sisymbrium altissimum

Narrowleaf blue-eyed 

grass

Sisyrinchium angustfolium

Smooth carrionflower Smilax herbacea

Bittersweet Solanum dulcamara

Cutleaf nightshade Solanum triflorum

Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis

Late goldenrod Solidago gigantea

Prairie goldenrod Solidago missouriensis

Soft goldenrod Solidago mollis

Gray goldenrod Solidago nemoralis

Showy goldenrod Solidago speciosa

Field sowthistle Sonchus arvensis

Spiny sowthistle Sonchus asper
98 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Intermediate wheatgrass Thinopyrum intermedium

Tall wheatgrass Thinopyrum ponticum

Penny cress Thlaspi arvense

Stemless Townsend daisy Townsendia exscapa

Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans

Spiderwort Tradescantia bracteata

Goatsbeard Tragopogon dubius

Alsike clover Trifolium hybridum

Red clover Trifolium pratense

White clover Trifolium repens

Seaside arrowgrass Triglochin maritima

Durum wheat Triticum durum

Cattails Typha spp.

American elm Ulmus americana

Siberian elm Ulmus pumila

Stinging nettle Urtica dioica

Common bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris

Cowherb Vaccaria hispanica

Bracted vervain Verbena bracteata

Blue vervain Verbena hastata

Hoary vervain Verbena stricta

White vervain Verbena urticifolia

Water speedwell Veronica anagallis-aquatic

Ironweed Veronica fasciculata

Purslane speedwell Veronica peregrina

Marsh speedwell Veronica scutellata

Nannyberry Viburnum lentago

American vetch Vicia americana

Hairy vetch Vicia villosa

Small blue violet Viola adunca

Canada violet Viola canadensis

Meadow violet Viola nephrophylla

Nuttall’s violet Viola nuttallii

Prairie violet Viola pedatifida

Wild grape Vitis vulpina

Sixweeks fescue Vulpia octoflora

Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium

Corn Zea mays

White camas Zigadenus elegans

Death camas Zigadenus venenosus

Meadow parsnip Zizia aptera

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Common sowthistle Sonchus oleraceus

Indiangrass Sorghastrum nutans

Burreed Sparganium spp.

Alkali cordgrass Spartina gracilis

Prairie cordgrass Spartina pectinata

Scarlet globemallow Sphaeralcea coccinea

Prairie wedgegrass Sphenopholis obtusata

Meadowsweet Spiraea alba

Nodding lady’s tresses Spiranthes cernua

Hooded lady’s tresses Spiranthes romanzoffiana

Rough dropseed Sporobolus compositus

Sand dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus

Prairie dropseed Sporobolus heterolepis

Hedge nettle Stachys palustris

Longleaf starwort Stellaria longifolia

Longstalk starwort Stellaria longipes

Fleshy stitchwort Stellaria scarassifolia

Needle and thread Stipa comata

Porcupine grass Stipa spartea

Sago pondweed Stuckenia pectinata

Sea blite Suaeda calceoliformis

Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus

Western snowberry Symphoricarpos occidentalis

Rush aster Symphyotrichum boreale

Rayless aster Symphyotrichum ciliatum

White aster Symphyotrichum ericoides

Smallflower aster Symphyotrichum falcatum

Smooth blue aster Symphyotrichum laeve

Panicled aster Symphyotrichum 

lanceolatum

Aromatic aster Symphyotrichum 

oblongifolium

Salt cedar Tamarix ramosissima

Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare

Rock dandelion Taraxacum laevigatum

Dandelion Taraxacum officinale

American germander Teucrium canadense

Purple meadowrue Thalictrum dasycarpum

Early meadowrue Thalictrum venulosum

Golden pea Thermopsis rhombifolia
EA Appendix D–Species Lists 99

Insects

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

HESPERIIDAE (PYRGINAE)

Silver-spotted skipper Epargyreus clarus

Common checkered skipper Pyrgus communis

Common sooty wing Pholisora catullus

HESPERIIDAE (HESPERIINAE)

Roadside skipper Amblyscirtes vialis

Delaware skipper Anatrytone logan

Least skipper Ancyloxypha numitor

Arogos skipper Atrytone arogos

Dusted skipper Atrytonopsis hianna

Dunn skipper Euphyes vestris

Common branded skipper Hesperia comma

Dakota skipper Hesperia dacotae

Pawnee skipper Hesperia leonardus pawnee

Ottoe skipper Hesperia ottoe

Uncas skipper Hesperia uncas

Garita skipperling Oarisma garita

Hobomok skipper Poanes hobomok

Long dash Polites mystic

Peck’s skipper Polites peckius

Tawny-edge skipper Polites themistocles

PAPILIONIDAE 

Black swallowtail Papilio polyxenes

Canadian tiger swallowtail Papilio (Pterourus) canadensis

Eastern tiger swallowtail Papilio (Pterourus) glaucus

PIERIDAE 

European cabbage 

butterfly

Artogeia rapae

Alfalfa butterfly Colias eurytheme

Clouded sulphur Colias philodice

Olympia marble Euchloe olympia

Checkered white Pontia protodice

LYCAENIDAE (LYCAENINAE) 

Great copper Lycaena (Gaeides) xanthoides

Bronze copper Lycaena (Hyllolycaena) hyllus

Purplish copper Lycaena (Epidemia) helloides

LYCAENIDAE (THECLINAE) 

Coral hairstreak Satyrium (Harkenclenus) titus

Acadian hairstreak Satyrium acadicum

Striped hairstreak Satyrium liparops

Gray hairstreak Strymon melinus

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

LYCAENIDAE (POLYOMMATINAE) 

Spring azure Celastrina ladon 

Summer azure Celastrina neglecta 

Eastern tailed blue Everes comyntas

Silvery blue Glaucopsyche lygdamus

Melissa blue Lycaeides melissa

NYMPHALIDAE (HELICONIINAE) 

Meadow fritillary Clossiana bellona 

Silver-bordered fritillary Clossiana selene

Variegated fritillary Euptoieta claudia

Aphrodite fritillary Speyeria aphrodite

Callippe fritillary Speyeria callippe

Great spangled fritillary Speyeria cybele

Regal fritillary Speyeria idalia

NYMPHALIDAE (NYMPHALINAE) 

Milbert’s tortoise shell Aglais milberti

Gorgone checkerspot Charidryas gorgone

Silvery checkerspot Charidryas nycteis

Mourning cloak Nymphalis antiopa

Northern pearl crescent Phyciodes cocyta 

Pearl crescent Phyciodes tharos

Hop merchant Polygonia comma

Question mark Polygonia interrogationis

Gray comma Polygonia progne

Red admiral Vanessa atalanta

Painted lady Vanessa cardui

American painted lady Vanessa virginiensis

NYMPHALIDAE (LIMENITIDINAE) 

White admiral Basilarchia a. arthemis

Red-spotted purple Basilarchia a. astyanax

Viceroy Basilarchia archippus

NYMPHALIDAE (APATURINAE) 

Hackberry butterfly Asterocampa celtis

NYMPHALIDAE (SATYRINAE) 

Common wood nymph Cercyonis pegala

Inornate ringlet Coenonympha inornata

Northern pearly eye Enodia anthedon

Little wood satyr Megisto cymela

Varuna Arctic Oeneis uhleri varuna

Eyed brown Satyrodes eurydice

DANAIDAE 

Monarch Danaus plexippus
100 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Amphibians

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Plains spadefoot toad Scaphiopus bombifrons

Woodhouse’s toad Bufo woodhousei woodhousei

Great Plains toad Bufo cognatus

American toad Bufo americanus

Canadian toad Bufo hemiophrys

Gray tree frog Hyla versicolor

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens

Wood frog Rana sylvatica

Boreal chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata maculata

Tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum

Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus

Reptiles

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Northern prairie skink Eumeces septentrionalis

Western painted turtle Chrysemys picata bellii (Gray)

Common snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina serpentina

Red-sided garter snake Thamnophis sirtailis parietalis

Plains garter snake Thamnophis radix

Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Northern redbelly snake Storeria occipitomaculata 

occipitomaculata

Smooth green snake Opheodrys vernalis

Western hognose snake Heterodon nasicus

Bull snake Pituophis catenifer

Fishes (NDGF 1994)

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

LAMPREYS Lake chub Couesius plumbeus

Chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon castaneus Grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella

Silver lamprey Ichthyomyron unicuspis Red shiner Cyprinella lutrensis

STURGEONS Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera

Lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens Common carp Cyprinus carpio

Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Western silvery minnow Hybognathus argyritis

Shovelnose sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni

PADDLEFISHES Mississippi silvery minnow Hybognathus nuchalis

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula Plains minnow Hybognathus placitus

GARS Common shiner Luxilus cornutus

Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus Sturgeon chub Macrhybopsis gelida

Shortnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus Sicklefin chub Macrhybopsis meeki

BOWFINS Silver chub Macrhybopsis storeriana

Bowfin Amia calva Pearl dace Margariscus margarita

MOONEYES Hornyhead chub Nocomis biguttatus

Goldeye Hiodon alosoides Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas

Mooneye Hiodon tergisus Pugnose shiner Notropis anogenus

EELS Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides

American eel Anguilla rostrata River shiner Notropis blennius

HERRINGS Bigmouth shiner Notropis doralis

Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris Blackchin shiner Notropis heterodon

Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Blacknose shiner Notropis heterolepis

MINNOWS Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius

Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Rosyface shiner Notropis rubellus

Largescale stoneroller Compostoma oligolepis Silverband shiner Notropis shumardi

Goldfish Carassius auratus Sand shiner Notropis stramineus
EA Appendix D–Species Lists 101

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Topeka shiner Notropis topeka

Suckermouth minnow Phenacobius mirabilis

Northern redbelly Phoxinus eos

Finescale dace Phoxinus neogaeus

Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus

Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas

Flathead chub Platygobio gracilis

Blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus

Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae

Rudd Scardinius erythrophthalmus

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus

SUCKERS

River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio

Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus

Longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus

White sucker Catostomus commersoni

Mountain sucker Catostomus platyrhynchus

Blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus

Lake chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta

Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans

Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus

Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus

Black buffalo Ictiobus niger

Silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum

Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum

Shorthead redhorse Morostoma macrolepidotum

Greater redhorse Moxostoma valenciennesi

CATFISH

Black bullhead Ameiurus melas

Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis

Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus

Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus

Slender madtom Noturus exilis

Stonecat Noturus flavus

Tadpole madtom Noturus gyrinus

Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris

PIKE

Northern pike Esox lucius

Muskellunge Esox masquinongy

Tiger muskie Esox lucius × Esox 

masquinongy 

MUDMINNOWS

Central mudminnow Umbra limi

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

TROUT-PERCH 

Trout-perch Percopsis omiscomaycus

COD

Burbot Lota lota

KILLFISH

Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus

Plains topminnow Fundulus sciadicus

Plains killifish Fundulus zebrinus

STICKLEBACKS

Brook stickleback Culaea inconstans

TEMPERATE BASS

White bass Morone chrysops

Striped bass Morone saxatilis

Wiper Morone chrysops × Morone 

saxatilis 

SUNFISHES

Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris

Sacramento perch Archoplites interruptus

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus

Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis

Orangespotted/

pumpkinseed hybrid

Lepomis humilis × Lepomis 

gibbosus 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus

Bluegill/green sunfish 

hybrid

Lepomis macrochirus ×

Lepomis cyanellus 

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides

White crappie Pomoxis annularis

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus

PERCH

Iowa darter Etheostoma exile

Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum

Yellow perch Perca flavescens

Logperch Percina caprodes

Blackside darter Percina maculata

Slenderhead darter Percina phoxocephala

River darter Percina shumardi

Sauger Stizostedion canadense

Zander Stizostedion lucioperca

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum

Saugeye Stizostedion canadense ×

Stizostedion vitreum 

DRUMS

freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens
102 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Birds

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

LOONS 

Common loon Gavia immer 

GREBES 

Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps 

Horned grebe Podiceps auritus 

Red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegena 

Eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis 

Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis 

Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii

PELICANS 

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 

CORMORANTS 

Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 

HERONS, EGRETS, and BITTERNS 

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus 

Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis 

Great blue heron Ardea herodias 

Great egret Ardea alba 

Snowy egret Egretta thula 

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea 

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis 

Green heron Butorides virescens 

Black-crowned nightheron Nycticorax nycticorax 

Yellow-crowned nightheron Nyctanassa violacea 

IBISES 

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi 

VULTURES 

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura 

SWANS, GEESE, and DUCKS 

Tundra swan Cygnus columbianus 

Greater white-fronted 

goose

Anser albifrons 

Snow goose Chen caerulescens 

Ross’s goose Chen rossii 

Brant Branta bernicla 

Canada goose Branta canadensis 

Wood duck Aix sponsa 

Gadwall Anas strepera 

American wigeon Anas americana 

American black duck Anas rubripes 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Blue-winged teal Anas discors 

Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera 

Northern shoveler Anas clypeata 

Northern pintail Anas acuta

Green-winged teal Anas crecca 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria

Redhead Aythya americana 

Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris 

Greater scaup Aythya marila 

Lesser scaup Aythya affinis 

White-winged scoter Melanitta fusca 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula 

Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 

Common merganser Mergus merganser 

Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator 

Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis 

HAWKS and EAGLES 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus 

Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus 

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii 

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis 

Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus 

Broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni 

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis 

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis 

Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos 

FALCONS 

American kestrel Falco sparverius 

Merlin Falco columbarius 

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus 

Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus 

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus 

UPLAND GAME BIRDS 

Northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus 

Gray partridge Perdix perdix 

Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus 

Sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus 

Greater prairie-chicken Tympanuchus cupido 
EA Appendix D–Species Lists 103

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo 

RAILS and COOTS 

King rail Rallus elegans 

Virginia rail Rallus limicola 

Yellow rail Coturnicops noveboracensis 

Sora Porzana carolina 

American coot Fulica americana 

Common moorhen Gallinula chloropus 

CRANES 

Sandhill crane Grus canadensis 

Whooping crane 

(endangered)

Grus americana

SHOREBIRDS 

Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola

American golden-plover Pluvialis dominica

Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus

Piping plover (threatened) Charadrius melodus

Mountain plover Charadrius montanus

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus

American avocet Recurvirostra americana

Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca

Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes

Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria

Willet Tringa semipalmata

Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularius

Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda

Hudsonian godwit Limosa haemastica

Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa

Sanderling Calidris alba

Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla

Western sandpiper Calidris mauri

Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla

White-rumped sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis

Baird’s sandpiper Calidris bairdii

Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos

Dunlin Calidris alpina

Stilt sandpiper Calidris himantopus

Buff-breasted sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis

Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus

Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus

Common snipe Gallinago gallinago

American woodcock Scolopax minor

Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor

Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

GULLS and TERNS 

Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan

Bonaparte’s gull Chroicocephalus philadelphia

Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis

California gull Larus californicus

Herring gull Larus argentatus

Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia

Least tern (endangered) Sterna antillarum

Common tern Sterna hirundo

Forster’s tern Sterna forsteri

Black tern Chlidonias niger

DOVES 

Rock dove Columba livia

Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto 

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura 

CUCKOOS and ROADRUNNERS 

Black-billed cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus

OWLS 

Barn owl Tyto alba

Eastern screech-owl Megascops asio

Great horned owl Bubo virginianus

Snowy owl Bubo scandiacus

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia

Barred owl Strix varia

Long-eared owl Asio otus

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus

Boreal owl Aegolius funereus

Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus

NIGHTHAWKS and NIGHTJARS 

Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus

SWIFTS 

Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica

HUMMINGBIRDS 

Ruby-throated 

hummingbird

Archilochus colubris 

KINGFISHERS 

Belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon

WOODPECKERS 

Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus

Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens
104 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis

CREEPERS 

Brown creeper Certhia americana 

WRENS 

House wren Troglodytes aedon

Winter wren Troglodytes hiemalis

Sedge wren Cistothorus platensis

Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris

Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus

KINGLETS, BLUEBIRDS, and THRUSHES 

Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa

Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula

Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis

Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides

Wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina

Veery Catharus fuscescens

Gray-cheeked thrush Catharus minimus

Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus

Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus

American robin Turdus migratorius

MIMICS 

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis

Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum

STARLINGS 

European starling Sturnus vulgaris

PIPITS 

American (water) pipit Anthus rubescens

Sprague’s pipit (candidate) Anthus spragueii

WAXWINGS 

Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulus

Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum

WARBLERS 

Northern parula Parula americana

Golden-winged warbler Vermivora chrysoptera

Tennessee warbler Oreothlypis peregrina 

Orange-crowned warbler Oreothlypis celata 

Nashville warbler Oreothlypis ruficapilla

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia

Chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica

Magnolia warbler Dendroica magnolia

Cape May warbler Dendroica tigrina

Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata

Black-throated green 

warbler

Dendroica virens

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus 

FLYCATCHERS 

Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi

Western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus

Eastern wood-pewee Contopus virens

Yellow-bellied flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris

Alder flycatcher Empidonax alnorum

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii

Least flycatcher Empidonax minimus 

Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe

Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya

Great crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus

Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus

SHRIKES 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus

Northern shrike Lanius excubitor

VIREOS 

Blue-headed vireo Vireo solitarius

Yellow-throated vireo Vireo flavifrons

Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus

Philadelphia vireo Vireo philadelphicus

Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus

JAYS, MAGPIES, and CROWS 

Gray jay Perisoreus canadensis

Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata

Black-billed magpie Pica hudsonia

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

LARKS 

Horned lark Eremophila alpestris

SWALLOWS 

Purple martin Progne subis 

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor

Northern rough-winged 

swallow 

Stelgidopteryx serripennis

Bank swallow Riparia riparia

Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica

CHICKADEES and TITMICE 

Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus

NUTHATCHES 

Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis
EA Appendix D–Species Lists 105

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Blackburnian warbler Dendroica fusca

Pine warbler Dendroica pinus

Palm warbler Dendroica palmarum

Bay-breasted warbler Dendroica castanea

Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata

Black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla

Northern waterthrush Parkesia noveboracensis

Connecticut warbler Oporornis agilis

Mourning warbler Oporornis philadelphia 

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas

Wilson’s warbler Wilsonia pusilla

Canada warbler Wilsonia canadensis

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens

TANAGERS and CARDINALS 

Scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea

Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana

Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis

SPARROWS, BUNTINGS, and GROSBEAKS 

Eastern towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus

American tree sparrow Spizella arborea

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina

Clay-colored sparrow Spizella pallida

Field sparrow Spizella pusilla

Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus

Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus

Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys

Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum

Baird’s sparrow Ammodramus bairdii

Le Conte’s sparrow Ammodramus leconteii

Nelson’s sharp-tailed 

sparrow 

Ammodramus nelsoni

Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia

Swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana

Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis

Harris’ sparrow Zonotrichia querula

White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis

Lapland longspur Calcarius lapponicus

Smith’s longspur Calcarius pictus

Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus

McCown’s longspur Rhynchophanes mccownii

Snow bunting Plectrophenax nivalis

Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus

Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus

Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena

Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea

Dickcissel Spiza americana

BLACKBIRDS and ORIOLES 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus

Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta

Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus

Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus

Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus

Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater

Orchard oriole Icterus spurius

Baltimore oriole Icterus galbula

FINCHES 

Pine grosbeak Pinicola enucleator

Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus

House finch Carpodacus mexicanus

Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra

White-winged crossbill Loxia leucoptera

Common redpoll Acanthis flammea

Hoary redpoll Acanthis hornemanni 

Pine siskin Spinus pinus

American goldfinch Spinus tristis

Evening grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus

OLD WORLD SPARROWS 

House sparrow Passer domesticus
106 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Mammals

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Arctic shrew Sorex arcticus

Pygmy shrew Microsorex hoyi

Northern short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda

Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus

Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus

Nuttall’s cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii

Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus

White-tailed jackrabbit Lepus townsendii

Woodchuck Marmota monax

Franklin’s ground squirrel Spermophilus franklinii

Richardson’s ground 

squirrel

Spermophilus richardsonii

Thirteen-lined ground 

squirrel

Spermophilus 

tridecemlineatus

Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger

Northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides

Olive-backed pocket mouse Perognathus fasciatus

Plains pocket mouse Perognathus flavescens

American beaver Castor canadensis

Northern grasshopper 

mouse

Onychomys leucogaster

Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis

White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

Southern red-backed vole Clethrionomys gapperi

Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Norway rat Rattus norvegicus

House mouse Mus musculus

Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius

Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum

Red fox Vulpes vulpes

Common gray fox Urocyon cineroargenteus

Coyote Canis latrans

Gray wolf (endangered) Canis lupus

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Ermine Mustela erminea

Least weasel Mustela nivalis

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata

Mink Mustela vison

American badger Taxidea taxus

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis

Bobcat Felis rufus

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus

Moose Alces alces

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana
EA Bibliography

Arenz, C.L.; Joern, A. 1996. Prairie legacies—inver- Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

tebrates. In: Samson, F.B.; Knopf, F.L.; editors. Research Center Online. [Internet] <www.npwrc

Prairie Conservation: Preserving North Ameri- .usgs.gov/resource/1998/ndsdeco/ndsdeco.htm> 

ca’s Most Endangered Ecosystem. Washington, accessed April 21, 2011.

DC: Island Press. 339 p. Burt, W.H.; Grossenheider, R.P. 1964. A field guide 

(AFWA) Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. to the mammals. 2nd edition. The Peterson Field 

2006. National Fish Habitat Action Plan. Wash- Guide Series. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin 

ington, DC. 28 p. [Internet] <www.fishhabitat Company.

.org> accessed May 13, 2011. Cowardin, L.M.; Carter, V.; Golet, F.C.; LaRoe, 

Ball, I.J.; Eng, R.L.; Ball, S.K. 1995. Population den- E.T. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepsity and productivity of ducks on large grassland water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish 

tracts in north central Montana. Wildlife Society and Wildlife Service Biological Service Program 

Bulletin 23(4):767–73. FWS/OBS–79/31. Washington, DC. 131 p.

Barker, W.T.; Whitman, W.C. 1989. Vegetation of Cowardin, L.M.; Sargeant, A.B.; Duebbert, H.F. 

the northern Great Plains. Research Report #111 1985. Low waterfowl recruitment in the praiEXP. Fargo, ND: North Dakota Agricultural ries: the problem, the reasons and the challenge 

Experiment Station. 111 p. to management. In: Boyd, H.; editor. ProceedBeauchamp, W.D.; Koford, R.R.; Nudds, T.D.; Clark, ings, First Western Hemisphere Waterfowl and 

R.G.; Johnson, D.H. 1996. Long-term declines in Waterbirds Symposium; May 1982; Ottawa, 

nest success of prairie ducks. Journal of Wildlife Canada. Edmonton, Canada: Canadian Wildlife 

Management 60(2):247–57. Services. 16–18.

Berkey, G.; Crawford, R.; Galipeau, S.; Johnson, D.; Curry, J.P. 1994. Grassland invertebrates: ecology, 

Lambeth, D.; Kreil, R. 1993. A review of wildlife influence on soil fertility and effects on plant 

management practices in North Dakota: effects growth. London: Chapman and Hall. 437 p.

on nongame bird populations and habitats. U.S. DeMallie, Raymond J.; editor. 2001. Handbook of 

Fish and Wildlife Service report. Jamestown, North American Indians, Plains. Volume 13. 

ND. 51 p. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. 1392 p.

Beyersbergen, G.W.; Niemuth, N.D.; Norton, M.R.; Duxbury, A.J.; Heidel, B.L.; Malterer, T.J. 1986. 

coordinators. 2004. Northern prairie and park- Rare flora of North Dakota’s calcareous fens. In: 

land waterbird conservation plan—a plan asso- Proceedings of the North Dakota Academy of 

ciated with the waterbird conservation for the Science. Volume 40. April 1986; [Place of sympoAmericas initiative. Denver, CO: Prairie Pothole sium unknown]. [Place of publication unknown]: 

Joint Venture. 183 p. [Publisher unknown]. 50 p.

Bluemle, J.P. 1977. The face of North Dakota: the Dwernychuk, L.W.; Boag, D.A. 1973. Effect of hergeologic story. Educational Series 1, North Da- bicide-induced changes in vegetation on nesting 

kota Geologic Survey 11. [City of publication un- ducks. Canadian Field Naturalist 87:155–65.

known]: North Dakota Geologic Survey. 73 p. Fitzgerald, J.A.; Pashley, D.N.; Lewis, S.J.; Pardo, 

Bragg, T.B. 1995. The physical environment of B. 1998. Partners in Flight Bird Conservation 

Great Plains grasslands. In: Joern, A.; Keeler, Plan for the Northern Tallgrass Prairie, PhysioK.H.; editors. The Changing Prairie: North graphic Area 40. Jefferson City, MO: American 

American Grasslands. New York: Oxford Univer- Bird Conservancy. 52 p.

sity Press. 49–81. Fitzgerald, J.A.; Pashley, D.N.; Pardo, B. 1999. PartBrown, S.; Hickey, C.; Harrington, B.; editors. 2001. ners in Flight Bird Conservation plan for the 

United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, 2nd Northern Mixed-Grass Prairie, Physiographic 

ed. Manomet, MA: Manomet Center for Conser- Area 37. Jefferson City, MO: American Bird Convation Sciences. 70 p. servancy. 69 p.

Bryce, S.; Omernik, J.M.; Pater, D.E.; [and others]. Gerard, P.W. 1995. Agricultural practices, farm 

1998. Ecoregions of North and South Dakota. policy and the conservation of biological diver-
108 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

sity. National Biological Service Technical Report Higgins, K.F.; Woodward, R.O. 1986. Comparison of 

Series, Biological Science Report 4. Washington, wetland drainage during and after protection by 

DC: National Biological Service. 28 p. 20-year easements. Prairie Naturalist 18(4):229–

(GAO) Government Accountability Office. 2007a. 33.

Agricultural conservation: farm program pay- Hoburg, T.; Gause, C. 1992. Reptiles and amphibments are an important factor in landowners’ ians of North Dakota. North Dakota Outdoors 

decision to convert grassland to cropland. GAO– 55(1):7–19.

07–1054. Washington, DC. 70 p. Eggleston, H.S.; Buendia L.; Miwa, K.; Ngara, T.; 

———. 2007b. Prairie Pothole Region: at the pace Tanabe, K.; editors. 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines 

of current acquisitions, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife for national greenhouse gas inventories. GreenService is unlikely to achieve its habitat goals for house Gas Inventories Programme, Intergovmigratory birds. GAO–07–1093. Washington, DC. ernmental Panel on Climate Change. Kanagawa, 

54 p. Japan: IGES. 1988 p.

Greenwood, Raymond J.; Sargeant, Alan B.; John- Johnson, D.H.; Kreil, R.L.; Berkey, G.B.; Crawford, 

son, Douglas H.; Cowardin, Lewis M.; Shaffer, R.D.; Lambeth, D.O.; Galipeau, S.F. 1994. InfluT.L. 1995. Factors associated with duck nest suc- ences of waterfowl management on nongame 

cess in the Prairie Pothole Region of Canada. birds: the North Dakota experience. In: TransacWildlife Monographs. 128:1–57. tions of the North American Wildlife and Natural 

Gregg, Michael L.; Picha, Paul R.; Swenson, Fern Resources Conference; March 18–23, 1994; AnE.; Bleier, Amy. 2008. Archeological component chorage, AK. Washington, DC: Wildlife Manageof the North Dakota Comprehensive Plan for ment Institute. 59:293–3–2.

Historic Preservation. On file: State Historical Johnson, Rex R.; Oslund, F.T.; Hertal, D.R. 2008. 

Society of North Dakota, Bismarck. The past, present, and future of the prairie potGrondahl, C. 2011. Small mammals of North Dakota. holes in the United States. Journal of Soil and 

Bismarck, ND: North Dakota Game and Fish Water Conservation 63(3): 84a–87a.

Department. 17 p. [Internet] <http://www.npwrc Kantrud, H.A.; Higgins, K.F. 1992. Nest and nest 

.usgs.gov/resource/mammals/mammals/index. site characteristics of some ground-nesting, nonhtm> accessed May 10, 2011 passerine birds of northern grasslands. Prairie 

Grue, C.E.; Tome, M.W.; Swanson, G.A.; Borthwick, Naturalist 24(2):67–84.

S.M.; DeWeese, L.R. 1988. Agricultural chemi- Kantrud, H.A.; Krapu, G.L.; Swanson, G.A. 1989. 

cals and the quality of prairie-pothole wetlands Prairie basin wetlands of the Dakotas: a commufor adult and juvenile waterfowl—what are the nity profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bioconcerns. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service logical Report 85(7.28). Washington, DC. 116 p.

Biological Report 88(16). Proceedings, National Klett, A.T.; Shaffer, T.L.; Johnson, D.H. 1988. Duck 

Symposium on Protection of Wetlands from nest success in the prairie pothole region. Journal 

Agricultural Impacts; April 25–29, 1988; Colorado of Wildlife Management 52:431–40.

State University, Fort Collins, CO. Washington, Knopf, F.L. 1996. Prairie legacies—birds. In: 

DC. 221 p. Samson, F.B.; Knopf, F.L.; editors. Prairie ConHagen, Sandra K.; Isakson, Patrick T.; Dyke, Steve servation—Preserving North America’s Most 

R. 2005. North Dakota Comprehensive Wildlife Endangered Ecosystem. Washington, DC: Island 

Conservation Strategy. Bismarck, ND: North Da- Press. 339 p.

kota Game and Fish Department. 454 p. <http:// Martin, B.; Cooper, S.; Heidel, B.; Hildebrand, T.; 

gf.nd.gov/conservation/cwcs.html> [access date Jones, G.; Lenz, D.; Lesica, P. 1998. Natural comunknown]. munity inventory within landscapes of the northHartwig, N.L.; Hall, J.K. 1980. Influencing the ac- ern Great Plains steppe ecoregion of the United 

tion of herbicides: runoff losses. Crops and Soil States. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy. 

Magazine. October:14–16. 222 p.

Herkert, J.R.; Reinking, D.L.; Wiedenfeld, D.A.; Messmer, Terry; Dahl, Greg. 1991. Wildlife and pes-

[and others]. 2003. Effects of prairie fragmenta- ticides: a practical guide to reducing the risk. 

tion on the nest success of breeding birds in the North Dakota State University Extension Sermidcontinental United States. Conservation Biol- vice, WL–1017. [Internet] <http://www.ag.ndsu

ogy 17:587–94. .edu/pubs/ansci/wildlife/wl1017-1.htm> accessed 

Higgins, K.F.; Naugle, D.E.; Forman, K.J. 2002. April 22, 2011.

A case study of changing land use practices in (NFHB) National Fish Habitat Board. 2010. 

the northern Great Plains, U.S.A.—an uncertain Through a fish’s eye: the status of fish habitats 

future for waterbird conservation. Waterbirds in the United States 2010. Washington, DC: As25:42:50. sociation of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 68 p.
EA Bibliography 109

(NREL) National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2011. New wind resource maps and wind 

potential estimates for the United States. [Internet] <http://www.windpoweramerica.gov> 

accessed April 14, 2011.

National Sunflower Association. 2011. Daily oilseed sunflower price averages. [Internet] 

<www.sunflowernsa.com/growers/marketing/

daily-oilseed-sunflower-price/> accessed March 

29, 2011.

Niemuth, N.D.; Estey, M.E.; Loesch, C.R. 2005. 

Developing spatially explicit habitat models for 

grassland bird conservation planning in the Prairie Pothole Region of North Dakota. In: Ralph, 

C.J.; Rich, T.D.; editors. Bird conservation implementation and integration in the Americas. 

Proceedings of the 3rd International Partners in 

Flight Conference; March 20–24, 2002; Asilomer, 

CA. Albany, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. 469–77.

Niemuth, N.D.; Reynolds, R.E.; Granfors, D.A.; 

Johnson, R.R.; Wangler, B.; Estey, M.E. 2008. 

Landscape-level planning for conservation of 

wetland birds in the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region. 

In: Millspaugh, Joshua J.; Thompson, Frank R., 

III; editors. Models for Planning Wildlife Conservation in Large Landscapes. Burlington, MA: 

Elsevier Science. 533–60.

Niemuth, N.D.; Solbert, J.W.; Shaffer, T.L. 2008. 

Influence of moisture on density and distribution 

of grassland birds in North Dakota. The Condor 

110(2):211–22.

(NDGF) North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 1994. Fishes of the Dakotas. Bismarck, ND. 

[Internet] <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/

fish/dakfish/index.htm> (Version  16JUL97) 

accessed May 10, 2011. 

(NDGS) North Dakota Geological Survey. 2010. 

Shallow gas field screening in North Dakota: field 

data report (2009 and 2010) for selected counties. 

Geologic Investigations No. 131. Bismarck, ND: 

North Dakota Geological Survey. 109 p.

(NDOGC) North Dakota Oil and Gas Commission. 

2011. Active drilling rigs. [Internet] <https://

www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/riglist.asp> accessed 

April 14, 2011.

 (NDSHPO) North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office. 2009. Historic Preservation in North 

Dakota, 2010–2015: A Statewide Comprehensive 

Plan. On file: State Historical Society of North 

Dakota, Bismarck.

Oklahoma State University. 2011. Beef cattle numbers causing concern. [Internet] Stillwater, OK: 

Oklahoma State University, Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. <www

.oces.okstate.edu/Members/donald.stotts-40okstate.edu/beef-cattle-numbers-causing-concern> 

accessed March 29, 2011.

Owens, R.; Myres, M.T. 1972. Effects of agriculture 

upon populations of native passerine birds of an 

Alberta fescue grassland. Canadian Field-Naturalist 51:697–713.

Peterjohn, B.G.; Sauer, J.R. 1999. Population status of North American grassland birds from the 

North American breeding bird Survey, 1966–

1996. In: Vickery, P.D.; Herkert, J.R.; editors. 

Ecology and Conservation of Grassland Birds of 

the Western Hemisphere. Studies in Avian Biology 19:27–44.

Pimentel, D.; Acquay, H.; Biltonen, M.; [and others]. 

1992. Environmental and economic costs of pesticide use. BioScience 42(10):33–43.

Pollastro, R.M.; Cook, T.A.; Roberts, L.N.R.; [and 

others]. 2008. Assessment of undiscovered oil 

resources in the Devonian-Mississippian Bakken 

Formation, Williston Basin Province, Montana 

and North Dakota, 2008. U.S. Geological Survey 

Fact Sheet 2008–3021. 2 p. <http://pubs.usgs.gov/

fs/2008/3021/> [access date unknown].

Responsive ManagementTM. 1998. Attitudes of landowners towards conservation practices in the 

prairie pothole region. Harrisonburg, VA. [Pages 

unknown].

Reynolds, R. 1999. Interview. Project leader, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat and Population 

Evaluation Team, Bismarck, North Dakota. May 

1999.

Reynolds, R.E.; Shaffer, T.L.; Loesch, C.R.; Cox, 

R.R., Jr. 2006. The farm bill and duck production 

in the Prairie Pothole Region: increasing the benefits. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(4):963–74.

Reynolds, R.E.; Shaffer, T L.; Renner, R.W.; Newton, W.E.; Batt, B.D.J. 2001. Impact of the Conservation Reserve Program on duck recruitment 

in the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 65:765–80.

Ringelman, J.K.; editor. 2005. Prairie Pothole Joint 

Venture 2005 Implementation Plan, Section I—

Plan Foundation. [Internet] <www.ppjv.org/pdf/

Part1_Foundation.pdf> accessed April 22, 2011.

Ryan, M.R.; Renken, R.B.; Dinsmore, J.J. 1984. 

Marbled godwit habitat selection in the northern 

prairie region. Journal of Wildlife Management 

48(4):1206–18.

Sauer, J.R.; Hines, J.E.; Gough, G.; Thomas, I.; Peterjohn, B.G. 1997. The North American breeding 

bird survey results and analysis. Version 96.3. 

Laurel, MD: Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. 

[Internet] <http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/

bbs96.html> accessed March 2011.

Sauer, J.R.; Peterjohn, B.G.; Schwartz, S.; Hines, 

J.E. 1995. The grassland bird homepage. Version 

95.0. Laurel, MD: Patuxent Wildlife Research 
110 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Center. [Internet] <http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs

.gov/bbs/grass/grass.htm> accessed March 2011.

Schell, Herbert S. 1975 History of South Dakota. 

4th edition, revised. Pierre, SD: South Dakota 

State Historical Society Press. 443 p.

Schneider, Mary Jane. 2002. Cultural affiliations of 

Native American groups with North and South 

Dakota: an ethnological overview. On file:U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation, Dakotas Area Office, 

Bismarck, ND. 277 p.

Skagen, S.K.; Thompson, G. 2007. Northern Plains—

Prairie Potholes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

Revised February 2007. Arlington, VA: U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 35 p.

Skagen, S.K.; Thompson, G. 2011. Northern Plains/

Prairie Potholes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan. Version 1.0. [Internet] <http://www

.nabci-us.org/bcr11.html> accessed April 22, 2011. 

37 p.

(SDARC) South Dakota State Historical Society 

Archeological Research Center. 2011. Reaching 

out to the past. [Internet]. <www.sdsmt.edu/wwwsarc/past.html> accessed April 22, 2011.

Sovada, M.A.; Sargeant, A.B.; Grier, J.W. 1995. Differential effects of coyotes and red foxes on duck 

nest success. Journal of Wildlife Management 

59(1):1–9.

Stephens, S.E.; Rotella, J.J.; Lindbert, M.S.; Taper, 

M.L.; Ringelman, J.K. 2005. Duck nest survival in 

the Missouri Coteau of North Dakota: landscape 

effects at multiple spatial scales. Ecological Applications 15:2137–49.

Stephens S.E.; Walker, J.A.; Blunck, D.R.; Jayaraman, A; Naugle, D.E.; Ringelman, J.K.; Smith, 

A.J. 2008. Predicting risk of habitat conversion in 

native temperate grasslands. Conservation Biology 22:1320–30.

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. Research Publication 82. Washington, 

DC: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 57 p.

Sun Prairie Grain. 2011a. Markets: corn. [Internet] <www.sunprairiegrain.com/markets.php> 

February 2011.

Sun Prairie Grain. 2011b. Markets: spring wheat. 

[Internet] <www.sunprairiegrain.com/markets

.php> February 2011.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. 2006 National survey of 

fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. [Internet]. <www.census.gov/prod/www/

abs/fishing.html> February 2011.

 (USDA–NASS) USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2008. South Dakota 2008 county 

level land rents and values. Sioux Falls, SD: 

South Dakota Field Office. 4 p.

———. 2010. 2010 County Rents & Values. Fargo, 

ND: North Dakota Field Office. 4 p.

USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Range 

sites of North Dakota. Bismarck, ND. [Pages 

unknown].

(USFWS) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 

Washington, D.C. 26 p. 

———. 1995. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the United States: the 

1995 list. Washington, DC: Office of Migratory 

Bird Management. [Internet] <http://www.fws

.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/

SpecialTopics/speccon/NGBirdMgmtConcern.html> 

accessed February 2011.

———. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 

2008. Arlington, VA: Division of Migratory 

Bird Management. 85 p. <http://www.fws.gov/

migratorybirds/> [access date unknown].

———. 2009. Waterfowl population status, 2009. 

Washington, DC. 79 p.

———. 2010. Rising to the Urgent Challenge: 

Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating 

Climate Change. Washington, DC. 36 p.

———. 2011a. Administrative and Enforcement 

Procedures of Easements within the Prairie Pothole States Manual. 2nd edition, revised March 

2011. Lakewood, CO: Mountain–Prairie Region. 

654 p.

———. 2011b. Environmental Conservation Online 

System. [Internet] <http://ecos.fws.gov/

ecos/indexPublic.do> accessed February 23, 2011.

Whitman, W.C.; Wali, M.K. 1975. Grasslands of 

North Dakota. In: Wali, M.K.; editor. Prairie: A 

Multiple View. Grand Forks, ND: The University 

of North Dakota Press. 433 p.

Wiens J.A. 1974. Pattern and process in grassland bird communities. Ecological Monographs 

43:237–70.

Wood, Raymond; editor. 1998. Archaeology on the 

Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press. 522 p.

Woodhouse, C.A.; Overpeck, J.T. 1998. 2000 years of 

drought variability in the central United States. 

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 

79:2693–714.

Zollinger, R.K.; Dexter, A.G.; Dahl, G.K.; [and 

others]. 1996. Pesticide use and pest management practices for major crops in North Dakota, 

1996. North Dakota State University Extension 

Report No. 43. [Internet] <http://www.ag.ndsu.

nodak.edu/aginfo/entomology/ndpiap/Major_

Crops_GS/01table_of_contents.htm> accessed 

February 2011.
Draft LPP Chapter 1–Introduction and 

Project Description

Prairie pothole habitat supports migratory birds like these mallards by providing the food and cover necessary to raise 

successful broods.

Donna Dewhurst / USFWS

This draft LPP (land protection plan) provides a 

description of the operations and management of 

the proposed DGCA (Dakota Grassland Conservation Area)—a conservation easement program—as 

outlined in the proposed action of the EA (environmental assessment) in the first part of this volume. 

The Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) developed the draft LPP during the planning process to 

provide a general understanding of the proposed 

project to local landowners, governmental agencies, 

and the interested public. The purpose of the draft 

LPP is to present an overview of the Service’s proposed management approach to wildlife and associated habitats, public uses, interagency coordination, 

public outreach, and other operational needs.

The purpose of the proposed DGCA project is to 

provide for the long-term viability of the breeding 

waterfowl populations through the conservation 

of existing habitats while considering the needs of 

other migratory birds, threatened and endangered 

species, and other wildlife. To accomplish this purpose, the goals for the proposed DGCA follow:

■ Conserve the landscape-scale ecological integrity of wetlands and grasslands in the DGCA by 

maintaining and enhancing the historical native 

plant, migratory bird, and other wildlife species.

■ Protect the integrity of native prairie and associated wetlands by preventing further habitat 

fragmentation.

■ Conserve working landscapes based on ranching 

and livestock operations that support a viable 

livestock industry.

■ Support the recovery and protection of threatened and endangered species, and reduce the 

likelihood of future listings under the Endangered Species Act.

■ Provide a buffer against climate change by providing resiliency for the grassland ecosystems 

and associated prairie pothole wetlands through 

landscape-scale conservation.

■ Conserve, restore, enhance, and protect in perpetuity wetland and grassland habitats for migratory bird productivity.
112 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

■ Preserve the ecological function of these habitats 

by providing for floodwater retention, ground 

water recharge, carbon sequestration, improved 

water quality, and reduced soil and water erosion.

The HAPET (Habitat and Population Evaluation 

Team), located in Bismarck, North Dakota, developed the Service’s “Conservation Strategy” using 

landscape computer modeling combined with decades of biological information from scientific studies 

of the spatial and temporal needs of nesting ducks 

in the PPR (Prairie Pothole Region). The analysis 

was the basis for the resulting Conservation Strategy goal to protect an additional 1.4 million acres of 

wetlands and 10 million acres of grassland to support 

the current levels of breeding ducks. The proposed 

DGCA project represents an element of the Conservation Strategy.

The proposed DGCA would cover an expanse 

of wetland and grassland in North Dakota and 

South Dakota that lies north and east of the Missouri River, but would not include the existing Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area, a 

grassland easement program approved in 2000 (figure A). However, the proposed DGCA would include 

the existing North Dakota Wildlife Management 

Area. The total area within the proposed DGCA 

boundary is 29.6 million acres or 46,267 square miles.

The Service would carry out this proposal 

similar to the Service’s SWAP (Small Wetlands Acquisition Program), using monies from the sale of 

Federal Duck Stamps, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and donations from conservation groups. In addition, the Service would 

use money from the LWCF (Land and Water Conservation Fund) to acquire wetland and grassland 

easements from willing sellers. The Service would 

identify potential easements in the proposed project 

area by using the SWAP evaluation criteria for wetland and grassland, as described in LPP chapter 2.

Priorities and Objectives

In addition to identifying the habitat necessary to 

maintain current population levels of nesting ducks, 

the HAPET computer models generated maps 

of breeding pair concentrations (“thunderstorm” 

maps). As shown in figure A, the concentration of 

nesting ducks is an important factor in separating 

the highest priority tracts of land for protection 

from the lowest priority tracts. The priority zone 

in the proposed DGCA is habitat accessible to more 

than 25 duck pairs per square mile plus a 1-mile buffer of grassland; the priority zone encompasses 8.5 

million acres in the proposed DGCA. Consequently, 

biologists and realtors use these models daily as 

tools for evaluating each tract offered for purchase 

to decide where it ranks in priority against other 

available tracts. Information from the models also 

helps the Service to use valuable staff time most efficiently by targeting outreach materials for landowners who own lands with the greatest resource value 

and giving them information about the conservation 

easement program.

Based on anticipated levels of landowner participation, the objectives of the proposed DGCA 

project are to protect 240,000 acres of wetland and 

1.7 million acres of critical grassland habitat. The 

Service plans to buy or receive donated wetland and 

grassland easements on these identified areas within 

the proposed project boundaries. These wetland 

and grassland conservation easements would connect and expand existing lands under conservation 

protection.

Ecosystem Management and 

Landscape Conservation

To carry out the proposed project, the Service would 

engage the Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC (landscape conservation cooperative)—a recent developing initiative that reaches across broad landscapes 

and involves many partners, functioning at a scale 

necessary to address wildlife adaptation in response 

to climate change. The Plains and Prairie Potholes 

LCC is dedicated to the conservation of a landscape 

unparalleled in importance to breeding waterfowl 

and many species of wetland and grassland birds. 

In addition, the area is habitat for resident and 

nongame wildlife, and its waters are home to many 

unique aquatic species such as the Topeka shiner. Efforts by the LCC would be integral to the long-term 

success of landscape-scale conservation through the 

proposed DGCA project.

The Service is working to involve a diverse array of partners in the LCC including the State fish 

and wildlife agencies as well as Native American 

tribes. The LCC may expand to include Canadian 

Federal and provincial organizations as partners. 

Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, The Nature 

Conservancy, Delta Waterfowl, and many other 

nongovernmental organizations are long-standing 

partners in this landscape, and the Service envisions 

these organizations taking part in the LCC. The 

Missouri River recovery efforts include partnerships 

with Federal agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, five States, many tribes, and many 

nongovernmental organizations. The Service’s existing focus on wetland and grassland includes partnerships with The Nature Conservancy and the World 

Wildlife Fund.
Draft LPP Chapter 1–Introduction and Project Description 113

Figure A. Map of the boundary of the proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area.
114 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

The Service’s capacity for science and strategic 

conservation planning includes the following:

■ HAPET office in Bismarck, North Dakota

■ U.S. Geological Survey, which runs the Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center and the South 

Dakota State University Cooperative Research 

Unit and is planning to establish the Intermountain West Regional Climate Change Hub

■ Other public and private partners with potentially important science resources

The Service would work with the LCC partners to 

develop the scientific tools necessary to figure out 

how climate change, coupled with existing stressors 

such as conversion of native prairie for agriculture, 

may affect the health and productivity of populations of Federal trust species in the landscape.

Strategic Habitat Conservation

The proposed DGCA project is a landscape-scale 

effort to conserve populations of priority species in 

a highly diverse and endangered ecosystem over an 

area of approximately 29.6 million acres. Therefore, 

it is important to incorporate the elements of SHC 

(strategic habitat conservation) to ensure effective 

conservation. SHC entails strategic biological planning and conservation design, 

integrated conservation delivery, monitoring, and research at ecoregional scales (figure B). Some elements of SHC have been 

addressed in migratory bird management 

plans in the PPR.

Strategic Biological Planning

The PPJV (Prairie Pothole Joint Venture), 

Partners in Flight, and The Nature Conservancy have identified priority species 

for the PPR (table A): 8 species of waterfowl, 22 species of shorebirds, 10 species of 

other waterbirds, and 20 species of grassland birds (landbirds). Five of the priority 

waterfowl species are upland-nesting duck 

species—mallard, northern pintail, gadwall, 

northern shoveler, and blue-winged teal.

Habitat loss due to conversion of 

wetland and grassland to cropland is the 

primary limiting factor for all priority species in the proposed DGCA. Loss of these 

habitats reduces carrying capacity and nest 

success (Herkert et al. 2003, Reynolds et al. 

2001).

Conservation Design

Grassland accessible to the greatest number of pairs 

of breeding ducks would be the primary determinant 

for acquiring grassland conservation easements. 

Long-term protection objectives include all grasslands accessible to more than 25 duck pairs, plus a 

1-mile buffer of grassland that affects nest success. 

These objectives were set to rank grasslands accessible to moderate to high numbers of breeding 

ducks. The Service identified three grassland categories:

■ Grassland accessible to more than 60 duck pairs

■ Grassland accessible to 40–60 duck pairs

■ Grassland accessible to 25–40 duck pairs

The Service would use the grassland flowchart, 

along with the wetland flowchart (refer to chapter 2, 

“Wetland and Grassland Easements”) from the “Administrative and Enforcement Procedures of Easements within the Prairie Pothole States Manual” 

(Easement Manual) (USFWS 2011a). The criteria 

in these flowcharts would help Service staff prioritize areas for protection based on spatial models 

for waterfowl, threatened and endangered species, 

grassland birds, shorebirds, and other waterbirds 

(USFWS 2011a).

Figure B. Graphic of the elements of strategic habitat conservation.
Draft LPP Chapter 1–Introduction and Project Description 115

Table A. Priority bird species of the Prairie Pothole Region.

Species Prairie Pothole Joint 

Venture Priority Species1

Partners in Flight

Priority Species 2

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Birds of Conservation Concern3

LANDBIRDSBaird’s sparrow × × ×

Sprague’s pipit (candidate) × × ×

Chestnut-collared longspur × ×

Smith’s longspur ×

Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow × × ×

Bell’s vireo ×

Le Conte’s sparrow ×

Grasshopper sparrow ×

Sharp-tailed grouse ×

McCown’s longspur × × ×

Swainson’s hawk × ×

Greater prairie-chicken ×

Short-eared owl × ×

Red-headed woodpecker ×

Sedge wren × ×

Bobolink ×

Black-billed cuckoo × ×

Bald eagle ×

Peregrine falcon ×

Dickcissel ×

WATERBIRDSHorned grebe × × ×

Western grebe × ×

American bittern × × ×

Yellow rail × × ×

King rail × ×

Franklin’s gull × ×

Black tern × × ×

Least tern (endangered) × ×

Whooping crane (endangered) × ×

Least bittern × ×

Integrated Conservation Delivery

Wetland and grassland easements represent a 

means to conserve habitat. The habitat conservation 

strategies for grassland wildlife including migratory birds (many of which are addressed by other 

bird initiatives) would not differ substantially from 

those strategies carried out to meet the needs of 

waterfowl (Ringleman 2005). As understanding of 

the functional relationships between priority species 

and habitats increases, the Service will adapt the 

strategies to target the most influential parcels for 

meeting the population objectives of the priority 

species listed in table A.

Over time, SWAP has used different criteria 

to guide the acquisition process; however, habitat 

quality has always been the major criterion. The 

best waterfowl-breeding habitat in the PPR is intermixed wetland complexes and quality grasslandnesting habitat. Generally, landscapes with high 
116 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Table A. Priority bird species of the Prairie Pothole Region.

Species Prairie Pothole Joint 

Venture Priority Species1

Partners in Flight

Priority Species 2

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Birds of Conservation Concern3

SHOREBIRDSPiping plover (threatened) × ×

Mountain plover × × ×

American golden-plover × ×

Semipalmated plover × ×

American avocet × ×

Upland sandpiper × × ×

White-rumped sandpiper × ×

Baird’s sandpiper × ×

Pectoral sandpiper × ×

Buff-breasted sandpiper ×

Semipalmated sandpiper × ×

Solitary sandpiper ×

Stilt sandpiper × ×

Dunlin × ×

Marbled godwit × × ×

American woodcock × ×

Wilson’s phalarope × ×

Hudsonian godwit × × ×

Long-billed curlew × ×

Lesser yellowlegs × ×

Long-billed dowitcher × ×

Short-billed dowitcher ×

WATERFOWLMallard ×

Northern pintail ×

Gadwall ×

Northern shoveler ×

Blue-winged teal ×

Lesser scaup ×

Canvasback ×

Redhead ×

1 Species designated a focal species, a species of concern, a species in an area important to migrants, or a species of high 

conservation assessment from the “Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan” (Ringleman et al. 2005).

2 Species designated a criteria I species in the Partners in Flight physiographic areas (37 and 40) within the proposed 

project area, a species of concern in the “Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan,” or 

a species of high concern in the “Northern Prairie and Parkland Waterbird Conservation Plan” (Beyersbergen et al. 

2004, Fitzgerald et al. 1998, Fitzgerald et al. 1999, Skagen and Thompson 2011).

3 Species designated a species of conservation concern by the Migratory Bird Division of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS 2008).
Draft LPP Chapter 1–Introduction and Project Description 117

numbers of wetlands attract high numbers of waterfowl breeding pairs, and landscapes with a large 

percentage of perennial grassland cover exhibit 

higher nest success. This combination of wetland 

and grassland is important for many other nonwaterfowl species including shorebirds, other waterbirds, and grassland birds (Beyersbergen et al. 2004, 

Johnson et al. 1994, Niemuth et al. 2008). These two 

elements—large numbers of wetlands in association 

with priority grassland habitat—are the cornerstones of the habitat conservation program.

The detailed EA and draft LPP provide the information necessary to carry out the conservation 

action of acquiring the “best of the best” habitat for 

priority species. The Service’s Division of Realty 

would continue to refer to the LPP in assessing opportunities to acquire the highest priority habitat.

Monitoring and Research

Conservation efforts in the PPR focus on the protection and restoration of grassland and wetland, and 

there is great potential for providing benefits for 

multiple species. HAPET has developed standalone, 

single-species models to provide the ability to target 

different priority species, a combination of species, 

the treatment types, various locations, or specific 

funding requirements. Furthermore, this approach 

would give the Service a rapid response tool for specific decision support and for adaptive changes in 

models as new information became available.

The Service annually monitors waterfowl, breeding shorebirds, other waterbirds, grassland birds, 

and raptors in the proposed project area. In addition, the Service is working with partners to develop 

a more comprehensive marshbird-monitoring program.

HAPET has provided valuable information 

through current monitoring programs that has been 

used to develop models of population–habitat relationships for priority waterfowl, shorebirds, grassland birds, and some raptors (Niemuth et al. 2005, 

Niemuth et al. 2008a, Reynolds et al. 2001, Reynolds 

et al. 2006). These efforts would be expanded to include other species as resources and methods are 

developed.

Threats to and Status of 

the Resources

The uniqueness of the proposed DGCA lies in the 

millions of depressional wetlands that constitute 

one of the richest wetland systems in the world. 

These prairie potholes and their surrounding grasslands are highly productive and support an incredible diversity of birdlife—breeding habitat for a 

myriad of wetland and grassland birds along with 

large numbers of spring and fall migrants. However, 

the PPR is one of the most altered, yet also one of 

the most important, migratory bird habitats in the 

Western Hemisphere. It is the backbone of North 

America’s “Duck Factory” and is critical habitat 

for many wetland- and grassland-dependent migratory birds (Beyersbergen et al. 2004, Peterjohn and 

Sauer 1999).

The proposed project area is within one of the 

most threatened landscapes in North America. 

Once vast grassland, the PPR is now largely an agricultural system dominated by cropland. Recent 

changes in agricultural economics and advances 

in crop genetics are increasing the rate of habitat 

transformation—from an expansive mosaic of native 

prairie and wetland used for livestock ranching to a 

landscape dominated by tillage agriculture. According to Stephens et al. (2008), more than 280,000 acres 

of native prairie were converted to cropland in the 

proposed project area during 2005–2007. Drainage 

history in the PPR, as well as many past efforts to 

change or remove the swampbuster provision of the 

Farm Bill, show that the risk of wetland drainage 

is highest and more immediate for the smaller, less 

permanent wetlands embedded in cropland.

Under the Food Security Act, conversion of native prairie to cropland is possible even if the soils 

are marginal for crop production. The producer simply must implement an approved conservation plan 

such as strip cropping or leaving strips of stubble. 

Furthermore, the technological advances in agricultural machinery and farming techniques increase 

the likelihood of conversion of native prairie to cropland each year. Another factor is the development 

of genetically modified crops that enables grassland 

conversion in areas farther north and west, which 

before would have been too cold to support crop 

growth. The detrimental effects on most wildlife 

species of converting native prairie to cropland, such 

as growing corn for ethanol production, are well 

known. Additionally, the PPR is being targeted for 

the production of biofuels and wind energy, which 

have unknown effects.

The conversion of native prairie, with interspersed areas of intensive agriculture and tame 

grassland, has resulted in altered plant communities 

as follows:

■ Invasion of exotic grass species such as Kentucky 

bluegrass and smooth brome, along with noxious 

weeds such as leafy spurge.

■ Contamination of wetlands and watersheds with 

pesticides and fertilizers.
118 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

■ Siltation of wetlands and watersheds through 

wind and water erosion.

■ Loss of the plant, animal, and insect biodiversity 

of native prairie habitats.

The suppression of native plants by invasive plants 

causes a ripple effect in the native prairie ecosystem by affecting insects, birds, and mammals that 

depend on the native community for survival. For 

growth and reproduction, many species of butterflies 

need the specific and essential food that only native 

prairie forbs can provide. As a result, species that 

rely on native prairie are pushed into smaller and 

smaller tracts of habitat.

The PPR is an extraordinary biome (a defined 

geographical area and its living organisms that interact with the environment) for its ability to produce and sustain tremendous numbers of waterfowl. 

However, virtually no other biome in North America 

historically has offered a landscape more conducive 

to rapid and widespread agricultural development. 

About 70 percent of the grassland in the PPR of the 

Dakotas has been converted to other uses, mostly to 

cropland (USFWS unpublished data). South Dakota 

has lost 35 percent of the wetland in the PPR, and 

North Dakota has lost 49 percent of its PPR wetland 

(Dahl 1990). Large-scale, land use changes continue 

to expand into the remaining grassland tracts and 

wetlands that represent the best remaining breeding bird habitat.

The proposed DGCA project would conserve priority species’ populations by protecting the most 

productive remaining wetland and grassland habitats. Given the importance of the PPR to continental populations of waterfowl and other migratory 

birds, the need to protect grassland and wetland 

in the proposed project area is critical. At current 

budget levels, it would take the Service 150 years 

to acquire wetland and grassland easements that 

protect the remaining native prairie tracts in the 

proposed DGCA. At current grassland conversion 

rates, one-half of the remaining native prairie would 

be destroyed in only 34 years.
Draft LPP Chapter 2–Proposed Action 

and Alternatives

The Service would establish the DGCA in the eastern parts of North Dakota and South Dakota, which 

cover all counties north and east of the Missouri 

River except those within the existing Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area (refer to 

LPP chapter 1, figure A). Within the proposed project boundary, the Service would strategically identify and acquire from willing sellers the identified 

wetland and grassland conservation easements on 

privately owned lands. Proposed project objectives 

would call for protection of up to 240,000 acres of 

wetland and 1.7 million acres of grassland.

This proposal would allow the purchase of critical wetland and grassland easements using LWCF 

money as an alternative funding source. In addition, 

the Service would continue to use Federal Duck 

Stamp money as appropriate and available.

The Service would base identification of areas 

considered for wetland and grassland easements on 

models developed by the Bismarck HAPET office, 

which identify the extent and location of grasslands 

and wetlands required to help meet the PPJV goals 

for migratory bird populations and habitat protection objectives of the SWAP.

Easement Terms and 

Requirements

Easements bought under the authority of the 

DGCA, as well as those acquired to date, would be 

administered according to policy and procedures 

in chapter 12 of the Easement Manual, which is in 

appendix A of the EA (USFWS 2011a). Following 

the policy and procedures in the manual, the Service 

would evaluate and administer all requests for uses 

or activities restricted by an easement (for example, 

agricultural, utility, commercial, or industrial uses). 

This review process would apply not only to easements bought under the proposed DGCA project 

but also to those easements the Service had acquired 

earlier.

All land under easement would remain in private 

ownership. Property tax and land management, including control of noxious weeds and other invasive 

plants and trees, would remain the responsibility of 

the landowner. Control of public access to the land 

would remain under the control of the landowner.

Canvasback drakes rest in a prairie wetland.

Donna Dewhurst / USFWS
120 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

The easement contract 

would specify perpetual protection of habitat for trust 

species by restricting the conversion of wetland and grassland to other uses. Alteration 

of the natural topography, 

conversion of native prairie 

to cropland, and drainage of 

wetland would be prohibited. 

Wetland easements would 

prohibit the draining, burning, 

filling, or leveling of protected 

wetland. Furthermore, conversion of grassland to crop 

production or other uses that 

destroy vegetation would be 

prohibited.

While the easement contract would specify perpetual 

protection, it would not eliminate all activities. Protected wetland basins may 

be hayed or grazed without restriction and farmed 

when dry from natural causes. Grassland easements 

would not restrict grazing in any way, and haying 

would be permitted after July 15 each year.

Service staff at the following wetland management districts in the proposed DGCA area would 

administer and monitor the easement program:

■ North Dakota wetland management districts—

Arrowwood, Audubon, Chase Lake, Crosby, 

Devils Lake, J. Clark Salyer, Kulm, Long Lake, 

Lostwood, Tewaukon, and Valley City

■ South Dakota wetland management districts—

Huron, Lake Andes, Madison, Sand Lake, and 

Waubay

Monitoring would include a periodical review of land 

status through correspondence or meetings with the 

landowners or land managers to make sure provisions of wetland and grassland easements are being 

met. The Service would use photo documentation 

at the time of easement establishment to document 

baseline conditions.

Project Costs

The per-acre cost for the wetland and grassland 

easements in the proposed DGCA would vary considerably according to geographic location. Wetland 

and grassland easements are valued using the adjusted assessed land value (Service policy 341 FW 

6). To figure out the market value of land, a multiplier is calculated to adjust the land value assessed 

by the local tax authority. The multiplier is determined by analyzing and comparing land sales to assessed land values in a defined market area. Once 

the multiplier is established, the multiplier adjusts 

the assessed land value of the parcel; a percentage 

is applied to this “adjusted assessed land value” to 

calculate the per-acre value of the easement. The 

2010 estimated values for wetland and grassland 

easements are as follows:

■ Grassland easements in northwestern North 

Dakota—$250 per acre

■ Wetland easements in northwestern North 

Dakota—$300

■ Wetland and grassland easements in southeastern South Dakota—$900 per acre

The one-time, initial cost for the purchase of wetland 

and grassland conservation easements would be 

about $588 million. The entire proposed project area 

is within an active SWAP area already approved to 

use Federal Duck Stamp money. Costs for annual 

compliance flights, landowner contacts, and staff 

time would be divided among existing resources and 

would have very little effect on the amount of staff 

and overhead already needed for other easement 

management. In 2009, the annual cost for administration, enforcement, operations, and maintenance 

of existing easements was estimated to be $0.30 per 

acre; additional management costs for the proposed 

project are expected to be minimal because enforcement procedures would be similar and performed in 

concert with other administrative efforts.

Emergent vegetation in this wetland easement is excellent cover for nesting 

waterbirds.

USFWS
Draft LPP Chapter 2–Proposed Action and Alternatives 121

Protection Alternatives

The Service considered the following eight alternatives when developing the proposed DGCA for wetland and grassland conservation easements:

■ No action

■ Voluntary landowner zoning

■ County zoning

■ Acquisition or management by others

■ Short-term easements

■ Expansion of the project

■ Fee-title acquisition

■ Wetland and grassland easements (proposed 

action)

No Action

Habitat protection would continue at current levels under SWAP, with monies from the Migratory 

Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Federal 

Duck Stamps) and the North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act. Without more money, half of the 

remaining habitat within the designated project 

area may be converted to other uses over the next 

34 years. At current budget levels and using only 

SWAP, it would take the Service 150 years to protect the remaining wetland and grassland habitat in 

the proposed DGCA.

The use of Federal Duck Stamp dollars requires 

approval by the State Governor, and the Service 

would continue to use this money for conservation 

easements in the State of South Dakota. In North 

Dakota, the State has established limits on the number of wetland acres in each county that can be protected with perpetual Service easements. Federal 

Duck Stamp dollars are not available in North Dakota to buy easements in several counties, because 

the acreage limits have been reached. Therefore, the 

Service would have limited means to acquire more 

wetland and grassland easements in North Dakota. 

The Service found the consequences of inaction unacceptable, which led to development of the below 

proposed action to establish the DGCA conservation 

easement program.

Voluntary Landowner Zoning

Landowners would voluntarily petition their county 

commissioners to create a zoning district to direct 

the types of development that can occur in an area. 

An example of citizen-initiated zoning is where 

landowners would petition the county government 

to zone an area as agricultural, precluding certain 

types of nonagricultural development such as residential subdivision. Citizen initiatives are rarely 

used, and the Service did no further study of this 

alternative.

County Zoning

In a traditional approach used by counties and municipalities, the local government would use zoning to designate the type of development that could 

occur in an area. While laws in North Dakota and 

South Dakota grant cities and counties the authority to regulate land use, engaging in planning and 

zoning activities is optional. Many counties in these 

States have opted to have no planning or zoning 

requirements but, where used, zoning would be subject to frequent changes and would not ensure the 

long-term prevention of residential or commercial 

development in the proposed conservation area. 

Furthermore, comments received from county commissioners have expressed, instead, support for conservation easements (alternative B, the proposed 

action) as a means of maintaining rural area values 

and potentially reducing the need for future zoning.

Acquisition or Management by Others

Ranching practices characteristic to grassland in 

the proposed project area have focused primarily 

on season-long grazing and more recently on rotational grazing. Native prairie subject to long periods 

of season-long grazing has experienced decreased 

plant diversity; subsequently, a high percentage 

of the remaining native prairie comprises woody 

plants (predominantly snowberry), trees, and coolseason invasive grasses and forbs. Recent changes 

in grazing practices, including rotational grazing and 

attention to progressive range management practices, have restored the native plant composition and 

diversity to grassland where these practices have 

been used.

The ranching heritage and efforts by a variety 

of agencies and organizations have been essential to 

maintaining the diversity of grasslands. Economic 

pressures, including generous farm programs that 

target a cheap food supply, have accelerated the 

conversion rates of grassland into cereal production 

agriculture. Without a landscape-scale conservation 

effort such as the proposed DGCA, pressures such 

as the following make the future of the PPR wetland 

and grassland uncertain:

■ Development pressures for roads, cities, utilities, 

energy, and development materials (sand, gravel, 

and clay).

■ Planting of trees for windbreaks, erosion control, and wildlife that further fragment the native 

prairie landscape.
122 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

While other conservation agencies and groups play 

a role in the protection of the PPR, the Service is 

mandated to manage migratory birds populations (in 

this case, those that thrive in the DGCA) to protect 

and conserve the habitat on which these resources 

depend.

Short-Term Easements

Short-term easements have an important role to 

play in the conservation arena, since they provide 

a valuable tool in broadening conservation efforts 

to lands otherwise not available for permanent conservation protection. Moreover, several Federal and 

State programs are authorized to use only shortterm easements.

By comparison, short-term easements could 

be considered conservation rental, whereas perpetual easement conservation would be considered 

conservation ownership. Both types of easements 

are necessary to effect and provide conservation 

of high-priority habitats that target the conservation of migratory birds. Consequently, easement 

purchases should be considered valuable investments. However, as land values increase and the 

cost of purchasing easements increases, the value 

of previously acquired easements that are already 

affecting priority conservation continues to increase 

over time. This makes long-term easements a more 

cost-effective means of accomplishing conservation 

on the landscape.

Since the inception of SWAP, the Service has periodically tested short-term wetland easement projects. During the infancy stage of the program from 

1960 to 1963, the Service bought eighty-five 20-year 

easement contracts in North Dakota and thirty-five 

contracts in South Dakota; these easements have 

long since expired. Another study concluded that 20-

year contracts only delayed drainage and that shortterm easements have short-term benefits (Higgins 

and Woodward 1986).

From 1970 to 1972, the Service bought twenty 

50-year easements in Ramsey County, North Dakota, during a period when the State legislation 

prohibited the Service from purchasing perpetual 

easements with Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act 

money. Conservation purchases (fee-title and easement purchases) from this fund require the Governor’s approval, which came into question due to 

the newly imposed prohibition. A subsequent U.S. 

Supreme Court decision overturned the prohibition, 

referring to earlier Governor approval of stated acquisition goals, and allowed the program to continue 

until those goals are reached.

In 1987, in response to “Thirteen Agreements 

between the Governor of North Dakota and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service,” the SWAP program again 

looked at 50-year easements as a potential conservation option. However, neither landowner support nor 

statutory approval of this alternative was achieved 

due in large part to significant differences in the 

compensation offered.

The purpose and need for action described in 

chapter 1 is landscape-scale protection in perpetuity. Repeatedly paying for the same conservation 

through short-term easements would not allow the 

Service to achieve the habitat goals and objectives 

needed to sustain migratory bird populations in this 

area. Because several less-than-perpetual conservation options are available through other Federal 

and State programs and conservation partners, it 

is logical that the Service continue to pursue permanent conservation avenues such as the DGCA 

proposed project. Moreover, history reveals a successful record in accomplishing the goals set forth 

by SWAP. A backlog of 800 landowners interested in 

the program presently awaits money for prolonged 

periods, which supports the use of perpetual rather 

than short-term easements.

Expansion of the Project

Based on the assumption that the initial phases of 

the proposed DGCA project were well underway, 

the Region 6 planning team evaluated the possibility 

of expanding the project area into other parts of the 

PPR—in particular Minnesota, Iowa, and Montana.

Minnesota and Iowa are in another Service 

region (Midwest Region, Region 3), and Region 3 

staffs administer conservation easements under a 

separate administrative and enforcement manual, 

which has policies different from Region 6 guidance 

for enforcement and administration of easements. 

The Service determined that the needs of Minnesota and Iowa would be best served with a separate 

LPP designed and carried out by administrators 

and managers in Region 3. However, Region 6 staff 

will assist Region 3, as requested, with any future 

conservation planning and implementation efforts 

targeting the PPR in Minnesota and Iowa.

The Service decided that many opportunities 

exist to effect the needed conservation in the PPR of 

Montana using current allocations of migratory bird 

money for the State. If conservation needs in Montana exceeded the money available from Federal 

Duck Stamps, the Service would prepare a separate 

environmental analysis and LPP for the area.

Fee-Title Acquisition

Over the past 50 years, the Service, other Federal 

and State agencies, and conservation groups have 

acquired many fee-title tracts within the proposed 

project area. While fee-title acquisition offers the 
Draft LPP Chapter 2–Proposed Action and Alternatives 123

greatest security and protection for wetland and 

grassland tracts, the initial costs for acquisition and 

the recurring costs for annual management of these 

areas use more resources, compared with other 

available alternatives that are more cost effective 

and more socially and politically acceptable.

The marbled godwit is a priority shorebird that depends 

on grassland habitat.

USFWS

Wetland and Grassland Easements 

(Proposed Action)

Wetland and grassland easements are the most costeffective, socially and politically acceptable means to 

ensure protection of critical habitats in the proposed 

project area. Although habitat protection through 

fee title remains an option in some locations, the 

Service sees easements as the most viable way to 

conserve lands at the landscape scale necessary to 

protect wildlife values in the proposed DGCA. The 

Service views a strong and vibrant rural lifestyle, 

of which ranching is the dominant land use, as one 

of the key components to ensuring habitat integrity 

and wildlife resource protection.

This proposal would allow the purchase of critical 

wetland and grassland easements using LWCF as an 

alternative funding source. North Dakota and South 

Dakota has a waiting list of well over 800 landowners interested in selling wetland and grassland easements. The only thing restricting the Service from 

protecting the more than 300,000 acres on the waiting list is limited money. The Service’s proposal to 

conserve up to 240,000 acres of wetlands and 1.7 

million acres of grassland would augment the efforts 

of other conservation agencies and groups.

Priority Areas

The Service and its partners recognize a tremendous opportunity exists to expand current blocks of 

conservation lands in the project area. This includes 

landownership and other rights of State and Federal agencies (fee-title ownership and easements), 

other conservation agencies, and nongovernmental 

organizations: North Dakota Game and Fish Department; South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks; Ducks 

Unlimited; The Nature Conservancy; and the National Audubon Society. These existing conservation 

lands would serve as good anchors for building and 

expanding the easement program to increase habitat 

connectivity and reduce fragmentation.

Less than 7 percent of the land in the proposed 

DGCA has been bought primarily for wildlife purposes. There are three categories of wildlife land 

protection—Federal, State, and private landownership. The following approximate acreages are for 

areas already under protection within the proposed 

project area:

FEDERAL LANDOWNERSHIP (2,420,414 acres): The Service 

is the primary Federal wildlife landowner.

■ Waterfowl production areas and national wildlife 

refuges—608,000 acres

■ Grassland easements—713,000 acres

■ Wetland easements—1,088,000 acres

■ FHA easements managed by the Service—11,414 

acres

STATE LANDOWNERSHIP (238,706 acres): The South 

Dakota Game, Fish and Parks and the North Dakota 

Game and Fish Department are the primary State 

landowners.

■ South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks—81,873 

acres
124 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

■ North Dakota Game and Fish Department—

156,833 acres

PRIVATE LANDOWNERSHIP (38,550 acres):

■ Ducks Unlimited—9,300 acres

■ National Audubon Society—2,250 acres

■ Nature Conservancy—17,000 acres

Evaluation of Easement Potential

Acquisition of wetland and grassland easements 

within the proposed DGCA is not a new tool for effecting conservation. The Service has more than 50 

years of experience acquiring wetland easements 

and 20 years of experience acquiring grassland easements within the proposed project area.

Landscape modeling efforts completed by the 

Service’s HAPET office have generated “thunderstorm” (nesting bird concentration) maps that 

show areas of greatest importance to nesting ducks, 

shorebirds, other waterbirds, and grassland birds. 

Similarly, HAPET has identified critical habitat for 

endangered species. When models for several species are combined and overlapped, it results in a 

useful tool for prioritization. Biologists and realty 

specialists use this modeling tool to accurately rank 

and identify an individual tract’s importance and 

value for conserving the “best of the best” habitat 

to affect the widest array of trust resources. The 

model criteria have been incorporated into the tract 

evaluation form, which the Service completes as part 

of the evaluation of each tract of land offered by a 

private landowner for easement acquisition. Figures 

C and D display the evaluation criteria for wetland 

and grassland conservation easements. This detailed 

evaluation process makes sure that easement acquisitions target the highest priority habitat available.

The Service ranks tracts offered by private landowners for easement purchase using the evaluation 

forms for wetland and grassland easement acquisition that are contained in the Easement Manual 

(USFWS 2011a). Using the criteria and priorities 

in these forms to separate tracts that are “the best 

of the best” for land conservation, the Service’s acquisition biologists and realty specialists are able 

to choose from among the tracts offered, when the 

costs for protecting those tracts exceed the money 

available.

In general, wetland evaluation values tracts that 

occur in areas with potential to attract more than 25 

breeding duck pairs:

■ Threat Priority—Priority 1 is wetland embedded 

in cropland. Priority 2 is wetland associated with 

a grassland easement.

■ Wetland Size Priority—Priority 1 is temporary, 

seasonal, or semipermanent wetland larger than 

1 acre. Priority 2 is other wetland larger than 25 

acres.

■ Threatened and Endangered Species Priority—

Yes or No.

■ Wetland-dependent Migratory Bird Priority—

Yes or No.

Grassland evaluation values the following:

■ An individual tract’s attractiveness to duck 

breeding pairs—Priority 1 has more than 60 pairs 

of breeding ducks. Priority 2 has 40–60 pairs of 

breeding ducks. Priority 3 has 25–40 pairs of 

breeding ducks. Priority 4 has less than 25 pairs 

of breeding ducks.

■ A tract’s importance to threatened and endangered species—Yes or No.

■ A tract’s designation as a grassland bird conservation area—Yes or No.

Acquisition Funding Alternatives

The Service proposes to acquire wetland and grassland easements in the proposed DGCA principally 

with LWCF money, although money from several 

sources could be used for the acquisition and management of wetland and grassland easements.

LWCF

These funds are is derived primarily from oil and gas 

leases on the Outer Continental Shelf, motorboat 

fuel taxes, and the sale of surplus Federal property. 

This money is not derived from general taxes. While 

LWCF money is intended for land and water conservation projects, funding is subject to annual appropriations by Congress for specific acquisition 

projects. When evaluating and acquiring wetland 

and grassland easements with LWCF money, the 

Service would use the process in place for acquiring 

easements with Federal Duck Stamp money.

SWAP

The Service would continue SWAP acquisitions and 

use Federal Duck Stamp and NAWCA monies as appropriate and available. However, interest in easements within the proposed project area far exceeds 

the money available. There is an urgent need for the 

proposed DGCA due to the imminent and ongoing 
Draft LPP Chapter 2–Proposed Action and Alternatives 125Figure C. Chart of evaluation criteria for acquiring wetland conservation easements.
126 EA and Draft LPP—Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Figure D. Chart of evaluation criteria for acquiring grassland conservation easements.
Draft LPP Chapter 2–Proposed Action and Alternatives 127

threats to the habitat; therefore, the Service needs 

a substantial increase in funding to protect the remaining wetland and grassland.

Other Sources

Money from other sources may also be used in the 

proposed project area. Management activities associated with easements may be funded through 

sources such as The Nature Conservancy, Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife, and other private and public 

partners. Additionally, the Service would consider 

accepting voluntary donations of easements.

Draft LPP Chapter 3–Coordination

The proposal and associated EA addresses the 

Service’s protection of wetland and grassland habitats—primarily through acquisition of wetland and 

grassland conservation easements—for management 

as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 

Service has spent time discussing this proposed 

DGCA project with landowners; conservation organizations; Federal, State and county governments; 

and other interested groups and individuals.

The Service held three open-house meetings on 

December 14, 15, and 16, 2010—at Minot, North Dakota; Jamestown, North Dakota; and Huron, South 

Dakota; respectively. The objective of this scoping 

process was to gather the full range of comments, 

questions, and concerns that the public has about 

the proposed action. This information helped the 

Service identify issues to analyze for the proposed 

project. There were 93 landowners, citizens, and 

elected representatives that attended the meetings 

and most expressed positive support for the project. 

Additionally, individuals and groups submitted by 

mail or through the project Web page 24 letters and 

1,469 emails about the proposed project.

The Service field staff has contacted local government officials, other public agencies, sportsmen 

and women’s groups, and conservation groups. The 

Service will be inviting its partners and the public 

to additional public meetings after the release of the 

EA and this draft LPP.

Sociocultural Considerations

The human population is generally sparse and towns 

are widely scattered in the proposed project area. 

The farm and ranch ownerships vary widely in size, 

ranging from 160- to 30,000-acre blocks that help 

maintain an intact landscape. The ranchers’ livelihoods depend on natural resources—grass, water, 

and open space—and the key to protecting the proposed DGCA lies primarily in sustaining the current 

pattern of ranching and low-density use.

Residents and county governments have expressed concerns about the amount of taxes paid to 

the counties when land is acquired in fee title. Because the proposed project is an easement program, 

the land would remain in private ownership; therefore, taxes paid to a county by the landowner would 

not be affected. Over the short-term, money paid by 

the Service for the wetland or grassland easement 

would become another source of income for the landowner and, logically, a part of those dollars likely 

would be spent locally in the local area. Proximity to 

protected easement lands may enhance the property 

value of adjoining lands.

The easement program is not expected to cause 

any adverse changes to the sociocultural climate in 

the proposed project area but, rather, would help 

sustain the current condition. Unlike many other 

areas in the country, the key to protecting native 

prairie lies primarily in sustaining the current land 

use of livestock ranching.

This yellow-headed blackbird is on the lookout from his 

bulrush perch.

James C. Leupold / USFWS