Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 

Huron Wetland Management District 

Madison Wetland Management District 

Sand Lake Wetland Management District 

South Dakota 

January 2012 

Stephen D. Guertin, Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

 Date 

Approved by 

Prepared by 

Huron Wetland Management District 

Room 309 Federal Building 

200 Fourth Street SW. 

Huron, South Dakota 57350 

605 / 352 5894 

Madison Wetland Management District 

23520 SD Highway 19 

Madison, South Dakota 57042 

605 / 256 2974 

Sand Lake Wetland Management District 

39650 Sand Lake Drive 

Columbia, South Dakota 57433 

605 / 885 6320 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 6, Mountain–Prairie Region 

Division of Refuge Planning 

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228 

303 / 236 8145 

CITATION for this document: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Comprehensive conservation plan: Huron Wetland Management District, Madison Wetland 

Management District, and Sand Lake Wetland Management District, South Dakota. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 260 p. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 

Huron Wetland Management District 

Madison Wetland Management District 

Sand Lake Wetland Management District 

South Dakota 

Submitted by 

Clarke Dirks 

Project Leader 

Huron Wetland Management District 

Huron, South Dakota 

Natoma Buskness Date 

Project Leader 

Madison Wetland Management District 

Madison, South Dakota 

Harris Hoistad 

Project Leader 

Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Columbia, South Dakota 

Concurred with by 

 Date Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. 

Assistant Regional Director 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Lakewood, Colorado 

 Date 

Paul Cornes Date 

Refuge Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Date 

Contents
 

Summary ...................................................................................... IX
 

Abbreviations ................................................................................... XIII
 

CHAPTER 1— Introduction .................................................................... 1
 

1.1	 Purpose and Need for the Plan ............................................................. 1
 

1.2	 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System ..................................... 2
 

Overview .................................................................................. 2
 

People and the Refuge System................................................................... 4
 

Compatible Uses in the Refuge System ............................................................ 4
 

Service Activities in South Dakota ................................................................ 4
 

1.3	 National and Regional Mandates ........................................................... 5
 

1.4	 District Contributions to National and Regional Plans ......................................... 5
 

Fulfilling the Promise .......................................................................... 5
 

Bird Conservation ............................................................................ 5
 

Partners in Flight............................................................................. 6
 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan .................................................... 6
 

Recovery Plans for Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species ..................................... 7
 

State-Level Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy .............................................. 7
 

1.5	 Strategic Habitat Conservation ............................................................. 8
 

A Broader Vision ............................................................................. 8
 

Climate Change ............................................................................. 10
 

1.6	 Planning Process ......................................................................... 10
 

Public Involvement ........................................................................... 11
 

State Coordination ........................................................................... 13
 

Tribal Coordination ........................................................................... 13
 

Results of Scoping ........................................................................... 13
 

Draft Plan .................................................................................. 13
 

Final Plan .................................................................................. 13
 

CHAPTER 2— The Districts .................................................................... 15
 

2.1	 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History ......................................... 15
 

Habitat Protection ............................................................................ 15
 

District Descriptions .......................................................................... 17
 

Huron WMD ................................................................................ 17
 

Madison WMD .............................................................................. 17
 

Sand Lake WMD............................................................................. 18
 

2.2	 Special Values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
 

2.3	 Purposes................................................................................. 23
 

2.4	 Vision ................................................................................... 23
 

2.5	 Goals .................................................................................... 23
 

Native Prairie ............................................................................... 23
 

Planted Grasslands ........................................................................... 24
 

Wetlands .................................................................................. 24
 

Research and Monitoring....................................................................... 24
 
VI Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

 

Consumptive Uses............................................................................ 24
 

Nonconsumptive Uses......................................................................... 24
 

Operations and Administration................................................................... 24
 

Partnerships ................................................................................ 24
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation ......................................................... 24
 

2.6	 Planning Issues........................................................................... 24
 

Wetland and Upland Habitats ................................................................... 24
 

Invasive Plants .............................................................................. 24
 

Energy Development .......................................................................... 25
 

Prairie Conversion ............................................................................ 25
 

Predator Management......................................................................... 25
 

Visitor Services.............................................................................. 25
 

Partnerships ................................................................................ 26
 

Operations ................................................................................. 26
 

Monitoring and Research....................................................................... 26
 

CHAPTER 3—District Resources and Description .............................................. 27
 

3.1	 Physical Environment ..................................................................... 27
 

Climate Change ............................................................................. 27
 

Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
 

Physiography, Geography, and Soils ............................................................... 28
 

Water Resources ............................................................................ 33
 

Air Quality ................................................................................. 36
 

3.2	 Biological Resources...................................................................... 36
 

Vegetation Communities ....................................................................... 36
 

Invasive Plants .............................................................................. 39
 

Fire ...................................................................................... 40
 

Grazing.................................................................................... 41
 

Wildlife ................................................................................... 42
 

3.3	 Cultural Resources ........................................................................ 47
 

Paleo-Indian Period (9500–5500 B.C.) .............................................................. 47
 

Plains Archaic Period (5500–500 B.C.) ............................................................. 47
 

Plains Woodland Period (500 B.C.–A.D. 1000) ........................................................ 48
 

Plains Village Period (A.D. 1000–1780) ............................................................. 48
 

Protohistoric and Early Historic Period (A.D. 1780–1890) ................................................ 48
 

3.4	 Visitor Services........................................................................... 49
 

Hunting ................................................................................... 49
 

Fishing .................................................................................... 49
 

Wildlife Observation and Photography ............................................................. 49
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation ......................................................... 49
 

Trapping ................................................................................... 50
 

3.5	 Partnerships.............................................................................. 50
 

3.6	 Socioeconomic Environment ............................................................... 50
 

Background................................................................................. 50
 

Current Socioeconomic, Population, and Employment Conditions .......................................... 50
 

3.7	 Operations ............................................................................... 51
 

CHAPTER 4— Management Direction.......................................................... 53
 

4.1	 Management Direction .................................................................... 54
 

Native Prairie Goal ........................................................................... 54
 

Planted Grasslands Goal ....................................................................... 72
 

Wetlands Goal .............................................................................. 82
 

Research and Monitoring Goal .................................................................. 86
 
Consumptive Uses Goal........................................................................ 90
 

Nonconsumptive Uses Goal ..................................................................... 92
 

Operations and Administration Goal............................................................... 93
 

Partnerships Goal ............................................................................ 104
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation Goal ..................................................... 105
 

4.2 Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................. 108
 

4.3 Plan Amendment and Revision ............................................................. 108
 

Glossary ...................................................................................... 109
 

Appendixes 

Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations .......................................................... 117
 

Appendix B—Key Legislation and Policies ........................................................... 189
 

Appendix C—Preparers and Contributors ............................................................ 193
 

Appendix D—Public Involvement .................................................................. 195
 

Appendix E—Section 7 Biological Evaluation ......................................................... 199
 

Appendix F—Environmental Compliance ............................................................ 205
 

Appendix G—Location Notices .................................................................... 207
 

Appendix H—South Dakota Species ................................................................ 227
 

Appendix I—South Dakota Upland Plant Associations.................................................. 243
 

Appendix J—Compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Guidance.................................... 245
 

Appendix K—Approved Organization Charts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
 

Bibliography.................................................................................. 251
 

FIGURES 

1 Vicinity map of the three districts, South Dakota ................................................... 3 


2 Map of the bird conservation regions of North America .............................................. 7
 

3 Map of the Plains and Prairie Potholes Geographic Area ............................................. 9
 

4 Steps in the planning process .................................................................. 10
 

5 Service-managed lands in the Huron WMD ....................................................... 19
 

6 Service-managed lands in the Madison WMD ..................................................... 20
 

7 Service-managed lands in the Sand Lake WMD .................................................... 21
 

8 Draft Level III and IV Ecoregions of South Dakota ................................................... 29
 

9 Distribution of vegetation communities in the three districts, South Dakota .............................. 37
 

10 Map of predicted duck-pair concentrations in the three districts, South Dakota ........................... 55
 

11 Decision tree for prioritizing management of native sod tracts on WPAs ................................ 57
 

12 Dominant vegetation community types on native prairie, averaged by district, 2006–2008 .................. 61
 

13 North American bird population indicators based on trends for obligate species in four major habitats ........ 62
 

14 Quantitative measurements of visual obstruction readings of upland nesting species ...................... 67
 

15 Known Dakota skipper locations in South Dakota by county .......................................... 68
 

16 Decision tree for prioritizing management of planted grasslands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
 

17 Whooping crane sightings throughout South Dakota ................................................ 84
 

18 Priority wetlands............................................................................. 95
 

19 Distribution of priority grasslands ............................................................... 96
 

Contents VII 

TABLES 

1 Planning process summary for the Huron, Madison, and Sand Lake WMDs CCP .......................... 11
 

2 Grassland and wetland easements in the three districts ............................................. 17
 
VIII 

3 Prairie decline in South Dakota ................................................................. 36
 

4 State-listed and local noxious weeds and their distribution in the South Dakota wetland ................... 40
 

5 Birds of conservation concern or priority species ................................................... 43
 

6 Selected focal grassland bird species by wetland management district ................................. 44
 

7 Listed species (based on published population data)................................................. 45
 

8 Assigned priority levels according to the decision tree for prioritizing management of native prairie........... 58
 

9 Assigned priority levels according to the decision tree for prioritizing management of native vegetation ....... 74
 

10 Wildland-urban interface communities on Federal communities at risk and South Dakota 


communities of interest lists.................................................................. 102
 
Summary
 

White-tailed Deer 

/ USFWS Ryan Hagerty 

Every year, millions of migratory waterfowl and other 

waterbirds find their way to a mosaic of wetlands and 

grasslands in eastern South Dakota. These habitats 

provide the untiring winged travelers with the sanctuary and nourishment necessary to procreate, giving rise to the future generations of migratory birds 

that will populate North America’s Central Flyway. 

These lands are also of critical importance to a myriad 

of other endemic fish, wildlife, and plant species, and 

they provide thousands of sportsmen and wildlife enthusiasts with places to experience the wonders of the 

natural world and partake in its bounty. 

It is the responsibility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to preserve the integrity of these important 

habitats for the benefit of fish and wildlife, as well as 

for the continuation of compatible outdoor recreational 

uses derived therein. The Service accomplishes this 

through a network of federally managed lands dedicated to the preservation of fish, wildlife, plants, and 

the habitats upon which they depend—the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

The Districts
 

The Huron Wetland Management District, Madison 

Wetland Management District, and Sand Lake Wetland Management District are units of the Refuge 

System that manage small tracts of fee-owned Federal lands called waterfowl production areas, administer easement programs to preserve privately owned 

wetlands and grasslands, and conserve other tracts of 

lands ceded to the Service through different authorities, such as former Farmers Home Administration 

lands. Together, these three districts encompass 27 

counties in eastern South Dakota, where their staffs 

manage approximately 1.5 million acres of land including more than 378,000 acres in wetlands easements, 

nearly 630,000 acres in grassland easements, more 

than 100,000 acres of fee-owned lands distributed in 

445 waterfowl production areas, and miscellaneous 

other tracts of land. 

All 445 waterfowl production areas managed by 

these districts are open to the public to engage in 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses, of 

which hunting and fishing, followed by wildlife observation and photography, are the ones that attract 

the greatest number of visitors each year. Biannual 

bird migrations each spring and fall attract thousands 

of local residents as well as tourists from around the 

world to experience this breathtaking display of one 

of nature’s profound cycles. Environmental education and interpretation are other compatible public 

uses that take place at certain designated sites within 

each district, usually requiring closer involvement of 

district staffers. 
X 

VISION FOR THE DISTRICTS
 

Clear blue skies frame spectacular views 

of grasslands and wetlands teeming with 

migratory waterfowl and other wildlife 

in the Huron, Madison, and Sand Lake 

Wetland Management Districts. Here, 

future generations will experience the 

whistle of the northern pintail, the song 

of the western meadowlark, and the 

distant boom of the prairie chicken. 

Located in the Prairie Pothole Region 

of South Dakota, these districts preserve 

timeless landscapes in the face of change. 

Conservation of these lands is achieved 

through hard work and the support of 

friends and neighbors who value natural 

places as an essential component of their 

quality of life. 

GOALS FOR THE DISTRICTS 

Native Prairie 

Conserve, restore, and improve the biological integrity 

and ecological function of the native prairies to support healthy populations of native plants and wildlife 

and promote the natural role of fire and grazing in 

shaping and managing these landscapes. 

Planted Grasslands 

Manage planted grasslands to contribute to the production and growth of continental waterfowl populations, 

other migratory birds, threatened and endangered 

species, and other wildlife. 

Wetlands 

Protect, restore, and enhance prairie pothole wetlands 

to support diverse plant communities and provide 

habitat to waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and 

associated wetland-dependent wildlife. 

Research and Monitoring 

Provide a learning platform that uses science, monitoring, applied research, and adaptive management to 

advance understanding of the Prairie Pothole Region 

and management of these areas. 

Consumptive Uses 

Provide visitors with quality opportunities to enjoy 

hunting, fishing, and trapping in waterfowl production areas and expand their knowledge and appreciation of the prairie landscape and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. 

Nonconsumptive Uses 

Provide visitors with quality opportunities to enjoy, 

observe, photograph, and appreciate the prairie ecosystem while expanding their knowledge of and support for the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Operations and Administration 

Through effective communication and innovative 

partnerships, secure and efficiently utilize funding, 

staffing, and volunteer programs for the benefit of all 

natural resources in the districts. 

Partnerships 

Promote and develop partnerships with landowners, 

public and private organizations, and other interested 

individuals to maintain, restore, and enhance a diverse 

and productive landscape in the Prairie Pothole Region. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Provide quality educational opportunities for persons 

of all abilities to learn about, understand, and appreciate prairie landscapes and the role of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

Planning Process and Issues 

The comprehensive conservation planning process for 

these districts began in April 2008 with public notices 

on the Service’s intent to prepare this plan, seek public 

input, hold public meetings, and identify key issues to 

be addressed in the plan. The following is a summary 

of the issues identified and that are covered within 

the scope of this plan. 

WETLAND AND UPLAND HABITATS 

Wetland and upland habitats within the planning area 

are in need of protection and enhancement. The current and likely future staffing situation at the districts 

requires that habitat management and protection be 

carefully evaluated and eventually follow a system of 

prioritization so that the districts can fulfill the purposes for which they were established. 

INVASIVE PLANTS 

Previously farmed lands that have been restored to a 

semblance of native prairie are compromised by invasive plant species such as leafy spurge, Canada thistle, 

sow thistle, and absinth wormwood. Other invasive 

plants of concern to the districts, and that substantially degrade the quality and suitability of habitats 

for wildlife species, include smooth brome, Kentucky 

bluegrass, and crested wheatgrass. 

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT 

Increasing demand for energy, particularly in the form 

of biofuel and wind energy production, is becoming a 

great concern for the districts due to these industries’ 
Summary XI 

potential to affect wildlife habitat quality and integrity. 

The Service needs to study and analyze ways in which 

to support our Nation’s increasing energy needs while 

affording adequate protection to fish, wildlife, plants, 

and the habitats on which they depend. 

PRAIRIE CONVERSION 

Conversion of native prairie to agricultural, urban, 

and other uses is of great concern to the Service and 

to many conservation and traditional ranching advocacy groups. The districts play a preeminent role in 

helping to preserve and enhance remaining prairie 

lands in South Dakota, as well as in helping to restore 

degraded or previously converted lands back to native prairie. 

PREDATOR MANAGEMENT 

Because of modifications to native prairie and other factors, the populations of several predatory species have 

increased above their historical levels. This situation 

adversely affects the ability and success of grasslandnesting bird species, including waterfowl and other 

migratory birds, to maintain or increase sustainable 

population levels. The Service needs to find ways to 

counter these deleterious effects in order to fulfill the 

purposes for which the districts were established. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

There is an increasing demand by local residents and 

tourists for places to engage in outdoor recreational 

opportunities. The districts, through the six wildlifedependent priority uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation—are uses currently authorized on 

lands administered by the districts. A growing demand 

for public recreation in South Dakota and the nation 

makes these six wildlife-dependent recreational uses, 

as specified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act, an issue of primary interest. 

PARTNERSHIPS 

The Service puts a high priority on working in partnership with conservation and agricultural groups to 

support conservation programs such as Federal Farm 

Bill legislation, South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks 

projects, water quality and watershed projects, and 

private conservation efforts. 

OPERATIONS 

Funding and staff are not sufficient to fulfill the districts’ purposes or to meet their goals. Consequently, 

identification of priorities and efficient direction of 

resources will always be an issue. The Service’s staff 

needs to identify and describe unfunded needs to be 

able to compete effectively for additional money from 

within the Service as well as from partners and other 

sources. District facilities need to be evaluated and 

upgraded. 

American Kestrel 

© Chris Bailey 

MONITORING AND RESEARCH 

Monitoring habitat and wildlife populations is an essential element in achieving the districts’ primary 

goals and objectives. Basic data about recruitment, 

mortality, and habitat use for a representative group 

of species must be collected and analyzed on a regular 

basis to make appropriate decisions for maintaining 

the viability of the habitats on which these species 

depend. Using the districts for field research could 

contribute to new directions in management and expand the knowledge of field biologists. 

Management Direction 

Management of the three districts will emphasize developing and implementing an improved, science-based 

priority system to restore native prairie habitats for 

the benefit of waterfowl and other migratory birds. 

District staff will focus on high-priority tracts and, 

when possible, on medium-priority tracts. The focus 

of this alternative is to restore ecological processes 

and native grassland species to the greatest extent 

possible within the parameters of available resources 

and existing constraints. District staff will seek to 

maintain the existing levels and types of public use 

programs, ensuring that programs offered to the public are of consistently high quality. 

Abbreviations
 

Administration Act National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

AF acre-foot

 APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

BAER Burned Area Emergency Response 

BAR Burned Area Rehabilitation 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BCR bird conservation region 

BIDEH Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health 

BMP best management practice 

CCP comprehensive conservation plan 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

CWCS comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy 

CWD chronic wasting disease 

Department U.S. Department of the Interior 

districts Huron, Madison, and Sand Lake Wetland Management Districts 

DNC dense nesting cover 

DOI U.S. Department of Interior 

DPS distinct population segment 

Duck Stamp Act Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act 

EA environmental assessment 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FmHA Farmers Home Administration 

FMP fire management plan 

FTE full-time equivalent 

GIS geographic information system 

HAPET Habitat and Population Evaluation Team 

HFI Healthy Forests Initiative 

HPAI highly pathogenic avian influenza 

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

IPM integrated pest management 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NABCI North American Bird Conservation Initiative 

NAWCA North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NFP National Fire Plan 

NGO nongovernmental organization 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 
XIV 

NPAM Native Prairie Adaptive Management 

NWR national wildlife refuge 

Partners Program Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

P.L. Public Law 

PPJV Prairie Pothole Joint Venture 

RECD Rural Economic and Community Development 

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System 

RLGIS Refuge Land Geographic Information System 

SDDOT South Dakota Department of Transportation 

SDGFP South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SUP special use permit 

SWG State Wildlife Grant 

U.S.C.
 United States Code 

USDA
 U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFWS
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VCS visitor contact station 

VOR visual obstruction reading 

WMD wetland management district 

WNV West Nile virus 

WPA waterfowl production area 

Definitions of these and other terms are in the glossary, located after chapter 4. 
CHAPTER 1— Introduction
 

Student Conservation Association intern Shannon Crawford releases a banded duck. 

© South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed this comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) 

to provide a foundation for the management and 

use of the Huron, Madison, and Sand Lake Wetland 

Management Districts (WMDs, or districts), located 

in north central and eastern South Dakota (figure 1). 

This CCP will serve as a working guide for management programs and actions for these three districts 

over the next 15 years 

This CCP was developed in compliance with the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 (Improvement Act) and Part 602 (National 

Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of “The Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions described in this 

CCP meet the requirements of National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 

The final CCP will specify the actions necessary 

to achieve the vision and purposes of the districts. 

Wildlife is the first management priority in all units of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), 

and public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) is allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with 

the districts’ purposes. 

This CCP has been prepared by a planning team 

composed of representatives from various Service programs, including the Division of Refuges, the Division 

of Realty, and the Division of Visitor Services and 

Communications. In addition, the planning team used 

public input. Public involvement and the planning process are described in section 1.6, “Planning Process.” 

After reviewing a wide range of public comments 

and management needs, the planning team developed 

alternatives for management of the three districts. The 

team recommended one alternative as the Service’s 

proposed action. This action addresses all substantive 

issues while determining how best to achieve the districts’ purposes. The proposed action is the Service’s 

recommended course of action for management of 

these districts. 

1.1 Purpose and Need for the 

Plan 

The purpose of this CCP is to identify the role that 

these districts will play in support of the Refuge 

System’s mission and to provide long-term guidance 

for management of the districts’ programs and activities. The CCP is needed to: 

■■ communicate with the public and other partners in 

efforts to carry out the Refuge System’s mission; 
2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

■■ provide a clear statement of direction for management of the three districts; 

■■ provide neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the Service’s management actions on and around the districts; 

■■ ensure that the Service’s management actions are 

consistent with the mandates of the Improvement Act; 

■■ ensure that management of these districts is consistent with Federal, State, and county plans; 

■■ provide a basis for development of budget requests 

for the districts’ operations, maintenance, and capital improvement needs. 

Sustaining the nation’s fish and wildlife resources 

is a task that can be accomplished only through the 

combined efforts of governments, businesses, and 

private citizens. 

1.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Refuge 

System 

The Service is the principal Federal agency responsible 

for fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. The Service’s 

mission, working with others, is to conserve, protect, 

and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for 

the continuing benefit of the American people. The 

National Wildlife Refuge System is one of the Service’s 

major programs. 

OVERVIEW 

More than a century ago, America’s fish and wildlife resources were declining at an alarming rate. Concerned 

citizens, scientists, and hunting and angling groups 

joined together to restore and sustain America’s national wildlife heritage. This was the genesis of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Today, the Service enforces Federal wildlife laws, 

manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores vital 

wildlife habitat, protects and recovers endangered 

species, and helps other governments with conservation efforts. In addition, the Service administers 

a Federal aid program that distributes hundreds of 

millions of dollars to States for fish and wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter education, and related 

programs across America. 

In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated 

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

first wildlife refuge for the protection of brown pelicans 

and other native nesting birds. This was the first time 

the Federal Government set aside land for wildlife. 

This small but significant designation was the beginning of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

One hundred years later, the Refuge System has 

become the largest collection of lands in the world 

specifically managed for wildlife, encompassing more 

than 150 million acres in 550 refuges and more than 

3,000 small areas for waterfowl breeding and nesting. 

Today, there is at least one refuge in every State and 

in five U.S. territories and commonwealths. 

In 1997, the Improvement Act established a clear 

mission for the Refuge System. 

The mission of the System is to 

administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant 

resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present 

and future generations of Americans. 

The Improvement Act states that each national wildlife refuge (that is, each unit of the Refuge System, 

which includes wetland management districts) shall 

be managed: 

■■to ‘‘fulfill the mission of the System, as well as 

the specific purposes for which that refuge was 

established”; 

■■to consider “wildlife conservation ... [as] the singular National Wildlife Refuge System mission” 

(Final Compatibility Regulations Pursuant to the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997); 

■■to ‘‘ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are 

maintained”; 

■■to fulfill the requirements of preparing ‘‘a comprehensive conservation plan ... for each refuge 

within 15 years after the date of enactment of the 

... Act” and of ensuring opportunities for “public 

involvement in the preparation and revision of 

[these] plans”; 

■■to recognize that ‘‘compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation [fishing, hunting, wildlife observation 

and photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation] is a legitimate and appropriate 

general public use of the System”; 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 3 Figure 1. Vicinity map of the three districts, South Dakota. 
4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

■■to retain the authority of a refuge manager to “make 

... the compatibility determination” after exercising 

“sound professional judgment ... regarding wildlife conservation and uses of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System” (Final Compatibility Regulations 

Pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997). 

In addition to the Refuge System’s mission, the wildlife 

and habitat vision for each unit of the Refuge System 

stresses the following principles: 

■■ Wildlife comes first. 

■■ Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital 

concepts in refuge and district management. 

■■ Habitats must be healthy. 

■■ Growth of refuges and districts must be strategic. 

■■ The Refuge System serves as a model for habitat 

management with broad participation from others. 

Following passage of the Improvement Act, the 

Service immediately began to carry out the direction 

of the new legislation, including preparation of CCPs 

for all national wildlife refuges and wetland management districts. Consistent with the Improvement Act, 

the Service prepares all CCPs in conjunction with 

public involvement. Each refuge and each district 

is required to complete its CCP within the 15-year 

schedule (by 2012). 

PEOPLE AND THE REFUGE SYSTEM 

The Nation’s fish and wildlife heritage contributes to 

the quality of American lives and is an integral part of 

the country’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places have 

always given people special opportunities to have fun, 

relax, and appreciate the natural world. 

Wildlife recreation contributes millions of dollars to 

local economies through bird watching, fishing, hunting, photography, and other wildlife pursuits. Nearly 

35 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 

2006 (Caudill and Carver 2007), mostly to observe 

wildlife in their natural habitats. Visitors experience 

nature trails, auto tours, interpretive programs, and 

hunting and fishing opportunities. Local communities 

that surround the refuges and districts derive significant economic benefits from refuge-related activities. 

Economists report that Refuge System visitors contribute more than $1.7 billion annually to local economies (Caudill and Carver 2007). These figures do not 

include Alaska or the Pacific Island refuges, which 

together hosted more than 2 million visitors in 2006. 

COMPATIBLE USES IN THE REFUGE SYSTEM 

Lands within the Refuge System differ from multipleuse Federal lands in that they are closed to all public 

uses unless specifically and legally opened. A refuge 

or district use is not allowed unless the Service determines the use to be appropriate and compatible. A 

compatible use is one that, in the sound professional 

judgment of the project leader, will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the 

Refuge System’s mission or the purposes of the refuge or district. Sound professional judgment is defined 

as a decision that is consistent with the principles of 

fish and wildlife management and administration, the 

available science and resources, and adherence to law. 

A compatibility determination is the written documentation that a proposed or existing use of a national 

wildlife refuge or wetland management district is or 

is not a compatible use. The determination is completed, signed, and dated by the project leader with 

the concurrence of the Refuge System’s assistant 

regional director. Compatibility determinations are 

typically completed as part of the process for a CCP 

or stepdown management plan. Once a final compatibility determination is made, it is not subject to administrative appeal. 

The Improvement Act states that six priority 

uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental education—should receive consideration in planning and 

management over other public uses. All facilities and 

activities associated with recreational uses, or where 

there is an economic benefit associated with a use, require compatibility determinations. However, refuge 

or district management activities such as prescribed 

fire or invasive plant control do not require compatibility determinations. The compatibility determinations for these districts are presented in appendix A. 

SERVICE ACTIVITIES IN SOUTH DAKOTA 

Service activities in South Dakota contribute to the 

State’s economy, ecosystems, and education programs. 

The following list summarizes the Service’s presence 

and activities: 

■■ employ 173 people in South Dakota 

■■ assisted by 191 volunteers donating more than 

8,000 hours in the following areas: 

➤■more than 4,000 hours for wildlife and habitat 

➤■nearly 1,500 hours for maintenance work 

➤■1,350 hours for wildlife-dependent recreation 

➤■1,165 hours in miscellaneous other activities 

related to Service work 

■■ manage two national fish hatcheries encompassing 

591.79 acres and one fish and wildlife management 

assistance office 

■■ manage seven national wildlife refuges encompassing a total of 103,884.85 acres 

■■ manage six wetland management districts across 

50 South Dakota counties comprising the following: 

➤■160,432.41 fee acres (waterfowl production areas [WPAs])
 

➤■591,308.44 wetland easement acres
 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 5 

➤■705,532.59 grassland easement acres 

➤■ 712.23 flowage and miscellaneous easement acres 

➤■ 40,875.9 acres of Farmer’s Home Administration 

easements 

■■ host more than 202,000 annual visitors to Servicemanaged lands: 

➤■more than 93,000 hunting visits 

➤■nearly 45,000 fishing visits 

➤■more than 57,500 wildlife observation visits 

➤■environmental education programs for nearly 

7,000 students 

➤■a currently unknown number of trapping visits 

■■ provide $4,668,784 to South Dakota Game, Fish 

and Parks (SDGFP) for sport fish restoration 

and $8,793,314 for wildlife restoration and hunter 

education 

■■ employ eight Partners for Fish and Wildlife program 

managers, who have helped private landowners restore wetland and upland habitats as shown below: 

➤■Huron WMD 

➤■ 517 wetlands restored (1,805 acres) 

➤■ 298 wetlands established (1,149 acres) 

➤■ 173 upland sites restored (6,467 acres) 

➤■ 193 upland sites (grazing systems) enhanced 

(100,842 acres) 

➤■Madison WMD 

➤■ 1,701 wetlands restored (5,934 acres) 

➤■ 251 wetlands established (528 acres) 

➤■ 180 upland sites restored (8,897 acres) 

➤■ 141 upland sites (grazing systems) enhanced 

(31,097 acres) 

➤■Sand Lake WMD 

➤■ 177 wetlands restored (719 acres) 

➤■ 383 wetlands established (1,809 acres) 

➤■ 122 upland sites restored (6,384 acres) 

➤■ 221 upland sites (grazing systems) enhanced 

(84,712 acres) 

■■ make payments to counties through the Refuge 

Revenue Sharing Act (Public Law [P.L.] 95-469, 

amended 1978); payments for fee title lands are 

based on the greatest of three-quarters of 1 percent of the fair market value (appraisals are completed every 5 years), 25 percent of net receipts, 

or $0.75 per acre 

1.3 National and Regional 

Mandates 

Refuge System units are managed to achieve the 

Refuge System’s mission and goals, along with the 

designated purpose of the refuges and districts (as 

described in establishing legislation, executive orders, 

or other establishing documents). Key concepts and 

guidance of the Refuge System are in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

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

Regulations (CFR), “The Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual,” and the Improvement Act. 

The Improvement Act amends the Administration 

Act by providing a unifying mission for the Refuge 

System, a new process for determining compatible 

public uses on refuges and districts, and a requirement 

that each refuge and district be managed under a CCP. 

The Improvement Act states that wildlife conservation is the priority of Refuge System lands and that 

the Secretary of the Interior will ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health 

of refuge lands are maintained. The act requires the 

Service to monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge and district. 

A description of these and other laws and executive orders that may affect the CCP or the Service’s 

implementation of the CCP is provided in appendix B. 

Service policies on planning and day-to-day management of refuges and districts are in the “Refuge System 

Manual” and “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.” 

1.4 District Contributions to 

National and Regional Plans 

The resources and management activities of the Huron, 

Madison, and Sand Lake WMDs contribute to the conservation efforts described below. 

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 

A 1999 report, “Fulfilling the Promise, The National 

Wildlife Refuge System” (USFWS 1999), is the culmination of a yearlong process by teams of Service 

employees to evaluate the Refuge System nationwide. 

This report was the focus of the first National Refuge 

System conference (in 1998)—attended by refuge managers, other Service employees, and representatives 

from leading conservation organizations. 

The report contains 42 recommendations packaged 

with three vision statements addressing wildlife and 

habitat, people, and leadership. This CCP deals with 

all three major topics. The planning team looked to 

the recommendations in the document for guidance 

during CCP planning. 

BIRD CONSERVATION 

During the past few decades, there has been growing interest in conserving birds and their habitats. 

This trend has led to the development of partnershipbased bird conservation initiatives that have produced 
6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

international, national, and regional conservation plans. 

“All-bird” conservation planning in North America 

is being achieved through the North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative (NABCI). Formed in 1999, 

the NABCI committee is a coalition of government 

agencies, private organizations, and bird initiatives 

in the United States working to advance integrated 

bird conservation based on sound science and costeffective management to benefit all birds in all habitats. Conservation of all birds is being accomplished 

under four planning initiatives: The North American 

Landbird Conservation Plan (Partners in Flight), 

the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, the North 

American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Only 

two plans, Partners in Flight and the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan, will be discussed here. 

PARTNERS IN FLIGHT 

The Partners in Flight program began in 1990 with 

the recognition of declining population levels of many 

migratory bird species. The challenge, according to the 

program, is managing human population growth while 

maintaining functional natural ecosystems. To meet 

this challenge, Partners in Flight worked to identify 

priority land bird species and habitat types. Partners 

in Flight activity has resulted in 52 bird conservation 

plans covering the continental United States. 

The primary goal of Partners in Flight is to provide for the long-term health of the bird life of this 

continent. The first priority is to prevent the rarest 

species from going extinct. The second priority is 

to prevent uncommon species from descending into 

threatened status. The third priority is to “keep common birds common.” 

For planning purposes, Partners in Flight splits 

North America into seven groupings of birds by ecological area—avifaunal biomes—and 37 bird conservation regions (BCRs) (figure 2). The three districts 

are within the “prairie avifaunal biome” in BCR 11, 

the Prairie Pothole Region. The westernmost portion 

of the Sand Lake WMD is within the “badlands and 

prairies avifaunal biome” in BCR 17. 

BCR 11 is the most important waterfowl production 

area in the North America, despite extensive wetland 

drainage and tillage of native grasslands. The density 

of breeding dabbling ducks commonly exceeds 100 

pairs per square mile in some areas during years with 

favorable wetland conditions. The area comprises the 

core of the breeding range of most dabbling duck and 

several diving duck species. BCR 11 provides critical breeding and migration habitat for more than 200 

other bird species, including such species of concern 

as Franklin’s gull and yellow rail, as well as piping plover, federally listed as threatened. In addition, Baird’s 

sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, chestnut-collared longspur, 

Wilson’s phalarope, marbled godwit, and American 

avocet are among the many priority nonwaterfowl 

species that breed in BCR 11. According to NABCI, 

wetland areas also provide key spring migration sites 

for Hudsonian godwit, American golden-plover, whiterumped sandpiper, and buff-breasted sandpiper. 

Partners in Flight conservation priorities in the 

prairie avifaunal biome focus on protection of remaining prairies; management of existing grasslands using 

fire and grazing; and control of invasive plants, including woody plant encroachment. 

Region 17 is a semiarid plain dominated by mixedgrass prairie. Importantly, this region provides habitat 

for some of the healthiest populations of high-priority 

dry-grassland bird species on the continent, including mountain plover, McCown’s longspur, and longbilled curlew. 

NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT 

PLAN 

By 1985, waterfowl populations had plummeted to record lows. Habitat that waterfowl depend on was disappearing at a rate of 60 acres per hour. Recognizing 

the importance of waterfowl and wetlands to North 

Americans and the need for international cooperation 

to help in the recovery of a shared resource, the United 

States and Canada governments developed a strategy to restore waterfowl populations through habitat 

protection, restoration, and enhancement. Written in 

1986, the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan (NAWMP) envisioned a 15-year effort to achieve 

landscape conditions that could sustain waterfowl 

populations. Specific NAWMP objectives are to increase and restore duck populations to the average 

levels of the 1970s—62 million breeding ducks and a 

fall flight of 100 million birds. Mexico became a signatory to the plan in 1994. 

The plan is innovative because of its international 

scope and its regional-level implementation. Its success depends on the strength of partnerships called 

“joint ventures,” involving Federal, State, provincial, 

tribal, and local governments; businesses; conservation organizations; and individual citizens. 

Joint ventures are regional, self-directed partnerships that carry out science-based conservation through 

a wide array of community participation. Joint ventures develop implementation plans focusing on areas 

of concern identified in the plan. The three districts 

covered in this CCP lie within the area covered by the 

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV). 

The PPJV, which covers the Prairie Pothole Region 

of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and South 

Dakota, was established in 1987, and is one of the original six priority joint ventures under the NAWMP. The 

joint venture protects, restores, and enhances highpriority wetland and grassland habitat to help sustain 

populations of waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, and 

prairie land birds. The PPJV encompasses one-third 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 7 

(100,000 square miles) of North America’s Prairie 

Pothole Region. The remaining 200,000-square-mile 

portion is located in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, 

Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. This unique area contains millions of depressional wetlands (or potholes), 

making it one of the richest wetland systems in the 

world. These glacially formed prairie potholes and 

their surrounding grasslands are highly productive, 

supporting a stunning diversity of bird life. 

Figure 2. Map of the bird conservation regions of North America. 

RECOVERY PLANS FOR FEDERALLY LISTED 

THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES 

Where species that are federally listed threatened or 

endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

occur in the three districts, the Service will follow 

the management goals and strategies in the species’ 

recovery plans. The list of threatened or endangered 

species that occur at the districts will change as species are listed or delisted, or as listed species are discovered on district lands. 

Currently, these three districts are following the 

recovery plans for these species: 

■■ Piping plover (threatened) in the northern Great 

Plains (USFWS 1994a) 

■■ Whooping crane (endangered) (USFWS 1994b) 

■■ Interior least tern (endangered) (USFWS 1990) 

■■ Western prairie fringed orchid (threatened) (USFWS 

1996) 

STATE-LEVEL COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE 

CONSERVATION STRATEGY 

Over the past several decades, documented declines 

of wildlife populations have occurred nationwide. 

Congress created the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) program in 2001. This program provides Federal funds to 

States and territories to support conservation aimed 

at preventing wildlife from becoming endangered and 

in need of protection under ESA. The SWG program 

is an ambitious endeavor to take an active hand in 

keeping species from becoming threatened or endangered in the future. 

According to the SWG program, each State, territory, and the District of Columbia was required to complete a comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy 

(CWCS) by October 1, 2005, to receive future funding. 

The strategies promulgated under the SWG program will help define an integrated approach to the 

stewardship of all wildlife species, with additional emphasis on species of concern and habitats at risk. The 

goal is to shift focus from single-species management 
8 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

and highly specialized individual efforts to a geographically based, landscape-oriented fish and wildlife conservation effort. The Service approves CWCSs and 

administers SWG program funding. 

SDGFP’s mission “... to perpetuate, conserve, 

manage, protect, and enhance South Dakota’s wildlife 

resources, parks, and outdoor recreational opportunities” sets the framework for the State’s actions. 

SDGFP has opted to apply a coarse filter/fine filter 

strategy to its public land management needs. The 

plan emphasizes ecosystem diversity as the primary 

means to address habitat needs for biodiversity, with 

a secondary focus on nonhabitat concerns regarding 

species of greatest conservation need. Program staff 

establishes a schedule for the development of recovery objectives for State-listed species. A threats assessment, identification of recovery goals, and species 

recovery actions provide a coordinated approach and 

give guidance for cooperating agencies to assist in recovery of these species. Management actions directed 

toward species are designed using an adaptive management framework. 

South Dakota’s list of “Species of Greatest Conservation 

Need” comprises 28 birds, 10 mammals, 7 freshwater mussels, 4 gastropods, 9 insects, 20 fishes, and 

12 reptiles and amphibians. There are three primary 

criteria for inclusion in the list: State- and federally 

listed species for which the State has a mandate for 

recovery, species for which South Dakota represents 

a significant portion of the species’ overall range, and 

species that are indicative of or depend upon a declining or unique habitat in South Dakota. 

Three broad categories of human influence interfere 

with the maintenance of ecosystem diversity. These 

are direct alteration or conversion of species composition, structure, or function; indirect alteration or 

suppression of historical disturbance processes; and 

indirect alteration of species composition, structure, 

or function through the introduction and spread of 

nonnative species. Primary causative agents are agriculture and, to a lesser degree, urbanization. For 

riparian/wetland and aquatic ecosystems, additional 

causative agents include draining, surface water diversion, water impoundments, dams, ponds for water 

supply, and stream channelization. 

The accidental or intentional introduction of invasive nonnative species can have major impacts on 

native species and ecosystems. Such introductions 

are of particular concern to maintaining the ecological integrity of historical ecosystems. 

The loss or degradation of habitat as well as non– 

habitat-related impacts are areas of concern associated with the persistence of species in South Dakota. 

Loss or degradation of habitat is directly influenced 

by direct and indirect impacts on ecosystem diversity. 

Non–habitat-related impacts are typically characterized 

by direct human influences on a species’ normal life 

cycle or existence. 

The planning team reviewed South Dakota’s CWCS 

and used the information during development of the 

draft CCP and environmental assessment (EA). 

Implementation of the CCP’s habitat goals and objectives would support the goals and objectives of the 

South Dakota conservation strategy. 

1.5 Strategic Habitat 

Conservation 

A BROADER VISION 

In the face of escalating challenges such as land use 

conversion, invasive species, water scarcity, and complex issues that have been amplified by accelerating 

climate change, the Service has evolved from its ecosystem approach to conservation toward developing 

a broader vision. 

A cooperative effort by the Service and the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) culminated in a report by 

the National Ecological Assessment Team (USGS 

2006). The report outlines a unifying adaptive resource 

management approach for conservation at a landscape 

scale—the entire range of a priority species or suite 

of species. This is strategic habitat conservation—a 

way of thinking and doing business by incorporating 

biological goals for priority species populations, making strategic decisions about the work needed, and 

constantly reassessing. 

Since 2006, the Service has taken significant steps 

to turn this vision into reality and has defined a framework of 22 geographic areas. Experts from the Service 

and USGS developed this framework through an aggregation of bird conservation regions (figure 2). The 

three South Dakota districts lie in the Plains and Prairie 

Potholes Geographic Area (figure 3). Key species and 

species groups targeted in this geographic area are 

paddlefish, pallid sturgeon, waterfowl, shorebirds, 

grassland birds, and black-footed ferret. 

The Service is using the geographic framework 

as the basis to identify the first generation of landscape conservation cooperatives. These cooperatives 

are conservation-science partnerships between the 

Service and other Federal agencies, States, tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), universities, 

and others. Designed as fundamental units for planning and science, the cooperatives have the capacity 

to help the Service carry out the elements of strategic 

habitat conservation—biological planning, conservation design and delivery, and monitoring and research. 

Coordinated planning and scientific information will 

strengthen the Service’s strategic response to accelerating climate change. 
etland Management District

etland Management District

etland Management District 

Huron WMadison WSand Lake W

Figure 3. Map of the Plains and Prairie Potholes Geographic Area. 

CHAPTER 1—Introduction 9
10 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

The Service expects that accelerating climate change 

will affect the Nation’s fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

in profound ways. While many species will continue 

to thrive, some may decline and in some instances go 

extinct. Others will survive in the wild only through 

direct and continuous intervention by resource managers. In 2009, the Service drafted a strategic plan to 

address climate change for the next 50 years. The draft 

strategic plan employs three key strategies: adaptation, mitigation, and engagement. In addition, the plan 

acknowledges that no single organization or agency 

can address climate change without allying itself with 

others in partnerships across the Nation and around 

the world (USFWS 2010). This draft strategic plan is 

an integral part of the Department of the Interior’s 

strategy for addressing climate change as expressed 

in Secretarial Order 3289 (DOI 2009). 

The Service will use the following guiding principles in responding to climate change (USFWS 2010): 

■■ Setting Priorities—Continually evaluate priorities 

and approaches, make difficult choices, take calculated risks, and adapt to climate change. 

■■ Partnership—Commit to a new spirit of coordination, collaboration, and interdependence with others. 

■■ Best Science—Reflect scientific excellence, professionalism, and integrity in all the Service’s work. 

■■ Landscape Conservation—Emphasize the conservation of habitats within sustainable landscapes, 

applying the Service’s strategic habitat conservation framework. 

■■ Technical Capacity—Assemble and use stateof-the-art technical capacity to meet the climate 

change challenge. 

■■ Global Approach—Be a leader in national and international efforts to meet the climate change challenge. 

1.6 Planning Process 

This CCP for the three South Dakota districts is intended to comply with the Improvement Act, NEPA, 

and the implementing regulations of the acts. The 

Service issued its Refuge System planning policy in 

2000. This policy established requirements and guidance for refuge and district plans—including CCPs 

and stepdown management plans—to ensure that 

planning efforts comply with the Improvement Act. 

The planning policy identified several steps of the 

CCP and environmental analysis process (figure 4). 

Figure 4. Steps in the planning process. 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 11 

The Service began the pre-planning process in April 

2008. The planning team consists of the project leaders of the three districts and many members of their 

staffs, as well as Regional Office personnel from the 

Divisions of Refuges and the Division of Realty (appendix C). During preplanning, the team developed 

a mailing list, internal issues, and a special qualities 

list. The planning team identified the status of current 

districts’ programs, compiled and analyzed relevant 

data, and determined the purposes of the districts. 

Table 1 summarizes the planning process to date. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Scoping is the process of obtaining information from 

the public for input into the planning process. 

Over the course of preplanning and scoping, the 

planning team collected available information about 

the resources of the districts and the surrounding areas. Chapter 3 summarizes this information. 

Chapter 4 of this CCP outlines long-term guidance 

for management decisions, sets forth proposed objectives and strategies to accomplish refuge purposes and 

meet goals, and identifies the Service’s best estimate 

of future needs. 

This CCP details program levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations 

and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning purposes. 

A notice of intent to prepare the draft CCP and EA 

was published in the Federal Register in July 2008. 

A mailing list of more than 600 names includes 

private citizens; local, regional, and State government representatives and legislators; other Federal 

agencies; and interested organizations (appendix D). 

Table 1. Planning process summary for the Huron, Madison, and Sand Lake WMDs CCP. 

Date Event	 Outcome 

April 23, 2008 Pre-CCP kickoff conference call between 

planning team leader and project leaders 

and staffers of the three WMDs. 

Planning team leader and district staff introduced. CCP/ 

EA planning steps reviewed and clarified. Staff’s CCPrelated training ascertained. Dates and sites for public 

scoping meetings discussed. 

May 2008 Identification of Native American tribes 

with possible aboriginal interests in the 

CCP planning area. 

Comprehensive list of federally recognized Native 

American tribal government contacts to invite to CCP 

developed. Invitation letters to participate in planning 

process drafted. Invitation letters to CCP drafted, reviewed, and surnamed. 

June 2008 Identification of SDGFP’s conservation 

officers in the CCP planning area. 

List of names of conservation officers to invite to participate in CCP process prepared. Invitation letter to 

the director of SDGFP to participate in CCP process 

drafted, reviewed, and surnamed. 

June 24–27, 2008 Meet and greet site visit with CCP planning members at their field stations. 

Traveled to all three district headquarters to meet informally with staffers to be part of the CCP planning 

team to answer CCP-related questions, decide on sites 

for public scoping meetings, and coordinate the development of CCP-related mailing list for entire planning area. 

July 3, 2008	 Mailing of invitation letters to the director of the SDGFP and Native American 

tribal governments with aboriginal interests in planning area to participate in 

CCP process. 

Ensured coordination with and information of State 

and tribal conservation partners identified in Refuge 

Improvement Act. Extended invitation to be part of 

CCP planning team. 

July 15, 2008 Kickoff meeting.	 Planning team composition and roles determined; issues 

and qualities summarized; biological and mapping needs 

identified; responsibilities and schedule agreed upon; 

public scoping planned. 

July 15–16, 2008 Purposes, vision, and goals workshop. Districts’ purposes revisited and understood. Vision 

statement and goals developed. 

August 2008 Public scoping planning.	 Scoping meeting schedules and formats finalized. 

September 1, 2008 Planning update 1.	 Planning update (describing CCP process), comment 

forms, announcing public scoping meetings, and postagepaid envelopes mailed. 

September 8, 2008 Public scoping meeting, Sioux Falls, 

South Dakota. 

Public opportunity offered (to learn about the CCP and 

provide comments). 
Table 1. Planning process summary for the Huron, Madison, and Sand Lake WMDs CCP. 

Date Event	 Outcome 

September 8, 2008 Public scoping meeting, Columbia, South Public opportunity offered (to learn about the CCP and 

Dakota. provide comments). 

September 8, 2008 Public scoping meeting, Highmore, South 

Dakota. 

Public opportunity offered (to learn about the CCP and 

provide comments). 

September 9, 2008 Public scoping meeting, Roscoe, South 

Dakota. 

Public opportunity offered (to learn about the CCP and 

provide comments). 

September 10, 2008 Public scoping meeting, Madison, South 

Dakota. 

Public opportunity offered (to learn about the CCP and 

provide comments). 

September 10, 2008 Public scoping meeting, Huron, South 

Dakota. 

Public opportunity offered (to learn about the CCP and 

provide comments). 

September 11, 2008 Public scoping meeting, DeSmet, South 

Dakota. 

Public opportunity offered (to learn about the CCP and 

provide comments). 

September 12–19, 

2008 

Public scoping comments. All public comments to date compiled, summarized, and 

categorized to be addressed. 

October 15–17, 2008 Alternatives and environmental consequences workshop. Range of management alternatives drafted and a preferred one chosen based on careful analysis of its environmental consequences. 

January 21–23, 2009 Objectives, strategies, and rationales 

workshop. 

Objectives, strategies, and rationales for the proposed 

action begin to be drafted. 

February 2009 Draft CCP and EA preparation. First draft of the CCP and EA being prepared. 

March–September 

2009 

Draft CCP and EA preparation tempo-	

rarily halted.	 

Draft CCP and EA preparation halted due to planning 

team members participation in the emergency response 

to severe flooding event in the Dakotas and subsequent 

field season work. 

September–December 

2009 

Draft CCP and EA data gathering 

continued. 

Draft CCP and EA preparation continues with gathering of biological data in preparation of proposed prioritization system of management. 

February– April 2010	 Planning process on hold due to planning 

team members’ participation in northeastern South Dakota flooding containment events 

Preparation of draft CCP and EA temporarily stopped 

to deal with emergency situation. 

July–December 

2010 

Draft CCP and EA data gathering 

continued. 

Draft CCP and EA preparation continues with gathering of biological data in preparation of proposed prioritization system of management. 

January–February 

2011 

Draft CCP and EA preparation and 

finalization. 

Internal review draft CCP and EA preparation ends. 

March 2011 Planning team reviews the draft CCP 

and EA. 

First draft of the CCP and EA reviewed and commented 

on by planning team. 

April 2011 Internal Service review of the draft CCP 

and EA. 

Draft CCP and EA reviewed and commented on by the 

Service’s regional office staff, planning team, and others. 

May 2011 Preparation of public draft CCP and EA. Planning team makes final edits to and prints draft CCP 

and EA for public distribution. 

September 2011 Public review of and public meetings on 

draft CCP and EA. 

Draft CCP and EA presented; public comments collected and compiled. 

October 2011 Planning team review of public comments. Public comments considered; changes recommended. 

December 2011 Editing of draft CCP/EA and preparation of final CCP. 

Responses to public comments and necessary changes 

incorporated into the final CCP. 

January 2012 CCP approval, publication, distribution, 

and implementation. 

Final CCP approved by the Service’s Regional Director 

and districts’ staff begin implementing. 

12 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 13 

In September 2008, the first planning update was 

sent to everyone on the mailing list. Information was 

provided on the history of the districts and the CCP 

process, the draft vision and goals for the districts, and 

an invitation to and details of the eight public scoping 

meetings. Each planning update included a comment 

form and postage-paid envelope to give the public an 

opportunity to provide written comments. 

The local media also announced the public meetings. The Service held eight public scoping meetings 

during four consecutive days. (See table 1 for details). 

After a presentation about the districts, along with 

an overview of the CCP and NEPA process, attendees 

at the open house–style meetings were encouraged to 

ask questions and offer comments. Each attendee was 

given a comment form to submit additional thoughts 

or questions in writing. 

All written comments were due by October 15, 

2008. All comments received throughout the scoping 

process (obtained from meetings and correspondence, 

including emails) were considered in development of 

the draft CCP and EA. 

STATE COORDINATION 

In July 2008, an invitation letter to participate in 

the CCP process was sent by the Service’s Region 

6 Director to the director of SDGFP. Local SDGFP 

conservation officers and district staff maintain excellent and ongoing working relations that antedate the 

start of the CCP process. 

SDGFP is responsible for managing natural resource 

lands owned by the State, in addition to enforcement 

responsibilities for the State’s migratory birds and 

endangered species. 

TRIBAL COORDINATION 

In June 2008, 14 Native American tribal governments 

were identified by the Service as having possible aboriginal interest in the planning area. In early July 

2008, letters of invitation to participate in the CCP 

development process were signed by the Service’s 

Region 6 director and sent to the Cheyenne River 

Sioux Tribe, the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, the Flandreau 

Santee Sioux Tribe, the Fort Peck Assiniboine and 

Sioux Tribes, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, the Lower 

Sioux Indian Community, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, the 

Prairie Island Indian Community, the Rosebud Sioux 

Tribe, the Santee Sioux Tribe, the Sisseton-Wahpeton 

Oyate Tribe, the Spirit Lake Tribe, the Standing Rock 

Sioux Tribe, and the Upper Sioux Community. With 

information about the upcoming CCP, the letter invited tribal recipients to serve on the planning team. 

The Service received two inquiries from among the 

14 tribal governments identified and invited. After 

receiving clarification on the CCP, the chairs of these 

tribal governments wished to continue receiving 

correspondence, but felt the planning area would not 

be of interest to tribal members. 

RESULTS OF SCOPING 

Comments collected from the scoping meetings and 

correspondence, including comment forms and emails, 

were used in the development of a final list of issues 

that were addressed in the draft CCP and EA. 

The Service determined which alternatives could 

best address these issues. The planning process ensures that issues with the greatest effect on the districts are resolved or given priority over the life of 

the final CCP. Identified issues, along with a discussion 

of effects on resources, are summarized in chapter 2. 

In addition, the Service considered suggested 

changes to current management of the districts presented by the public and other groups. 

DRAFT PLAN 

The Service considered all input during development 

of the draft CCP and EA. This included changes to the 

districts’ current management that were suggested 

by the public, partners, and other groups. The planning process ensures that issues with the greatest 

effect on the districts are resolved or given priority. 

After scoping and detailed analysis, the planning 

team developed three management alternatives that 

best addressed the issues. The Service identified alternative B as the proposed action. 

In September 2011, the Service published a notice 

of availability announcing that the draft CCP and EA 

document was available for a 30-day public review 

period. A summary of written comments gathered 

during the review period, along with the Service’s 

responses, is in appendix D. 

FINAL PLAN 

After an analysis of the public comments, the Service’s 

region Region 6 Director selected alternative B as 

the preferred alternative. Subsequently, the planning 

team produced this final CCP, based on the draft CCP 

with minor changes. The biological evaluation for the 

final CCP determined that there would likely be no 

adverse effect on threatened or endangered species 

or critical habitats as a result of the actions of the 

CCP (appendix E). 

The Regional Director approved the final CCP in 

January 2012 after a finding of no significant impact 

(appendix F). 

“Chapter 4—Management Direction” outlines the 

long-term guidance for management decisions; sets 

forth objectives and strategies to accomplish district 

purposes and meet goals; and identifies the Service’s 

best estimate of future needs. The CCP details program levels that are sometimes substantially above 

current budget allocations and, consequently, are primarily for Service strategic planning purposes. 

CHAPTER 2— The Districts
 

Wildlife protection is a priority of district management. 

USFWS 

Every unit of the Refuge System has a purpose for 

which it was established. This purpose is the foundation upon which all programs are built, from biology 

and public use to maintenance and facilities. No action that the Service or the public takes may conflict 

with this purpose. The goals, objectives, and strategies identified in this CCP are intended to support 

the purposes for which each district was established. 

A wetland management district provides oversight 

for all of the Service’s small land tracts in a multicounty 

area. The three districts manage 445 WPAs (100,094 

acres) and more than 1 million acres of conservation 

easements in 25 counties in South Dakota. These district lands (totaling 1,136,965 acres) are part of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, a network of lands 

set aside to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitat. 

The Service purchases WPAs with funds generated from the sale of Federal Duck Stamps to protect 

and restore waterfowl habitat. These areas are managed primarily for the production of migratory birds. 

Conservation easements, also purchased using Duck 

Stamp funds, are on private lands where landowners 

have sold some of their property rights to the Service 

for protection and restoration of wildlife habitat. 

This chapter describes the history, special values, 

purposes, vision, goals, and planning issues for the 

three South Dakota districts. 

2.1 Establishment, 

Acquisition, and 

Management History 

The Huron, Madison, and Sand Lake WMDs were 

established with the major objectives of wetland 

preservation, waterfowl and wildlife production, and 

maintenance of breeding grounds for migratory birds. 

The districts also provide a northern staging area and 

habitat for migration. 

HABITAT PROTECTION 

The Service manages the WPAs for the benefit of 

waterfowl, other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and resident wildlife. The districts 

protect habitat primarily with two tools—WPAs and 

conservation easements—briefly described below. 

■■ WPAs are public lands purchased by the Federal 

Government for increasing the production of migratory birds, especially waterfowl. The purchase 

of land is also known as “ownership in fee title,” 

where the Federal Government holds ownership 

of land on behalf of the American public. Money 

to buy WPA lands generally comes from the sale 
16 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Mallard drakes in flight. 

© Chris Bailey 

of Federal Duck Stamps. This important program 

was developed to ensure the long-term protection 

of waterfowl and other migratory bird breeding 

habitat, primarily in the Prairie Pothole Region of 

the northern Great Plains (figure 3). All WPAs are 

within districts managed by Service staff. WPAs 

are open to the public for hunting, fishing, bird 

watching, trapping, hiking, and most other nonmotorized and noncommercial outdoor recreation. 

(Recreational trapping has been authorized by 50 

CFR part 31.16.) 

■■ Conservation easements are acquired to protect 

migratory bird species habitat on private land. 

Typically used where acquisition in fee title is not 

desirable or needed, perpetual easements are bought 

from willing landowners within a wetland management district. Conservation easements have several 

advantages over the outright purchase of lands by 

the Service. First, they are more cost effective in 

terms of both initial purchase and long-term management responsibilities. While conservation easement contracts do require attentive enforcement to 

ensure their integrity, they do not carry the other 

burdens of ownership—for example, maintenance 

of facilities such as fences and signs, control of invasive plants, and mowing of ditches. Second, the 

operator owns and manages the land in much the 

same way as was done before the conservation 

easement purchase. The program was developed 

and carried out by managers, biologists, and realty 

specialists with an interest in protecting resources 

at the landscape scale while minimally affecting, 

and even complementing, other agricultural practices. A single-habitat conservation easement is 

often referred to as either a “wetland easement” 

or a “grassland easement.” Wetland easements 

generally prohibit draining, burning, and leveling. 

Grassland easements generally prohibit the cultivation of grassland habitat, while still permitting 

the landowner traditional grazing uses. 

The Service initially focused only on the protection of 

wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region. However, data 

also revealed the importance of upland grasslands to 

successful nesting of waterfowl. With the continued 

conversion of grassland to cropland and consistent 

declines in the populations of grassland-dependent 

birds, the need to protect adjacent grassland habitats 

became evident. Like a wetland easement, a grassland easement transfers limited perpetual rights to 

the Service for a one-time, lump-sum payment. The 

purpose of a grassland easement is to prevent the 

conversion of grassland to cropland while minimally 

restricting existing agricultural practices. More specifically, the purposes of the grassland easement are 

to improve the water quality of wetlands by reducing 

soil erosion and the use of chemicals and fertilizers on 

surrounding uplands; to improve upland nesting habitat for all ground-nesting birds, especially waterfowl, 

and enhance nesting success on private lands; to perpetuate grassland cover established by other Federal 

programs (for example, the Conservation Reserve 

Program [CRP]); and to provide an alternative to the 

purchase of uplands in fee title, thus maintaining lands 

in private ownership. Grassland easements restrict 

the landowner from altering the grass by digging, 

plowing, disking, or otherwise destroying the vegetative cover. Haying, mowing, and seed harvest are 

restricted until July 16 of each year. The landowner 

can graze without restriction. 

Wetland easements are administered similarly to 

grassland easements. These easements restrict the 

landowner from altering wetlands through draining, 

burning, or filling. When they are dry, the landowner 

can farm wetlands without restriction. Areas of wetland habitats supporting more than 25 duck pairs per 

square mile are eligible for the program. 

The Federal Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 

finances the acquisition of WPAs and conservation 

easements by providing the U.S. Department of the 

Interior (Department) with monies to acquire migratory 

bird habitat. The 1958 amendment to the Migratory 

Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck 

Stamp Act) (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 718) 

authorized the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program 

and provided for the acquisition of WPAs in addition 

to the previously authorized habitats. Receipts from 

the sale of Duck Stamps are used to acquire habitat 

under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(16 U.S.C. 715). The Service’s perpetual conservation 

easements are key components of the Small Wetlands 

Acquisition Program; these easements, together with 

WPAs, have contributed greatly to the conservation 

and maintenance of prairie-nesting migratory birds. 

The districts administer other conservation easements that were not acquired through the Small 

Wetlands Acquisition Program. The most common of 

these are Farmers Home Administration conservation 
CHAPTER 2—The Districts 17 

easements—also known as Rural Economic and 

Community Development easements, Farm Service 

Agency “Ag-Credit easements,” and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) conservation easements, depending on the status of the USDA program responsible 

for these properties at the time they were in Federal 

inventory. The 1985 Farm Bill Consolidated Farm and 

Rural Development Act was the initial authorization 

for Farmers Home Administration easements. The 

Farmers Home Administration was given authority 

to establish easements for conservation, recreation, 

and wildlife purposes on properties that were foreclosed on by the Federal Government (“inventory” 

properties), and the Service was designated easement 

manager for those easements worthy of inclusion into 

the Refuge System. 

Table 2. Grassland and wetland easements in the three districts. 

District County Purchase date Tract Number of acres Number of tracts Total acres 

First Grassland Easement Purchase 

Huron Sanborn 12/05/1990 188G 529.00 455 141,944.89 

Madison McCook 12/30/1991 191G 129.20 243 53,612.46 

Sand Lake Walworth 06/22/1990 83G 436.00 905 332,314.83 

Total 1,603 527,872.18 

First Wetland Easement Purchase 

Huron Hand 10/09/1963 11X 29.00 1,424 85,579.90 

Madison Deuel 01/18/1963 10X 31.00 1,573 55,218.10 

Sand Lake McPherson 07/20/1962 12X 242.00 3,497 231,761.16 

Total 6,494 372,559.16 

DISTRICT DESCRIPTIONS 

The three districts support all the waterfowl species 

that occur in the Prairie Pothole Region. The three 

districts manage more than 1.5 million acres within 

the 27-county planning area in South Dakota (for an 

accurate breakdown of these acres please see “Service 

Activities in South Dakota” in chapter 1). Each of the 

three districts is described below. 

HURON WMD 

The Huron WMD was established in 1992. The district 

was established encompassing lands that were previously under the management of both the Lake Andes 

and Sand Lake WMDs. This area was too far from the 

previous management offices to afford reliable and 

efficient management, resulting in minimal management of lands acquired prior to district establishment. 

Huron WMD encompasses eight counties—Beadle, 

Buffalo, Hand, Hughes, Hyde, Jerauld, Sanborn, and 

Sully—in east-central South Dakota, an area of approximately 6,869 square miles. In 2010, the district 

administered 62 WPAs totaling approximately 17,574 

acres, wetland easements totaling approximately 86,333 

acres, grassland easements totaling approximately 

145,205 acres, and conservation easements totaling 

approximately 10,100 acres (figure 5). Although at 

least one WPA is located in every county, the majority 

are currently in Beadle, Hand, and Jerauld Counties. 

Important features of Huron WMD include the 

following: 

■■ The district contains the smallest number of fee-title 

acres. Due to the smaller size of this district, staff 

has the ability to manage and monitor intensively. 

■■ The district is subject to the most rapid agricultural 

growth and development of the three districts; this 

growth is expected to continue. 

■■ The district presents opportunities to increase 

easement acres—meaning an opportunity to protect more native prairie. 

■■ Management focuses on restoration of native prairie with fire and grazing. 

■■ The Huron WMD is one of only three districts with 

an active Friends Group. 

Issues faced by Huron WMD include the following: 

■■ The location is challenging. Many hours of travel 

are required to manage and monitor district lands. 

■■ Significant conversion of grasslands to agriculture 

continues within the district. 

MADISON WMD 

The Madison WMD was established in 1969. It evolved 

from the withdrawal of four counties from Waubay 

WMD and five counties from Lake Andes WMD. 

Deuel, Brookings, Hamlin, Kingsbury, Miner, Moody, 

McCook, Lake, and Minnehaha Counties are included 

within the district, covering an area of 5,804 square 

miles. Minnehaha is the largest South Dakota county 

by population, with 148,281 inhabitants. The district 

extends west from the Minnesota border through the 

Big Sioux Basin and Prairie Coteau ecoregions (see discussion in chapter 4). Tallgrass prairie and agricultural 

lands comprise most of the district. As of January 2010, 

the Madison WMD administered 221 WPAs totaling 
18 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

approximately 38,778 acres, wetland easements totaling approximately 57,074 acres, grassland easements 

totaling approximately 72,263 acres, tallgrass prairie 

easements totaling approximately 11,006 acres, and 

Farmers Home Administration easements totaling 

approximately 6,500 acres (figure 6). 

Important characteristics of Madison WMD include the following: 

■■ The district consists primarily of tallgrass prairie 

(with some mixed-grass prairie). The district contains Prairie Coteau, James River Lowland, Big 

Sioux Basin, and Loess Prairies. 

■■ The district has the largest human population of 

the three South Dakota districts. 

■■ The district is home to many lakes and semipermanent or permanent wetlands. 

■■ The district contains the least amount of native 

prairie of the three districts. 

■■ Such notables as early pioneer artist Harvey Dunn 

and author Laura Ingalls Wilder of “Little House on 

the Prairie” are from this area. Wilder’s book, “On 

the Shores of Silver Lake,” was written about her 

childhood memories of life next to a beautiful prairie 

wetland that still attracts many visitors each year. 

Issues faced by Madison WMD include the following: 

■■ The largest human population leads to issues with 

encroaching urban development. 

■■ More lakes mean more people—meaning more jet 

skis and more wildlife disturbance. 

■■ Wetland drainage issues require more enforcement. 

Wetlands may be wet only about 50 percent of the 

time; people want to drain wetlands so that they 

can produce crops. 

■■ There is extensive agricultural tillage; native grass 

is diminishing at an alarming rate. 

SAND LAKE WMD 

The Sand Lake WMD was established in 1961. The 

largest district in the country, it originally encompassed 

11 counties—Brown, Spink, McPherson, Edmunds, 

Faulk, Campbell, Walworth, Potter, Corson, Dewey, 

and Sully—in north-central South Dakota, covering 

an area of approximately 12,000 square miles. In 1992, 

Sully County was transferred to the newly established 

Huron WMD. The current 10-county district extends 

west to the Missouri River and includes part of the 

James River Basin to the east. The western portion 

of the district is characterized by mixed-grass prairie. 

Transition prairie and agricultural lands characterize 

the eastern portion. In 2010, the district administered 

162 WPAs totaling approximately 43,742 acres, wetland easements totaling approximately 234,986 acres, 

grassland easements totaling approximately 398,589 

acres, and conservation easements totaling approximately 14,815 acres (figure 7). 

Important characteristics of Sand Lake WMD include the following: 

■■ The district extends from James River Lowland 

in the southeastern corner to the Missouri Plateau 

in the northwestern corner, with most of its fee 

title and easement lands in the Missouri Coteau 

and Drift Plains. 

■■ The district straddles the Missouri River and includes some easements west of the Missouri River. 

■■ Wetland drainage and tiling are not as great an issue as in other districts. 

Issues faced by Sand Lake WMD include the following: 

■■ The Sand Lake WMD is a very large entity, and it 

currently shares staff with the Sand Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge. This shared arrangement provides 

minimal operational staffing for the district. 

■■ Headquarters are at the Sand Lake refuge. This 

location is not ideal, because it is far from the majority of landholdings. 

■■ Controlling invasive plants is an ongoing effort 

for district staff. 

■■ Tillage is occurring at an accelerated rate. 

2.2 Special Values 

Early in the planning process, the planning team 

and public identified the outstanding qualities of the 

three districts. District qualities are the characteristics and features of each district that make it special, valuable for wildlife, and worthy of inclusion in 

the Refuge System. It was important to identify the 

special values of each district to recognize its worth 

and to ensure that the special values of the districts 

are preserved, protected, and enhanced through the 

planning process. District qualities can be distinct and 

important biological values, as well as simple values 

such as providing a quiet place to see a variety of birds 

and enjoy nature. 

The following summarizes the qualities that make 

the districts unique and valued: 

■■ The districts have a very high density of wetlands 

to support waterfowl and migratory birds. 

■■ Very large blocks of intact native prairie ecosystem 

are protected through the districts’ conservation 

easements and fee-title ownership. 

■■ The districts provide protected and managed wetlands and uplands for breeding and staging habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds during migration 

along the central flyway. 

■■ The districts provide diverse and abundant possibilities for public use. 

■■ The districts provide for quality environmental 

education. 
CHAPTER 2—The Districts 19
 

Figure 5. Service-managed lands in the Huron WMD. 
20 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Figure 6. Service-managed lands in the Madison WMD. 
CHAPTER 2—The Districts 21
 

Figure 7. Service-managed lands in the Sand Lake WMD. 

CHAPTER 2—The Districts 23 

2.3 Purposes
 

The districts were created to administer the Small 

Wetlands Acquisition Program to save wetlands from 

various threats—particularly drainage. By 1991, grassland easements were also being protected under this 

program. The main authorities in establishment of the 

program are briefly discussed below: 

■■ Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

Act (16 U.S.C. 718d[c])—“as waterfowl production 

areas subject to all provisions of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions.” The Duck Stamp Act provides 

for the conservation, protection, and propagation 

of native species of fish and wildlife, including migratory birds that are threatened with extinction. 

■■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715d[2])— 

“for any other management purposes, for migratory birds.” This act addresses the obligations of 

the United States under the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act through the following mechanisms: 

➤■Lessening the dangers threatening migratory 

game birds from drainage and other causes. 

➤■The acquisition of areas of land and water to 

furnish in perpetuity reservations for the adequate protection of such birds. 

➤■Authorizing appropriations for the establishment of such areas, their maintenance and improvement, and for other purposes. 

The purpose of the districts is “to assure the long-term 

viability of the breeding waterfowl population and 

production through the acquisition and management 

of waterfowl production areas, while considering the 

needs of other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife” (memorandum 

from Region 6 Assistant Regional Director Richard 

A. Coleman, December 2006). This purpose statement 

was developed for all Region 6 wetland management 

districts. Because the purposes and management 

capabilities and challenges are similar for the three 

districts, the Service has elected to address them collectively in this CCP. 

Western meadowlark singing. 

© Chris Bailey 

2.4 Vision 

At the beginning of the planning process, the Service 

developed a vision for the three districts. The vision 

is a concept that describes the essence of what the 

Service is trying to accomplish in the three districts. 

It is a future-oriented statement intended to be realized by the end of the 15-year CCP planning horizon. 

Clear blue skies frame spectacular views 

of grasslands and wetlands teeming with 

migratory waterfowl and other wildlife 

in the Huron, Madison, and Sand Lake 

Wetland Management Districts. Here, 

future generations will experience the 

whistle of the northern pintail, the song 

of the western meadowlark, and the 

distant boom of the prairie chicken. 

Located in the Prairie Pothole Region 

of South Dakota, these districts preserve 

timeless landscapes in the face of change. 

Conservation of these lands is achieved 

through hard work and the support of 

friends and neighbors who value natural 

places as an essential component of their 

quality of life. 

2.5 Goals 

The following goals have been developed to guide 

management decisions as they pertain to natural communities, uses, and management activities. 

NATIVE PRAIRIE 

Conserve, restore, and improve the biological integrity 

and ecological function of the native prairies to support 
24 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

healthy populations of native plants and wildlife and 

promote the natural role of fire and grazing in shaping and managing these landscapes. 

PLANTED GRASSLANDS 

Manage planted grasslands to contribute to the production and growth of continental waterfowl populations, 

other migratory birds, threatened and endangered 

species, and other wildlife. 

WETLANDS 

Protect, restore, and enhance prairie pothole wetlands 

to support diverse plant communities and provide 

habitat to waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and 

associated wetland-dependent wildlife. 

RESEARCH AND MONITORING 

Provide a learning platform that uses science, monitoring, applied research, and adaptive management to 

advance understanding of the Prairie Pothole Region 

and management of these areas. 

CONSUMPTIVE USES 

Provide visitors with quality opportunities to enjoy 

hunting, fishing, and trapping in waterfowl production areas and expand their knowledge and appreciation of the prairie landscape and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. 

NONCONSUMPTIVE USES 

Provide visitors with quality opportunities to enjoy, 

observe, photograph, and appreciate the prairie ecosystem while expanding their knowledge of and support for the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION 

Through effective communication and innovative 

partnerships, secure and efficiently utilize funding, 

staffing, and volunteer programs for the benefit of all 

natural resources in the districts. 

PARTNERSHIPS 

Promote and develop partnerships with landowners, 

public and private organizations, and other interested 

individuals to maintain, restore, and enhance a diverse 

and productive landscape in the Prairie Pothole Region. 

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND 

INTERPRETATION 

Provide quality educational opportunities for persons 

of all abilities to learn about, understand, and appreciate prairie landscapes and the role of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

Biologist Shilo Comeau on a wetland field visit. 

Bridgette Flanders-Wanner / USFWS 

2.6 Planning Issues 

Several key issues were identified through the analysis 

of comments collected from Service staff and the public 

and a review of the requirements of the Improvement 

Act and NEPA. Substantive comments (those that 

could be addressed within the authority and management capabilities of the Service) were considered 

during the formulation of the alternatives for future 

management. Summaries of these key issues are below. 

WETLAND AND UPLAND HABITATS 

All three districts have a primary purpose to provide 

optimal habitat conditions for the needs of a suite of 

waterfowl and other migratory birds and, to a lesser 

extent, native resident wildlife. Aggressive management of wetland and upland habitats must be conducted 

to achieve goals and objectives. Wetland and upland 

habitats need to be protected and enhanced through 

management. Habitat protection needs to be evaluated 

through a system of prioritization so that different approaches to protection—either fee-title acquisition or 

conservation easement—can be evaluated. 

INVASIVE PLANTS 

The districts include uplands that were previously 

farmed. Farmed uplands have since been restored 

to mixes of tame and native grasses. These areas are 

interspersed with native uplands, the bulk of which 

are largely dominated by native vegetation character 
CHAPTER 2—The Districts 25 

but are compromised by invading species. The primary invasive forbs are leafy spurge, Canada thistle, 

sow thistle, and absinth wormwood. Smooth brome, 

Kentucky bluegrass, and crested wheatgrass are primary invasive grass species. These nonnative forbs and 

grasses substantially degrade the quality and suitability of upland habitat for many native wildlife species. 

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT 

While the Service works to minimize the negative effects of energy development, the demand for energy is 

an increasing factor in habitat quality and preservation 

in the districts. The production of biofuels and wind 

energy has the potential to impact the effectiveness 

of many district programs. The Service supports research that helps to understand the effects on wildlife 

of renewable energy projects such as wind farms and 

the conversion of grassland to cropland for ethanol 

production. For example, the effects of wind turbines 

on birds remains a challenging matter to investigate. 

Through studies and analysis, the Service is currently 

evaluating wind turbines to determine their effects 

on wildlife. In addition, it is unknown if wind power 

will affect the potential for future habitat protection 

through conservation easements. 

District lands serve multiple purposes. 

USFWS anner / Bridgette Flanders-W

PRAIRIE CONVERSION 

Native prairie is suffering conversion to other uses at 

an alarming rate. Prairie is being converted for crop 

production, creating additional demand for irrigation 

water. Conservation groups should assume an active 

role, in partnership with the agricultural community, 

to protect the Federal Farm Bill and its conservation 

provisions, such as the CRP and the “Swampbuster” 

and “Sod Saver” provisions in the 1985 Farm Bill 

(amended 1990, 1996, 2002). 

PREDATOR MANAGEMENT 

Several species—particularly red fox, coyote, striped 

skunk, Franklin’s ground squirrel, mink, badger, and 

raccoon—occur at higher than historical levels due to 

modifications of habitat and other factors. These species can adversely affect—primarily by predation on 

nests of grassland-nesting bird species—waterfowl 

and other migratory bird populations. Such predation reduces the likelihood that the Service can attain wildlife population goals and objectives for the 

districts. Woody vegetation has a negative influence 

on grassland songbirds because it provides habitat for 

predators and attracts forest-edge bird species that 

may displace grassland species. 

Red foxes thrive in human-influenced environments. 

© Chris Bailey 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation 

are uses currently authorized on lands administered 
26 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

by the districts. A growing demand for public recreation in South Dakota and the nation makes these six 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses, as specified in 

the Improvement Act, an issue of primary interest. 

PARTNERSHIPS 

The Service puts a high priority on working in partnership with conservation and agricultural groups to 

support conservation programs such as Federal Farm 

Bill legislation, SDGFP projects, water quality and 

watershed projects, and private conservation efforts. 

OPERATIONS 

Funding and staff are not sufficient to fulfill the purposes and meet the goals of the districts. Identification 

of priorities and efficient direction of resources will 

always be an issue for the districts. The Service’s 

staff needs to identify and describe unfunded needs 

to be able to compete effectively for additional money 

from within the Service as well as from partners and 

other sources. District facilities need to be evaluated 

and upgraded. 

MONITORING AND RESEARCH 

Monitoring habitat and wildlife populations is an essential element in achieving the districts’ primary 

goals and objectives. Basic data about recruitment, 

mortality, and habitat use for a representative group 

of species must be collected and analyzed on a regular 

basis to make appropriate decisions for maintaining 

the viability of the habitats on which these species 

depend. Using the districts for field research could 

contribute valuable strides in development of new 

directions in management and expansion of the knowledge of field biologists. 
CHAPTER 3— District Resources 

and Description 

Grasslands in the Millerdale Waterfowl Production Area. 

Bridgette Flanders-Wanner / USFWS 

The three wetland management districts manage 

thousands of noncontiguous tracts of Federal land 

totaling 1,136,965 acres: 100,094 acres of WPAs and 

1,036,871 acres of conservation easements. This chapter describes the physical environment and biological 

resources of these district lands, as well as fire and 

grazing history, cultural resources, visitor services, 

socioeconomic environment, and district operations. 

3.1 Physical Environment 

The districts are located in central and eastern South 

Dakota from west of the Missouri River to the Minnesota 

state line, and from the North Dakota border roughly 

two-thirds of the way south to the state line of Nebraska. 

The prairies of South Dakota have become an ecological treasure of biological importance for waterfowl and other migratory birds. The prairie potholes 

of the Dakotas support a wide diversity of wildlife, 

but they are most famous for their role in waterfowl 

production. Although the Prairie Pothole Region occupies only 10 percent of North America’s waterfowl 

breeding range, it produces approximately 50 percent 

of the continent’s waterfowl population. Complexes of 

wetlands scattered throughout the three districts attract breeding duck pairs. While semipermanent and 

permanent wetlands provide brood-rearing habitat 

and migratory stopover habitat, respectively, it is the 

smaller temporary and seasonal wetlands that draw 

breeding duck pairs to South Dakota and other parts 

of the Prairie Pothole Region. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

In January 2001, the Department of the Interior issued Order 3226, requiring its Federal agencies with 

land management responsibilities to consider potential 

climate change effects as part of long-range planning 

endeavors. The U.S. Department of Energy’s report, 

“Carbon Sequestration Research and Development,” 

concluded that ecosystem protection is important to 

carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent loss 

of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. 

The report defines carbon sequestration as “the capture 

and secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be 

emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.” The increase 

of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the earth’s atmosphere has 

been linked to the gradual rise in surface temperature 

commonly referred to as “global warming.” 

In the context of comprehensive conservation planning for the districts, the strategies that manage and 

increase grassland vegetation contribute to the sequestration of carbon, constituting a primary climaterelated effect. Large, naturally occurring communities 

of plants and animals that occupy major landscapes 

(for example, grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, 

and desert) are effective both in preventing carbon 

emission and in acting as biological “scrubbers” of 

atmospheric CO2. 
28 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

One Service activity in particular—prescribed 

burning—releases CO2 directly to the atmosphere 

from the biomass consumed during combustion; yet 

it results in no net loss of carbon sequestration capacity because new vegetation quickly germinates and 

sprouts to replace the consumed biomass. This vegetation sequesters an approximately equal amount 

of carbon as was lost through the prescribed burning 

(Dai et al. 2006). 

Interestingly, the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA’s) 1998 publication, “Climate Change 

in South Dakota” (EPA 236-F-98-007x) directly addressed Service interests in the State: 

“Based on model projections, national wildlife refuges 

in South Dakota appear to be among the most vulnerable in the United States to changes in climate. The 

region’s national wildlife refuges and prairie pothole 

systems appear to be especially sensitive to changes 

in precipitation and temperature. Sixty percent of the 

annual variation in the number of these wetlands can 

be explained by year-to-year changes in temperature 

and precipitation. Smaller wetlands may be particularly vulnerable to climate change. Projections show 

that warmer annual temperatures affect wetlands by 

reducing open water and increasing vegetation cover, 

independent of precipitation. Rising temperatures, if 

continued for several years, may decrease breeding 

bird density and diversity in this critically important 

waterfowl habitat. Major additional threats to ecosystems include habitat loss and species extinction, 

increased fire frequency, and increased vulnerability 

to invasive plant and insect species.” 

The three wetland management districts, through 

the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program in South 

Dakota, contribute to the protection and sustenance 

of migratory and resident wildlife populations by restoring and conserving native grassland and wetland 

habitats throughout northeastern South Dakota. This 

preservation of grassland vegetation helps to sequester 

carbon and reduce the levels of greenhouse gases in 

the atmosphere. Such endeavors, together with other 

Service conservation efforts in South Dakota (such as 

the Dakota Grassland Land Protection Plan), as well 

as the creation of land conservation cooperatives by 

the Department, inevitably lead to the trapping of 

carbon that would otherwise combine with other atmospheric gases thought to be causing a greenhouse 

effect and consequently leading to possible accelerated climatic changes. 

CLIMATE 

South Dakota’s interior continental climate exhibits 

an extreme range of temperatures between summer 

and winter, common high winds, and cyclic wet/dry 

periods. Normal temperatures (1971–2000) vary surprisingly little between the northwest and southeast 

corners of the three-district area. January minimum 

temperatures average 3.4°F in Mobridge and 2.9°F in 

Sioux Falls, while July maximum temperatures average 85.4°F in Mobridge and 85.6°F in Sioux Falls. A 

bigger difference is evident comparing southwest to 

northeast. January minimum temperatures average 

7.7°F in Pierre versus –0.5°F in Clear Lake, while 

July maximum temperatures average 89.2°F in Pierre 

compared to 81.6°F in Clear Lake. The record low 

temperature in the three-district area was –48°F at 

Miller on January 12, 1912, while the record high was 

120°F at Gann Valley on July 5, 1936. 

Normal annual precipitation (1971–2000) averaged 

24.69 inches in Sioux Falls in the southeast, decreasing to 16.94 inches in Mobridge. Sioux Falls receives 

an average of 41 inches of snow per year. 

PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY, AND SOILS 

Physiography 

Because districts cover such a large geographic area, 

the physical environment and biological resources are 

described here in the context of level III and level IV 

physiographic regions (Bryce et al. 1996). Four physiographic regions (ecoregions) occur in the three-district 

area: Northwestern Glaciated Plains, Northwestern 

Great Plains, Northern Glaciated Plains, and Western 

Cornbelt Plains (figure 8). 

Level III ecoregions are distinguished by patterns 

of biotic and abiotic phenomena: vegetation, climate, 

soils, land use, wildlife use, and hydrology. Local biotic and abiotic factors are used to further subdivide 

the level III ecoregions into level IV ecoregions—the 

finest level in the hierarchy (Bryce et al. 1996). The 

descriptions below of the ecoregions that constitute 

the three-district area are adapted from “Ecoregions 

of North Dakota and South Dakota” (USGS 2006). 

Northwestern Glaciated Plains—Ecoregion 42 (Level III) 

Portions of the Huron and Sand Lake WMDs are in 

this ecoregion. The Northwestern Glaciated Plains 

ecoregion marks the westernmost extent of continental glaciation. The youthful morainal (ridges of rock 

debris at the margins of glaciers) landscape has significant surface irregularity and high concentrations 

of wetlands. The rise in elevation along the eastern 

boundary defines the beginning of the Great Plains. 

Land use is transitional between the intensive dryland farming in the level IV Drift Plains ecoregion to 

the east and the predominance of cattle ranching and 

farming in the Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion 

to the west. 

Missouri Coteau—Ecoregion 42a (Level IV) 

Like closely spaced ocean swells, the rolling mounds 

of the Missouri Coteau enclose countless wetland depressions, or potholes. During its slow retreat, the 

Wisconsinan glacier stalled at the Missouri escarpment for thousands of years, melting slowly beneath a 
CHAPTER 3—District Resources and Description 29 

Figure 8. Draft Level III and IV Ecoregions of South Dakota. 
30 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

mantle of sediment to create the characteristic pothole 

topography of the coteau. The wetlands of the Missouri 

Coteau and the neighboring Prairie Pothole Region 

contain the majority of the WPAs in North America. 

Land use on the coteau is a mixture of tilled agriculture in flatter areas and grazing on steeper slopes. 

Missouri Coteau Slope—Ecoregion 42c (Level IV) 

The Missouri Coteau Slope ecoregion declines in elevation from the Missouri Coteau ecoregion to the 

Missouri River. Unlike the Missouri Coteau ecoregion, 

where there are few streams, the Missouri Coteau 

Slope has a simple drainage pattern and fewer wetland depressions. Because of the level to gently rolling 

topography, the Missouri Coteau Slope supports more 

cropland than the Missouri Coteau ecoregion. Cattle 

graze on the steeper land along drainages. 

Southern Missouri Coteau—Ecoregion 42e (Level IV) 

The Southern Missouri Coteau ecoregion, on the 

southern fringe of continental glaciation, exhibits a 

muted coteau topography: gentle undulations rather 

than steep hummocks, smaller areas of high wetland 

density, and more stream erosion backcutting into areas of internal drainage. There is more tilled land on 

the Southern Missouri Coteau than on the Missouri 

Coteau because of its gentler topography. More soybeans and corn are planted on the Southern Missouri 

Coteau because of its milder climate and increased 

precipitation. 

Southern Missouri Coteau Slope—Ecoregion 42f 

(Level IV) 

The Southern Missouri Coteau Slope ecoregion differs from the Missouri Coteau Slope to the north; it 

has mesic rather than frigid soils and a substantial 

cap of rock-free loess. To the south, the coteau areas 

east of the Coteau Slope ecoregions become progressively narrower and more eroded. The level to rolling 

uplands of the Southern Missouri Coteau Slope are 

planted in sunflowers, wheat, millet, and barley. Corn 

is a marginal crop that does well in wet years. The 

stream drainages tend to be grazed. Willows, green 

ash, and elm grow in the riparian areas. 

Northwestern Great Plains—Ecoregion 43 (Level III) 

Roughly the western third of the Sand Lake WMD 

and small portions of the south-central Huron WMD 

are within this ecoregion. The Northwestern Great 

Plains ecoregion encompasses the Missouri Plateau 

section of the Great Plains. It is a semiarid rolling 

plain of shale, siltstone, and sandstone punctuated 

by occasional buttes and badlands. Native grasslands persist in areas of steep or broken topography, 

but they have been largely replaced by spring wheat 

and alfalfa over most of the ecoregion. Agriculture is 

limited by erratic precipitation patterns and limited 

opportunities for irrigation. 

Missouri Plateau—Ecoregion 43a (Level IV) 

The Missouri Plateau typifies the “wide open spaces” 

of the American West. The topography was largely 

unaffected by glaciations, retaining its original soils 

and complex stream drainage pattern. The historic 

shortgrass prairie is now a mosaic of wheat, alfalfa, 

and grazing land. 

River Breaks—Ecoregion 43c (Level IV) 

The River Breaks form broken terraces and uplands 

that descend to the Missouri River and its major 

tributaries. They have formed in soft, easily erodible 

strata such as Pierre shale. The dissected topography, 

wooded draws, and uncultivated areas provide a haven 

for wildlife. Riparian gallery forests of cottonwood and 

green ash persist along major tributaries such as the 

Grand, Moreau, Cheyenne, Bad, and White rivers, but 

such habitats have been largely eliminated along the 

Missouri River by impoundments. 

Subhumid Pierre Shale Plains—Ecoregion 43f (Level IV) 

Continues vegetative cover is essential to keep the 

soft, black shale soils intact. Tilling the hillsides risks 

wind and water erosion; stream channels are deeply 

incised and slumping is common along exposed banks. 

Moreau Prairie—Ecoregion 43j (Level IV) 

This ecoregion is characterized by occasional buttes, 

areas of badlands, and numerous salt pans. The soils 

tend to be alkaline, making the Moreau Prairie less 

agriculturally productive than surrounding areas 

(ecoregion 43a). Most of the region is grazed by cattle, 

sheep, and antelope. 

Northern Glaciated Plains—Ecoregion 46 (Level III) 

Portions of all three districts are in this ecoregion. 

Also commonly referred to as the Drift Prairie, this 

area was subject to scouring and deposition during 

prolonged glacial activity between 70,000 and 10,000 

years ago. A flat to gently rolling landscape of glacial 

drift characterizes the Northern Glaciated Plains 

ecoregion. The subhumid conditions foster a grassland transition between the tall- and mixed-grass 

prairies. High concentrations of temporary and seasonal wetlands create favorable conditions for duck 

nesting and migration. Although the tilled soil is very 

fertile, agricultural success is subject to annual climatic fluctuations. 

Glacial Lake Basins—Ecoregion 46c (Level IV) 

Lake Dakota once occupied the Glacial Lake Basins. 

Proglacial (adjacent to a glacier) lakes were formed 

when major stream or river drainages were blocked 

by glacial ice during the Pleistocene. The smooth topography of the Glacial Lake Basins, even flatter than 

the surrounding Drift Plains, resulted from the slow 

buildup of water-laid sediments. The level, deep soils 

in the lake plains are intensively cultivated with a 

prevalence of corn and soybeans. 
CHAPTER 3—District Resources and Description 31 

Glacial Lake Deltas—Ecoregion 46d (Level IV) 

The Glacial Lake Deltas were deposited by rivers 

entering glacial lake basins (see above). The heaviest 

sediments, mostly sand and fine gravel, formed delta 

fans at the river inlets. As the lake floors were exposed 

during withdrawal of the glacial ice, wind reworked 

the sand in some areas into dunes. In contrast to the 

highly productive, intensively tilled glacial lake plains, 

the dunes in the delta areas have a thin vegetative 

cover and a high risk for wind erosion. These areas 

are used mainly for grazing or irrigated agriculture. 

Drift Plains—Ecoregion 46i (Level IV) 

On the Drift Plains, the retreating Wisconsinan glaciers left a subtle, rolling topography and a thick 

mantle of glacial till (mixture of clay, sand, and rocks). 

A greater proportion of temporary and seasonal wetlands are found in the Drift Plains than in the coteau 

areas, where semipermanent wetlands are numerous. 

Because of the productive soil and level topography, 

this ecoregion is almost entirely cultivated, with many 

wetlands drained or simply tilled and planted. However, 

valuable waterfowl habitat still remains, concentrated 

in State- and federally sponsored duck production areas. The historical grassland in the Drift Plains was a 

transitional mix of tall- and mixed-grass prairie. The 

prairie grasses have been largely replaced by fields of 

spring wheat, barley, sunflowers, and alfalfa. 

Prairie Coteau—Ecoregion 46k (Level IV) 

The Prairie Coteau ecoregion, like the Missouri Coteau, 

is the result of stagnant glacial ice melting beneath 

a sediment layer. The tightly undulating, hummocky 

landscape has no drainage pattern; it is perforated 

with closely spaced semipermanent and seasonal wetlands. However, the Prairie Coteau differs from the 

Missouri Coteau in two ways. It supports a chain of 

large lakes that were formed where there was little 

ice shear, and its higher precipitation levels support 

widespread burr oak woodlands near wetland margins. 

Prairie Coteau Escarpment—Ecoregion 46l (Level IV) 

The Prairie Coteau Escarpment ecoregion, though 

small, is a distinctive ecosystem, rising 300–600 feet 

from the Minnesota River valley to the brow of the 

Prairie Coteau. The elevation, broken topography, and 

sufficient precipitation favor dense deciduous forest 

growth in riparian areas. Cool, perennial streams flow 

off the escarpment, providing habitats and oxygenated 

water not found elsewhere in eastern South Dakota. 

Big Sioux Basin—Ecoregion 46m (Level IV) 

The Big Sioux Basin is a trough penetrating the core 

of the Prairie Coteau. Its topography was affected 

by pre-Wisconsinan glaciation; later advances of the 

Wisconsin glacier diverged around the basin. In contrast to the neighboring Prairie Coteau, the basin has a 

well-developed drainage network. There is more tilled 

land in the Big Sioux basin due to the relative paucity 

of wetlands and the gentler topography. 

James River Lowland—Ecoregion 46n (Level IV) 

The boundary between the James River Lowland 

and the Drift Plains to the north is a broad phenological and climatic transition zone. The James River 

Lowland ecoregion is characterized by mesic soils, 

warmer temperatures, and a longer growing season 

than the Drift Plains. These differences are reflected 

in the crop types of the region. Winter wheat, corn, 

and soybeans are more prevalent in this ecoregion’s 

milder climate. 

Minnesota River Prairie—Ecoregion 46o (Level IV) 

This ecoregion is present only in the extreme northeast 

corner of the Madison WMD. Thick glacial drift composes the level terrain of the Minnesota River Prairie. 

Wetlands are common, though they are fewer and less 

persistent than those in the neighboring stagnation 

moraines. The desiccating winds and historic fire regime promoted the prairie ecosystem in this region; 

however, it is transitional to woodland that occurs to 

the north and east in Minnesota. Today, the original 

tallgrass prairie has been replaced by intensive agriculture for grain, corn, and soybeans. 

Western Corn Belt Plains—Ecoregion 47 (Level III) 

This ecoregion is present in the southeastern corner of 

the Madison WMD. Once covered with tallgrass prairie, more than 75 percent of the Western Corn Belt 

Plains is now used for cropland agriculture, and much 

of the remainder is in forage for livestock. A combination of nearly level to gently rolling glaciated till plains 

and hilly loess plains; an average annual precipitation 

of 25–35 inches, which occurs mainly in the growing 

season; and fertile, warm, moist soils make this one 

of the most productive areas of corn and soybeans in 

the world. Major environmental concerns in the region include surface and groundwater contamination 

from fertilizer and pesticide applications as well as 

from the effects of concentrated livestock production. 

Loess Prairies—Ecoregion 47a (Level IV) 

The Loess Prairies of Iowa and South Dakota surround the perimeter of the Des Moines lobe of the Late 

Wisconsinan glaciation. Of the two areas of this ecoregion in South Dakota, the northern is distinguished 

from neighboring regions by its rock-free soil and a 

paucity of wetlands. The southern area is more highly 

dissected, with deciduous woodland and brush on the 

steeper slopes and in the draws. 

Geography 

Much of the current topography reflects the sculpting of the land by continental ice sheets during the 

last major glaciation, the Wisconsin Glacial Episode. 

This episode, the most recent in a cycle of glacial advances and retreats over the last 1.5 million years, 
32 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

began approximately 110,000 years ago and ended 

about 12,000 years ago. The Wisconsin ice sheets covered large portions of Canada and much of the upper 

Midwest, including all of eastern South Dakota. The 

accumulation of hundreds of feet of ice caused the 

ice to slowly move under its own weight, collecting 

everything from fine sediments to large boulders on 

the retreating side and depositing them along the advancing edge. These erosional and depositional events 

created many of the elements that characterize the 

landscape of eastern South Dakota. 

The slow but constant movement of the glaciers 

scoured the broad river valleys, and the melting ice 

at the front of the glaciers carved many of the river 

channels that now flow through the area. The rolling 

hills that typify much of the region are also the result 

of thousands of years of glaciers repeatedly advancing and retreating, as are the thousands of shallow 

prairie pothole depressions that dot the region. These 

potholes are generally shallow wetlands that retain 

water for at least part of the year, although many have 

been drained in the last 75 years for use as agricultural fields. Most of the protected areas in the three 

districts are centered around or next to one or more 

of these potholes. 

Soils 

Three of the twelve dominant soil orders of the United 

States—mollisols, entisols, and vertisols—occur in 

eastern South Dakota. Mollisols cover more than 95 

percent of the landbase, with the other two orders occurring exclusively along the Missouri River. The following descriptions, adapted from “Soil Taxonomy—A 

Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and 

Interpreting Soil Surveys” (NRCS 1999), summarize 

the taxonomy of these orders and their suborders. 

■■ Mollisols commonly are the very dark colored, baserich, mineral soils of the steppes. Mollisols are extensive in subhumid to semiarid areas on the plains 

of North America and recognized as the dominant 

soil type in all three districts. Many of these soils 

developed under grass at some time, although 

many were apparently forested at an earlier time. 

Mollisols may have any of the defined temperature 

regimes but do not have permafrost. Mollisols can 

have any moisture regime, but enough available 

moisture to support perennial grasses seems to be 

essential. Where slopes are not too steep, Mollisols 

are used mainly for small grain in the drier regions 

and corn or soybeans in the warmer, humid regions. 

➤■Udolls are the more or less freely drained 

Mollisols of humid climates. In the United States, 

their vegetation at the time of settlement was 

dominantly a tallgrass prairie, but some of the 

soils on Pleistocene surfaces appear to have 

supported at some time a boreal forest that 

was supplanted by grasses several thousand 

years ago. Most of the Udolls are in the eastern part of the Great Plains or are east of the 

Great Plains. Udolls dominance is prevalent 

throughout eastern portions of Madison and 

Sand Lake WMDs. Where slopes are not too 

steep, nearly all of these soils are cultivated. 

Corn and soybeans are the major crops. 

➤■Ustolls are the more or less freely drained 

Mollisols of subhumid to semiarid climates. 

Rainfall occurs mainly during a growing season, often in heavy showers, but it is erratic. 

Drought is frequent and may be severe. During 

a drought, soil blowing becomes a problem. 

Ustolls are extensive soils on the western Great 

Plains in the United States and the dominant 

form in all three districts. Most of the Ustolls 

on the Great Plains in the United States had 

grass vegetation when the country was settled. 

The Aridic subgroups supported mostly short 

grasses, and the others supported mixtures of 

short and tall grasses. 

■■ The central concept of Entisols is that of soils that 

have little or no evidence of the development of 

pedogenic horizons. On many landscapes the soil 

material is not in place long enough for pedogenic 

processes to form distinctive horizons. Some of 

these soils are on steep, actively eroding slopes, and 

others are on flood plains or glacial outwash plains 

that receive new deposits of alluvium at frequent 

intervals. Entisols may have any mineral parent 

material, vegetation, age, or moisture regime and 

any temperature regime, but they do not have 

permafrost. The only features common to all soils 

of the order are the virtual absence of diagnostic 

horizons and the mineral nature of the soils. 

➤■Fluvents are mostly brownish to reddish soils 

that formed in recent water-deposited sediments, 

mainly on floodplains, fans, and deltas of rivers 

and small streams but not in backswamps where 

drainage is poor. Many Fluvents are frequently 

flooded unless they are protected by dams or 

levees. Stratification of the materials is normal. 

Most of the alluvial sediments are derived from 

eroding soils or streambanks and contain an 

appreciable amount of organic carbon, which 

is mainly in the clay fraction. 

➤■Orthents are primarily Entisols on recent erosional surfaces. The erosion may be geologic or 

may have been induced by cultivation, mining, 

or other factors. Any former soil that was on 

the landscape has been completely removed or 

so truncated that the diagnostic horizons for all 

other orders do not occur. Orthents occur in any 

climate and under any vegetation. 

■■ The central concept of Vertisols is that of clayey 

soils that have deep, wide cracks for some time 
CHAPTER 3—District Resources and Description 33 

during the year. They shrink when dry and swell 

when moistened. Before the advent of modern classification systems, these soils were already well 

known for their characteristic color, the cracks they 

produce during the dry season, and the difficulty of 

their engineering properties. These soils are generally sticky in the wet season and hard in the dry 

season, so they require special cultivation practices 

regardless of whether modern equipment or traditional implements, such as a hoe or bullock-drawn 

plow, are used. Shrink-swell processes in soils are 

related to the total content of clay, the content of 

fine clay, and mineralogy. Vertisols generally have 

a high clay content (50–70 percent) and a relatively 

large proportion of fine clay in the clay fraction. 

➤■Vertisols generally have gentle slopes, although a 

few are strongly sloping. The natural vegetation 

is predominantly grass, savanna, open forest, or 

desert shrub. Most Vertisols are well suited to 

mechanized farming if there is plenty of rainfall 

or irrigation water and if suitable management 

practices are followed. Large areas of Vertisols 

in the world are not farmed, however, because 

their cultivation would require too much energy, 

especially where traditional, low-input methods 

are used. This constraint is a major limiting land 

use characteristic of Vertisols. 

➤■Usterts are the Vertisols in temperate areas 

that do not receive high amounts of rainfall 

during the summer. Usterts are extensive in 

Texas, Montana, and western portions of South 

Dakota. They receive low amounts of rainfall 

during the summer, and cracks open and close 

once or twice during normal years. The native vegetation is mostly grasses and forbs. 

Usterts are used mainly as rangeland or cropland. Because the permeability of these soils is 

so slow, irrigation may result in waterlogging 

and a buildup of salinity. 

WATER RESOURCES 

The area encompassed by the three districts is drained 

by three rivers: the Big Sioux on the east, the James in 

the middle, and the Missouri on the west. The Big Sioux 

and the James are tributaries of the Missouri, flowing 

toward it from the north. The Big Sioux River is the 

only one of the three to originate in South Dakota; its 

headwaters are in the Madison WMD. It exits from the 

southeast corner of the district to form the southeastern 

boundary of South Dakota upstream of its confluence 

with the Missouri. The James has the flattest gradient of any river its length in North America. Water 

takes about 1 month to travel through South Dakota. 

The Missouri River is the largest river system in the 

United States. Near Pierre, it was impounded by the 

Oahe Dam in 1952 to create a storage facility of more 

than 23 million acre-feet. 

American white pelicans breed in freshwater areas in the 

interior of North America. 

© Chris Bailey 

Hydrology 

Wetlands exist because specific geologic conditions 

and hydrologic processes favor pooling of water or 

soil saturation. A unique combination of glaciation 

and climatic conditions in the Prairie Pothole Region 

has produced a large number of dynamic aquatic ecosystems that have a tendency neither to receive nor 

contribute to channelized surface flow. These basins 

have the potential to impound large volumes of water and undergo long-term, extreme changes in water 

depth and biotic conditions in response to climatic and 

seasonal trends. 

Prairie pothole wetlands are dynamic, relatively 

small, shallow basins that vary greatly in their ability 

to retain surface water, and in their water chemistry, 

which varies from fresh to hypersaline. In an area 

where annual and seasonal precipitation varies greatly 

in form and amount, these wetlands occur in a wide 

variety of hydrological settings. Consequently, the 

presence of surface water in these wetlands is largely 

unpredictable. Superimposed on these characteristics are the effects of a variety of land uses including 

pasture, cultivation, mechanical forage removal, idle 

conditions, and burning. All these factors exert profound influences on the plant and animal communities 

found in these basins (Kantrud et al. 1989). 

These wetlands, described as lacustrine basins and 

palustrine basins (wetlands that lack flowing water), 

have water regimes that include temporary, seasonal, 

and semipermanent flooding. Basins with these water 

regimes constitute about 90 percent of the basins in the 

Dakotas’ Prairie Pothole Region. Heavy spring rainfall and snowmelt followed by periods of low rainfall 

contribute to dynamic water level fluctuation throughout the region. Temporary and seasonal wetlands 

are typically smaller than semipermanent wetlands 

and generally contain water for only a portion of the 

year. In drought periods, these short-term wetlands 

may stay dry for as long as 10–20 years. Because they 
34 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

usually contain water in the spring when farmers are 

planting crops and dry during the summer, they are 

often looked upon as having no ecological value and 

are consequently drained (Leitch 1989). However, it is 

the small, shallow, and frequently dry characteristics 

that make these wetlands a preferred habitat for many 

species of wetland-dependent wildlife (Kantrud and 

Stewart 1984, Niemuth et al. 2006). Because they are 

among the earliest wetlands to warm in the spring and 

contain an abundance of flooded vegetation, these early 

wetlands provide an abundance of breeding and foraging 

habitat for wildlife and breeding duck pairs (Swanson 

and Duebbert 1989, van der Valk 2005). Abundance 

of temporary and seasonal wetlands throughout the 

Prairie Pothole Region is looked upon as one of the 

primary draws to the area for waterfowl. According to 

Ron Reynolds of the Service’s Habitat and Population 

Evaluation Team (HAPET), it is estimated that every 

ten 1-acre wetlands can predictably support 20 duck 

pairs; in contrast, one 10-acre wetland likely supports 

only seven duck pairs. The dense populations of aquatic 

invertebrates in these wetlands have evolved to adapt 

to annual and long-term changes in the water quality of these microhabitats; other hydrophilic species, 

such as fish, are precluded by the periods of desiccation from inhabiting these wetlands. 

Those aquatic features that are stable in depth 

typically support some fish species and rarely freeze 

to the bottom. The few deeper lakes, typically known 

as “kettle lakes,” were formed when subsurface glacial 

ice blocks were left as the glaciers retreated. When the 

ice blocks melted, the surrounding glacial debris collapsed, leaving distinctive, steep-sided lakes. Plant life 

and fish populations that normally fluctuate in Prairie 

Pothole Region wetlands are stable in this lake type. 

Cowardin et al. (1979) defines the wetland subsystems, 

classes, and subclasses that occur in these basins and 

provides a useful reference to their geology, climate, 

hydrology, and soils. 

The original density of wetlands in the Prairie 

Pothole Region is thought to have been about 80 wetlands per square mile before European settlement. 

Since that time, about 37 percent of South Dakota’s 

wetlands have been drained for agriculture or development, with 20,000 acres being lost each year in 

the Prairie Pothole Region (Dahl 2000). Because the 

Prairie Pothole Region is a major world supplier of 

cereal grains, wetlands in the region are often drained 

for crop production or otherwise cropped when water 

conditions permit. 

Water Quality 

Some wetland basins function as groundwater recharge areas; such basins tend to be temporarily or 

seasonally flooded. These basins hold water for only 

a few months each year, and the water is generally 

low in dissolved solids. Some basins are through-flow 

systems with respect to groundwater; that is, groundwater flows in through parts of their bed while other 

parts recharge groundwater. Through-flow basins 

hold water over longer periods, and the water tends 

to have higher concentrations of dissolved solids. Some 

basins serve only as discharge areas for groundwater. Lakes that receive discharge from both regional 

and local groundwater flow systems and do not lose 

water to seepage or surface outflow are highly saline 

(Kantrud et al. 1989). 

Human-related disturbance such as drainage and 

cultivation are the most extreme disturbances in most 

prairie wetlands in North and South Dakota. In some 

instances, fill (earth or rocks) or use for solid-waste 

disposal has destroyed the basins (Kantrud et al. 1989). 

Water Rights 

The western States tend to be semiarid to arid, while 

the eastern States are typically wetter. This change 

in precipitation patterns falls along the 100th meridian, and South Dakota offers a vivid snapshot of the 

differences between the western and eastern United 

States. Anyone driving across South Dakota can see a 

striking difference between the eastern and western 

parts of the State. 

Like other resources, water becomes more valuable 

as its availability decreases. Consequently, as is often 

the case where agriculture is an important component 

of the economic base, water rights assume tremendous 

importance. Thus, climate played a major role in shaping South Dakota’s water rights laws. 

South Dakota, like many of the Western States, 

needed a water management system that would equitably distribute often scarce water resources. In the 

eastern United States, where water is more plentiful, 

a riparian water use system developed. Under such a 

system, users have the right to make reasonable use of 

the water accessible to them. However, in the Western 

States, a system developed based on the “Doctrine of 

Prior Appropriation.” This prior appropriation system 

allows water users to construct works to move water over long distances to where the water is needed 

and provides for assignment of a water use priority 

date. “First in time, first in right” became a common 

identifier for this priority date–based system, since 

the most senior water right holders have first claim 

on any water available. Because of the considerable 

investment involved in constructing works to move 

water long distances, protecting that investment has 

been a priority since the advent of such projects. The 

doctrine of prior appropriation became the means to 

protect water users and continues to be South Dakota’s 

method of managing its water resources. 

In 1889 South Dakota became the 40th State, but the 

doctrine of prior appropriation actually predates South 

Dakota’s statehood. The Dakota territorial legislature 

enacted legislation in 1881 establishing a procedure 
CHAPTER 3—District Resources and Description 35 

to “locate” surface water rights. In 1955, legislation 

was enacted to make ground water, as well as surface 

water, subject to the doctrine of prior appropriation. 

In 1972 another important provision concerning 

management of ground water was added to the State’s 

water right laws. This provision prevents withdrawals 

of ground water in excess of the average estimated 

annual recharge to the ground water source. In other 

words, users cannot draw more water out of the aquifer 

than the average amount needed to refill the aquifer 

each year. This provision ensures that ground water 

supplies will be available in perpetuity to all domestic 

water users and everyone with a water right permit. 

Many Western States do not provide this protection, 

and ground water supplies are being depleted. 

Through the years many other changes to the water 

rights laws have been made to protect and improve 

management of water resources. However, even with 

these changes, the same underlying principles implemented at the beginning of the 20th century are still 

in place in the 21st century. 

The South Dakota Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources requires a water right license 

for every impoundment or wetland restoration having more than 25 acre-feet of storage. Individual licenses are detailed below. If the impounded storage 

is less than 25 acre-feet, a location notice is required. 

Location notices for all three districts are provided 

in appendix G. 

Huron WMD 

The Huron WMD holds four water licenses issued by 

the South Dakota Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources for impoundments of more than 25 

acre-feet at the primary spillway elevation. 

■■ Water Right License No. 5794–3 allows 560 acrefeet of water storage from runoff. The license also 

allows a sufficient amount of water to maintain the 

water level to the outlet elevation of 1,346 feet for 

fish and wildlife production purposes at Bauer WPA. 

The priority date is October 18, 1993. 

■■ Water Right License No. 6130–3 is a vested water 

right that allows storage of 11 acre-feet of water 

storage from Cain Creek and runoff. The license 

also allows a sufficient amount of water to maintain 

the water level to the outlet elevation of 1,288 feet 

for fish and wildlife propagation. The priority date 

is December 31, 1939. 

■■ Water Right License No. 6854–3 is for the Cowan 

Project in Hyde County. The permit allows 260 

acre-feet of water storage from runoff for fish and 

wildlife propagation as well as for stock water purposes. The priority date is March 30, 2007. 

■■ Water Right License No. 6855–3 is for the Harter 

Pond Project in Hyde County. The permit allows 

181 acre-feet of water storage from runoff for fish 

and wildlife propagation as well as stock water 

purposes. The priority date is March 30, 2007. 

Madison WMD 

The Madison WMD holds water right licenses for 

several WPAs and private property with Service 

Easements issued by the South Dakota Department 

of Environment and Natural Resources. 

■■ Water License No. 856–3 is a vested water right 

for Buffalo Lake WPA in Minnehaha County that 

allows 310 acre-feet of storage from runoff. It also 

allows a sufficient amount of water to maintain the 

water level to the outlet elevation of 1,648 feet for 

public recreation purposes. The priority date is 

November 2, 1889. 

■■ Water Right License No. 5707–3 increased the 

outlet elevation of Buffalo Lake to 1,650 feet, increasing the storage by 641 acre-feet to 951 acrefeet for fish and wildlife propagation purposes; it 

also allows maintenance of the water level at the 

new elevation. The priority date for the increased 

amount is September 2, 1992. 

■■ Water Right License No. 5961–3 allows 145 acrefeet of water storage plus 55 acre-feet of seasonal use at the North Unit of Minnehaha County 

Easement 92X, and 8 acre-feet of water storage 

plus 4 acre-feet of seasonal use at the South Unit 

for fish and wildlife purposes. The priority date is 

October 15, 1996. 

■■ Water Right License No. 5714–3 allows storage 

of 64 acre-feet plus 108 acre-feet of seasonal use 

at Hamlin County Easement 171X. Sufficient water also needs to be allowed to maintain the outlet elevation of 1,781.6 feet for fish and wildlife as 

well as stock water purposes. The priority date is 

September 28, 1992. 

■■ Water Right License No. 6369–3 allows storage of 

82.12 acre-feet at Hamlin County Easement 190X 

for fish and wildlife purposes. The priority date is 

October 25, 2002. 

■■ Water Right License No. 6279–3 allows storage of 

110 acre-feet of water at Moody County Easement 

70X for fish and wildlife purposes. It also allows sufficient water to maintain the outlet elevation at its 

fullest capacity. The priority date is August 9, 2001. 

■■ Water Right License No. 5945–3 allows storage of 

477 acre-feet of water plus 1,078 acre-feet of seasonal use at Dry Lake WPA in Brookings County 

to maintain the outlet elevation of 1,721 feet for 

fish and wildlife purposes. The priority date is 

June 24, 1996. 

■■ Water Right License No. 5882–3 allows storage of 

37.1 acre-feet of water plus 33.9 acre-feet seasonal 

use at Eriksrud WPA to maintain the outlet elevation of 1,749.5 feet for fish and wildlife purposes. 

The priority date is August 30, 1995. 
36 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Table 3. Prairie decline in South Dakota. 

Prairie type Historical area (acres) Present area (acres) Percent decline 

Mixed-grass 3,954,000 1,186,000 70 

Tallgrass 6,425,000 42,420 99 

Source: USGS, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 

■■ Water Right License No. 5855–3 allows storage of 

49.5 acre-feet of water plus 54 acre-feet of seasonal 

use at Dry Lake WPA to maintain the outlet elevation of 1,736 for fish and wildlife purposes. The 

priority date is March 13, 1995. 

■■ Water Right License No. 5531–3 allows storage of 

106.3 acre-feet of water plus 93.4 acre-feet of seasonal use at Pickering WPA to maintain the outlet 

elevation of 1,717 feet for fish and wildlife purposes. 

The priority date is March 29, 1991. 

■■ Water Right License No. 5432–3 allows storage 

of 125 acre-feet of water plus 65 acre-feet of seasonal use at Kingsbury County Easement 429X 

to maintain the outlet elevation of 1,703.5 feet for 

fish and wildlife purposes. The priority date is 

February 27, 1990. 

■■ Water Right License No. 5938–3 allows storage of 

85 acre-feet of water plus 201 acre-feet of seasonal 

use at Kingsbury County Easement 434X to maintain the outlet elevation of 1,693 feet for fish and 

wildlife purposes. The priority date is May 23, 1996. 

■■ Water Right License No. 5224–3 allows storage of 

257 acre-feet of water at Eilen WPA for fish and 

wildlife purposes. The priority date is August 24, 

1988. 

Sand Lake WMD 

■■ The Sand Lake WMD holds two water licenses issued 

by the South Dakota Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources for impoundments of more 

than 25 acre feet at the primary spillway elevation. 

■■ Water License No. 6052–3 is a vested water right 

that allows 267 acre-feet of storage from runoff and 

Dove Creek. It also allows a sufficient amount of 

water to maintain the water level to the spillway 

elevation of the dam to provide habitat for fish and 

wildlife propagation at Zell Lake WPA. The priority date is January 1, 1936. 

■■ Water License No. 5472–3 allows local water runoff 

to be stored up to 60 acre-feet plus 110 acre-feet 

of seasonal use for fish and wildlife production on 

Spink County WPA. The priority date is September 

11, 1990. 

AIR QUALITY 

Air quality is regulated pursuant to several provisions 

of the Clean Air Act, including the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration program. The NAAQS establish maximum allowable pollution levels for “criteria 

pollutants”: particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, 

nitrogen dioxide, lead, and carbon dioxide. 

South Dakota, a generally rural State, is one of 

only a handful of States that meets all the NAAQS, 

or is “in attainment.” Attainment status is based on 

data collected through an ambient air monitoring network, comprising various sites throughout the State. 

Although the data are not collected on a county-bycounty basis, data collected in one county is representative of other, similar areas. Despite the operation of 

energy facilities along South Dakota’s eastern edge 

of the State, the State boasts some of the cleanest air 

in the nation. 

Prescribed burning and wildfires are the two 

events with the greatest effect on air quality. These 

activities produce numerous gases, including CO2 and 

H2O as well as particulate matter. Wildfires are generally exempt from provisions of the Clean Air Act 

because they are unplanned events. Prescribed fires 

are planned activities and must therefore comply with 

the Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

requirements. Planning for the use of prescribed fire 

incorporates management of smoke. The Service will 

work with the State of South Dakota Department of 

Environmental and Natural Resources in meeting the 

SIP for smoke management and will follow any smoke 

permitting process. The Service identifies sensitive 

areas and takes precautions to safeguard visitors and 

local residents. Smoke dispersal is a consideration in 

determining whether a controlled burn is within prescription. Generally, the fine-grass fuels and small burn 

size (80–600 acres) generate low volumes of smoke for 

short durations (4–5 hours). 

3.2 Biological Resources 

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES 

Prairie habitats in South Dakota and throughout the 

Great Plains have been gaining public interest over the 

last few years as more people become aware of their 

decline (table 3). Before the 1870s, prairies covered 

more than a third of the United States and almost all 

of South Dakota. What was once a mosaic of grasses 

and forbs (flowering plants) where bison roamed is now 
CHAPTER 3—District Resources and Description 37 

predominantly agricultural land. With the arrival of 

increasing numbers of settlers in the late 1800s, the 

landscape started to change and continued to change 

at such a rate that now only one-half of one percent 

of historic prairie habitats in the United States remain. The historical distribution of prairie zones in 

the three-district area is shown in figure 9. 

In addition to its importance to wildlife, prairie is 

crucial for soil and water conservation. Prairie provides 

a reminder of the nation’s rural and pioneer heritage; 

it provides recreational activities such as hunting, hiking, and bird watching; and it offers living laboratories 

for scientific research. Prairie also provides economic 

benefits through cattle grazing, haying, and native seed 

harvesting. When prairie is lost, the nation’s natural 

heritage is lost along with a valuable resource (North 

Dakota Parks and Recreation Department, no date). 

Figure 9. Distribution of vegetation communities in the three districts, South Dakota. 

Mixed-Grass Prairie 

Mixed-grass prairie is one of the largest ecosystems in 

North America, with significant areas preserved for 

natural values in national wildlife refuges, WPAs, State 

game management areas, and nature preserves (Johnson 

2006a). The dominant grass species in the mixed-grass 

prairie are prairie Junegrass, little bluestem, needle 

and thread, blue grama, green needlegrass, porcupine 

grass, prairie cordgrass, northern reedgrass, plains 

muhly, western wheatgrass, and Kentucky bluegrass 

(NDGF 2005). The short- and tallgrass prairies intergrade just east of an irregular line that runs from northern Texas through Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska, 

and then northwest into west-central South Dakota 

and North Dakota. The perimeter is not well defined 

because of the array of short-stature, intermediate, 

and tallgrass species that make up an ecotone between 

the short- and tallgrass prairies (Bragg and Steuter 

1996). In general, mixed-grass prairie is characterized 

by the warm-season grasses of the shortgrass prairie 

to the west and the cool- and warm-season grasses 

(which grow much taller) to the east. Because of this 

ecotonal mixing, the number of plant species found 

in mixed-grass prairies exceeds that in other prairie 

types. Estimated declines in the areal extent of native 

mixed-grass prairie range from 30.5 percent in Texas 

to more than 99.9 percent in Manitoba (Austin 1998). 

Mixed-grass prairie in the three-district area is 

closely associated with the Northwestern Glaciated 

Plains (ecoregion 42). The hummocky, rolling hills of 

the Missouri Coteau rise dramatically 150–500 feet 
38 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

above the Drift Plains (ecoregion 46i) and James River 

Lowlands (ecoregions 46n) to the east. Here, the mixedgrass prairie community supports a high concentration 

of wetlands—roughly 800,000 basin acres. Alkaline 

lakes are also more prevalent here. Streams and rivers are nearly absent, as are upland deciduous forests. 

A considerable amount of native prairie remains, and 

this area is used primarily for cattle grazing. Areas 

of reduced slope have been converted to cropland for 

small grains, sunflowers, corn, and alfalfa. The mixedgrass prairie of the Missouri Coteau (ecoregion 42a) 

is known for supporting some of the highest numbers 

of breeding ducks in North America. Due to the large 

amount of grassland and wetland that remains or has 

been restored, this area is especially crucial to many 

other grassland-endemic species. Much of the Coteau 

is classified as “good” to “outstanding” for wind energy potential, the development of which could lead to 

habitat fragmentation. Irrigation and new advances 

in agricultural production, such as no-till farming in 

combination with Roundup-Ready corn and soybeans, 

makes farming of native prairie possible even where 

it was previously impractical due to rugged terrain. 

A male bobolink surveys its grassland habitat. 

© Chris Bailey

A sora forages in wetland habitat. 

© Chris Bailey 

Transition Prairie 

Transition prairie is found between the more xeric 

mixed-grass prairie and the mesic tallgrass prairie. 

Transition prairie is characterized by western wheatgrass, big bluestem, and needlegrasses, representing a 

mix of influences from both tallgrass and mixed-grass 

prairies. Transition prairie in the three-district area is 

closely associated with the Drift Plains, James River 

Lowlands, Glacial Lake Basins, and Glacial Lake Deltas 

(ecoregions 46i, 46n, 46c, and 46d, respectively). 

Grass species that dominate the tallgrass prairie 

continue to be present in transition prairie. However, 

the vegetation is reduced in height, becomes less dense, 

and takes on a distinctly more xeric impress. More mesic species do not extend as far up the slopes. These 

changes result from gradually increasing unfavorable 

water relations as the vegetation of true gives way to 

that of mixed-grass prairie. Big bluestem and switchgrass are much less widely distributed, indicating less 

favorable conditions for growth. 

Tallgrass Prairie 

Tallgrass prairie is the wettest of the grassland types 

and is largely characterized by sod-forming bunchgrasses. Like other grasslands, species composition 

of tallgrass prairie varies geographically (Sims 1988). 

Grassland groupings of the tallgrass prairie are (1) 

bluestem prairie from southern Manitoba through 

eastern North Dakota and western Minnesota south 

to eastern Oklahoma, and (2) wheatgrass, bluestem, 

and needlegrass prairie from south-central Canada 

through east-central North Dakota and South Dakota 

to southern Nebraska. The dominant grass species in 

these areas are big bluestem, little bluestem, switchgrass, Indiangrass, prairie dropseed, slender wheatgrass, porcupine grass, mat muhly, fescue sedge, and 

meadow sedge. 

Since 1830, there have been estimated declines of 

82.6–99 percent in tallgrass prairie in specific States 

and provinces. These declines exceed those reported 

for any other major ecological community in North 

America (Samson et al. 1998). Less than 15 percent 

of the tallgrass prairie in South Dakota remains intact, and the nationwide rate is no better (Samson and 

Knopf 1994). No other major ecosystem on the North 

American continent has been so fully altered by human activities (Domek 1998). 

Prairie landscapes are shaped by disturbance 

regimes such as drought, fire, and grazing. Prior to 

European settlement, the agents of those regimes were 

wildland fire and bison. Fire probably played a larger 

role than did bison in shaping the mosaic of vegetation communities. Fire swept through the area every 

3–5 years, burning plant material, recycling nutrients 

into the soil, and stimulating diverse, healthy plant 

growth (Domek 1998). Tallgrass prairie and associated 

wetlands in the three-district area were historically 
CHAPTER 3—District Resources and Description 39 

found predominantly in the eastern portion of South 

Dakota. By the 20th century, much of the tallgrass 

prairie had been converted to farmland; few tracts of 

native vegetation remain. Farmland with woodlots 

and shelterbelt plantings is now prevalent. 

Wetland Habitat 

A wide variety of aquatic plants occur in prairie wetlands. However, the vegetative communities of prairie 

wetlands are determined by the fluctuating hydrologic 

regime, which creates a wet-dry cycle in wetlands 

(Kantrud et al. 1989). As wetlands pass through the four 

stages of the wet-dry cycle—dry marsh, regenerating 

marsh, lake marsh, and degenerating marsh—various 

environmental conditions cause specific vegetation 

expression to occur. Each stage is determined by the 

amount of water present, ranging from drought to full 

pool conditions. As the wetlands cycle through these 

stages, a variety of diverse aquatic plant life expresses 

due to the environmental factors triggering germination in the seed bank. Different aquatic plants occur 

at the various stages of the wetland cycle. 

Several basic zones in prairie wetlands—wet 

meadow, shallow marsh, deep marsh, open water, and 

alkali—also affect the species of aquatic plants that 

are expressed. Wet meadow is the transition of upland into wetland and is characterized by grasses, fine 

sedges, and forbs. Shallow marsh is characterized by 

mid-height grasses and coarse sedges. Deep marsh is 

characterized by tall coarse herbaceous plants (such as 

cattail and bulrush species). The open water zone can 

be occupied by submergent or floating aquatic plants. 

Alkali zones are often devoid of vegetation or contain 

salt-tolerant species such as widgeongrass. 

Most of South Dakota’s wetlands are prairie potholes, which provide nesting and feeding habitat for 

migratory waterfowl and wading birds. About one-half 

the nation’s duck population originates in the Prairie 

Pothole Region of South Dakota and other prairie 

States. Prairie potholes, or sloughs, are water-holding depressions of glacial origin that occur in 300,000 

square miles of prairies in north-central United States 

and south-central Canada. These potholes provide the 

most productive wetland habitat for waterfowl in North 

America. Although comprising only 10 percent of the 

continental waterfowl breeding, the Prairie Pothole 

Region produces about 50 percent of the duck crop 

in an average year and much more in bumper years. 

Potholes also furnish water for other wildlife and livestock (USGS 2007). 

Canada thistle is a widespread invasive plant species on district lands. 

Mason Sieges / USFWS 

INVASIVE PLANTS 

The South Dakota Weed and Pest Control Commission 

has designated certain weeds as noxious because of 

their difficulty to control and the costs associated 

with the loss of agricultural production (table 4). All 

the State-listed noxious weeds were introduced from 

other ecosystems and have flourished in the absence 

of natural controls. Control of State-listed noxious 

weeds—whether chemical, mechanical, biological, 

or fire—is a priority for the Service. However, many 

other invasive plants also threaten wildlife habitat 

and interfere with the Service’s management objectives. Weeds may be designated as locally noxious 
40 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Table 4. State-listed and local noxious weeds and their distribution in the South Dakota wetland. 

State noxious weeds Scientific name Distribution by county 

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Widespread 

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula Widespread 

Perennial sow thistle Sonchus arvensis Widespread 

Hoary cress Cardaria draba Hand, Hyde, Minnehaha 

Russian knapweed Centaurea repens Jerauld, Minnehaha, Spink 

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Edmunds, Lake, Minnehaha, Sanborn, Spink 

Saltcedar Tamarix aphylla, T. chinensis, T. gallica, 

T. parviflora and T. ramosissima 

Edmunds, Faulk, Spink 

Local noxious weeds Scientific name Distribution by county 

Absinth wormwood Artemisia absinthium Widespread 

Musk thistle Carduus nutans Widespread 

Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthoides Widespread 

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare McCook 

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Beadle, Buffalo, Campbell, Edmunds, Hamlin, Hughes, 

Kingsbury, Lake, McPherson, Potter, Sanborn 

Common mullein Verbascum thapsus Beadle, Hyde 

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris Brown, Deuel, Edmunds, Hyde, Lake, McPherson, 

Moody 

Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale Hyde 

upon request from counties and with approval from 

the South Dakota Weed and Pest Control Commission. 

Local noxious weeds have the following characteristics: 

■■ The weed is biennial, perennial, or a pernicious 

annual. 

■■ The weed is capable of spreading rapidly. 

■■ The weed is not controllable without special preventative or management practices. 

■■ The weed is capable of materially reducing production of crops and livestock. 

■■ The weed is capable of decreasing the value of 

the land. 

District staff addresses these species on a case-bycase basis, depending on available money, time, and 

resources. 

Invasive plants on Service lands have reduced wildlife habitat and biodiversity. The presence of invasive 

plants can alter the functioning of ecosystems by degrading wildlife habitat; displacing native species; and 

changing carrying capacity through reduced forage 

production, lower plant diversity, and increased soil 

erosion and sedimentation. Such plants are not only 

problematic on the Service’s fee-title lands; they also 

infest rangelands and croplands across South Dakota. 

The spread of invasive plants occurs by root spread or 

by seed dispersal, with wind, water, humans, equipment, and animals acting as transport mechanisms. 

FIRE 

Prior to European settlement, wildfires and grazing 

(primarily by bison, prairie dogs, and insects) were 

the primary ecological disturbances that revitalized 

grasslands. Lightning and Native Americans caused 

ignitions, with most wildfires likely occurring during 

summer and fall. Depending on weather conditions, a 

single wildfire might burn thousands of acres, creating a mosaic of burned, unburned, and grazed areas. 

Historical fire frequency was probably highly variable 

but has decreased since settlement (Umbanhowar 

1996); however, little information is available on the 

presettlement occurrence of fire in the three districts. 

Evidence of fire return intervals in the mixed-grass 

Prescribed fire is an important tool to manage the health 

of grassland ecosystems. 

USFWS 
CHAPTER 3—District Resources and Description 41 

prairie suggests about every 5–10 years in the moist 

portions and around 25 years on dry portions (Wright 

and Bailey 1980, Frost 1998). In general, during dry 

periods in areas where precipitation is limited, such 

as the western and central grasslands, a long-term decline in grass production occurs when burning is more 

frequent than every 5–10 years. This fire frequency 

may be best for natural fire management of grasslands, 

such as the short- or mixed-grass prairies, although 

fire exclusion may be best for other purposes (Bragg 

1995). Tallgrass prairie tends to have a shorter fire 

return interval than mixed-grass prairie. Evidence 

suggests roughly a 3–7 year fire return interval for 

most of the tallgrass prairie. 

After settlement by Europeans, wildfires were 

suppressed. Today, most local fire departments and 

area ranchers still aggressively suppress wildfires. 

It is also the districts’ policy to suppress all wildfires 

or, when appropriate, to manage wildfires for multiple 

objectives on Service lands. The fire management program for the three districts will follow applicable laws; 

DOI and Service policies; and guidance established at 

national, regional, and local levels. 

The National Wildfire Coordinating Group currently 

recognizes two forms of wildland fire: wildfire and prescribed fire. A wildfire is an unplanned ignition, and 

a prescribed fire is a planned ignition. Wildfires are 

further divided into two categories based on ignition 

source: natural (typically lightning) and human. The 

management response for naturally occurring wildfires can include multiple objectives, whereas humancaused wildfires must be suppressed. Managing for 

multiple objectives means that different portions of 

a naturally occurring wildfire can be managed differently. For example, one portion of the wildfire may be 

suppressed while another portion, providing a benefit 

that contributes to attainment of refuge goals, is allowed to burn. However, the districts have chosen suppression as the management response to all wildfires. 

Suppression tactics chosen for each wildfire are at the 

discretion of the incident commander and the refuge 

manager, and can range from aggressive direct attack 

to surveillance or monitoring. 

District staff utilizes prescribed fire to simulate 

the historical influence fire had on plant communities. 

Burning removes layers of residual cover that can reduce plant species diversity and increase a wildfire’s 

resistance to control. Prescribed fire is currently used 

in all habitat types found within the districts. 

Even though prescribed burning can occur at any 

time of year, most prescribed fires are currently applied in spring, early summer, and into fall, depending 

on the prescribed fire’s objectives and the associated 

effects on flora and fauna. Spring burning is often 

preferred because it presents opportunities to manage invasive cool-season grasses, open up shorelines 

and vegetation-choked wetlands, and provide areas 

of green browse attractive to migratory waterfowl. 

Prescribed fire has been increasingly implemented 

during the last 15 years; since 2001, the districts have 

treated about 28,900 acres. 

Prescribed burning and grazing can be used in 

concert to reduce the accumulation of organic litter. 

Burning creates a “flush” growth of new vegetation, 

which is then grazed to extend treatment of problem plants such as Kentucky bluegrass and smooth 

brome. Invasive plants such as Canada thistle, absinth wormwood, and leafy spurge can be similarly 

managed. The districts have occasionally used this 

management strategy, which shows promise for more 

frequent use in the future. Overall guidance for use 

of prescribed fire and management of wildfires in the 

three districts is presented in chapter 6 as well as in 

the fire management plans for the districts. 

The burrowing owl is a South Dakota Priority Species 

and a Region 6 Bird of Conservation Concern. 

© Chris Bailey 

GRAZING 

Grazing is an important agent in shaping the structure 

and composition of grassland communities. Herbivores 

such as bison, elk, deer, pronghorn, and black-tailed 

prairie dog interact with soils, plants, other animals, 

and other processes to produce distinctive successional patterns in the northern Great Plains landscape 

at multiple scales. 

Plants on the prairie evolved with some form of 

herbivory. Most plant species have growing points at 

or near the ground surface, allowing the plant to be 

grazed without killing it. Some contain bitter or toxic 

substances that cause animals to avoid grazing on them. 

Others have spines to cause injury to grazing animals’ 

mouths. Consequently, to maintain native plant associations, it is essential to maintain the processes—such 

as grazing—under which the plants evolved. 

It is likely that bison herds historically spent a 

considerable amount of time grazing native prairie 

in the three-district area. Their grazing, trampling, 

trailing, and related activities likely had a significant 

effect on the development and maintenance of certain 
42 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

plant communities. Free-ranging bison and elk are no 

longer present in the districts. Instead, district staff 

works with local ranchers to mimic natural disturbances through livestock grazing. 

Grazing can be prescribed during periods when 

specific targeted plants are most palatable to livestock. 

Seasonal grazing of the uplands stresses the invasive 

cool-season grasses and favors native grasses and forbs. 

Grazing in wetland habitats reduces accumulations of 

organic litter at the surface; excessive organic litter 

often favors invasive plants such as Canada thistle. 

Grazing can also be used as part of an integrated pest 

management (IPM) program. Follow-up treatments 

tend to be easier to complete and are more effective 

when they follow grazing. 

WILDLIFE 

This section describes the birds and mammals that are 

common in district lands, strategic planning for waterfowl, and threatened and endangered species that 

have the potential to occur in the districts. 

Birds 

Grasslands and wetlands dominated by a rich assortment of native grasses, sedges, and forbs occur 

throughout the districts. This diverse grassland landscape supports an impressive concentration of waterfowl, shorebirds, and other open-water bird species. 

Many species of raptors and songbirds breed and are 

widely distributed on protected district lands, making South Dakota a primary destination for outdoor 

enthusiasts. Bird species that occur in the districts 

are listed in appendix H. 

The 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Act mandates that the Service “identify 

species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory 

nongame birds that, without additional conservation 

actions, are likely to become candidates for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.” 

Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) is the most recent effort to carry out this mandate (USFWS 2008a). 

The overall goal of this report is to accurately identify 

the migratory and nonmigratory bird species (beyond 

those federally listed as threatened or endangered) 

that represent our highest conservation priorities. 

Several categories of bird species are considered for 

inclusion on lists in this report: nongame birds; gamebirds without hunting seasons; subsistence-hunted 

nongame birds in Alaska; and ESA candidate, proposed, and recently delisted species. Bird species are 

included on the lists on the basis of several factors; 

these include population trends, threats, distribution, 

abundance, and relative density. 

The goal is to prevent or remove the need for additional ESA bird listings by implementing proactive management and conservation actions among 

Federal, State, tribal, and private partners. BCC lists 

should be consulted in accordance with Executive 

Order 13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies 

to Protect Migratory Birds.” The 2008 BCC report 

should also be used to develop research, monitoring, 

and management initiatives. By focusing attention on 

the highest priority species, the report is intended to 

promote greater study and protection of the habitats 

and ecological communities upon which these species 

depend, thereby contributing to healthy avian populations and communities. Table 5 lists the species that 

have been identified as birds of conservation concern 

or priority species for this region. The districts have 

developed a list of focal species—distilled from the 

larger list of species shown in table 5—that they are 

best positioned to help protect and maintain on the 

basis of the species’ geographic ranges and specialized 

habitats (table 6). 

Mammals 

There can be little doubt that the activities of wild 

American bison, which were extirpated from the 

Prairie Pothole Region of South Dakota in the 19th 

century, had a major influence on prairie uplands and 

wetlands in presettlement times. Unfortunately, there 

is no documentation of how wetlands were affected 

by the feeding, drinking, dusting, or other activities 

of millions of bison as they roamed the prairies. Other 

grassland mammals extirpated from the area are grizzly bear, kit fox, and plains wolf. Currently, the suite 

of mammal species occurring in the districts includes 

coyote, red fox, badger, raccoon, striped skunk, mink, 

long-tailed weasel, white-tailed deer, mule deer, whitetailed jackrabbit, eastern cottontail, muskrat, thirteenlined ground squirrel, deer mouse, prairie vole, and 

meadow vole. In addition to these common species, 

moose, elk, and pronghorn are occasionally sighted 

on or adjacent to district lands. 

A badger relaxes in the sun. 

© Chris Bailey 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Laws passed in the late 1960s gave some attention to 

endangered species; however, it was not until ESA was 
Table 5. Birds of conservation concern or priority species. 

Prairie 

Potholes Region 6 

Birds of Birds of South Dakota 

Conservation Conservation Priority 

Concern Concern Species Threatened or 

(USFWS (USFWS (Bakker Endangered 

Species Range 2008a) 2008a) 2005) Species 

American bittern All three districts X X X 

Bald eagle All three districts X X 

Baird’s sparrow Sand Lake X X X 

Bell’s vireo All three districts X 

Black tern All three districts X X 

Black-billed cuckoo Sand Lake/Madison X X X 

Black-crowned night-heron All three districts X 

Bobolink All three districts 

Burrowing owl All three districts X X 

Chestnut-collared longspur All three districts X X X 

Dickcissel All three districts X 

Ferruginous hawk Huron/Sand Lake X X 

Franklin’s gull All three districts X 

Golden eagle Huron/Sand Lake X 

Grasshopper sparrow All three districts X X X 

Greater prairie-chicken All three districts X 

Horned grebe Sand Lake X X X 

Lark bunting Huron/Sand Lake X 

Le Conte’s sparrow Sand Lake X 

Least bittern All three districts X X 

Least tern Huron/Sand Lake X 

Loggerhead shrike All three districts X 

Long-billed curlew Huron/Sand Lake X X 

Marbled godwit All three districts X X X 

Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow Sand Lake X X 

Northern harrier All three districts X 

Piping plover All three districts X 

Red-headed woodpecker All three districts X X 

Savannah sparrow All three districts X 

Sedge wren All three districts 

Sharp-tailed grouse Huron/Sand Lake X 

Short-eared owl All three districts X X X 

Sprague’s pipit Sand Lake X X 

Swainson’s hawk All three districts X X 

Upland sandpiper All three districts X X X 

Virginia rail All three districts X 

Western meadowlark All three districts X 

Willet All three districts X 

Willow flycatcher All three districts X 

Wilson’s phalarope All three districts X 

CHAPTER 3—District Resources and Description 43 
passed in 1973 that significant protection was granted 

to rare species. This landmark law, considered by some 

the most significant environmental law ever passed, 

has been amended and reauthorized by Congress on 

numerous occasions, most recently in 1988. The Service 

administers the law for all inland species and certain 

marine species. When Congress authorized ESA, it 

declared that species of “fish, wildlife, and plants are 

of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the nation and its 

people.” The purpose of ESA is to provide a means 

whereby endangered species and their ecosystems 

may be conserved. The intent of the act is not merely 

to list species as endangered or threatened, but rather 

to recover the populations of these species to a point 

where they can be removed from the list. 

Occurrences of eight federally listed species and 

two candidate species (Dakota skipper and Sprague’s 

pipit) have been documented within at least one of the 

three districts. These species are listed in table 7 and 

described below. 

Table 6. Selected focal grassland bird species by wetland management district. 

Species  Huron Madison Sand Lake 

Baird’s sparrow X 

Blue-winged teal X X X 

Bobolink X X 

Chestnut-collared longspur X X 

Gadwall X X X 

Grasshopper sparrow X X X 

Greater prairie-chicken X 

Mallard X X X 

Marbled godwit X X X 

Northern harrier X 

Northern pintail X X X 

Northern shoveler X X X 

Short-eared owl X 

Upland sandpiper X X X 

Willet X 

Wilson’s phalarope X 

44 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

American Burying Beetle 

Although the Service lists South Dakota as a State 

where burying beetle is known to occur, the last documented occurrence in the districts was in Brookings 

County in 1945. Habitat associations with historical 

collections of burying beetle are not well defined. It 

is thought that carrion availability is more important 

than vegetation or soils to the species’ occurrence. 

Dakota Skipper 

Dakota skippers occur in the Sand and Lake Madison 

WMDs. Dakota skipper is a small butterfly with a 

1-inch wingspan. It has a thick body and a faster and 

more powerful flight than most butterflies. Skippers 

are likely to occur only in scattered remnants of highquality native prairie across a vast area of grassland 

in the north-central United States and south-central 

Canada. The most significant remaining populations 

of Dakota skipper are in western Minnesota, northeastern South Dakota, north-central North Dakota, 

and southern Manitoba. The species’ current distribution straddles the border between tallgrass and 

mixed-grass prairie; it occurs in two types of habitat 

(USFWS 2002a): 

■■ Flat, moist native bluestem prairie in which three 

species of wildflowers are usually present— stagewood lily, harebell, and smooth camas. 

■■ Upland (dry) prairie that is often on ridges and 

hillsides; bluestem grasses and needlegrasses 

dominate these habitats and three wildflowers are 

typically present in quality sites—pale purple, upright coneflowers, and blanketflower. 

Dakota skipper populations have declined due to widespread conversion of native prairie for agricultural 

and other uses. This has left the remaining skipper 

populations isolated from one another in relatively 

small areas of remnant native prairie. In addition, 

many of the habitats where the species persists are 

threatened by overgrazing, conversion to cultivated 

agriculture, inappropriate fire management and herbicide use, woody plant invasion, road construction, 

gravel mining, invasive plant species, and flooding. 
CHAPTER 3—District Resources and Description 45 

Table 7. Listed species (based on published population data). 

Status Species/listing name 

E 

C 

E 

E 

E 

T 

E 

C 

E 

E 

American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus)
 

Dakota skipper (Hesperia dacotae)
 

Topeka shiner (Notropis topeka [=tristis])
 

Whooping crane (Grus americana)—except where EXPN 


Eskimo curlew (Numenius borealis)
 

Piping plover (Charadrius melodus)—except Great Lakes watershed 


Least tern (Sterna antillarum)—interior DPS 


Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii)
 

Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes)—entire population, except where EXPN 

Gray wolf (Canis lupus)—lower 48 States, except where delisted or EXPN. Mexico. 

E = listed as endangered under ESA
 

T = listed as threatened under ESA
 

C = candidate for listing under ESA 


EXPN = experimental nonessential population
 

DPS = distinct population segment
 

Topeka Shiner 

Topeka shiner habitat is characterized as small to 

mid-sized streams of the central prairie regions of the 

United States with relatively high water quality and 

cool to moderate temperatures. Many of these streams 

exhibit perennial flow, although some become intermittent during summer or periods of prolonged drought. 

Few historical data are available regarding the 

distribution of Topeka shiner in South Dakota; at the 

time this species was proposed for listing in 1997, 

only five locations were known. Since then, several 

surveys conducted throughout South Dakota found 

that the species was more widespread than previously 

thought. In its final ruling on Topeka shiner critical 

habitat (69 Federal Register 44736, July 27, 2004), the 

Service elected to exclude from designation all previously proposed critical habitat in South Dakota under 

authority of ESA section 4(b)(2). As a result, several 

agencies partnered to develop a plan for the shiner’s 

recovery in South Dakota. Current measures to protect the species defer to this plan. 

Whooping Crane 

Whooping crane is one of the most endangered birds 

in North America. According to Tom Stehn, Service 

Whooping Crane Coordinator, as of 2010 the only 

naturally occurring wild, migratory population in the 

world numbered approximately 290 individuals. Each 

spring and fall, whooping cranes use wetlands and agricultural fields in the Huron and Sand Lake WMDs 

as migratory stopover areas en route to their summer 

and winter grounds. 

Eskimo Curlew 

Although the Service lists South Dakota as a State 

where Eskimo curlew is known to occur, no specific 

location information is available. 

Piping Plover 

Designated critical habitat for this threatened species 

is defined as prairie alkali wetlands and surrounding 

shoreline, extending into upland habitat to 200 feet 

outside the high water mark; river channels and associated sandbars and islands; reservoirs and their 

sparsely vegetated shorelines, peninsulas, and islands; 

and inland lakes and their sparsely vegetated shorelines and peninsulas. 

Historic data on the distribution of northern Great 

Plains piping plovers are scarce, with regular surveying efforts beginning after 1980. More recent breeding 

records exist for counties along the Missouri River, as 

well as Codington, Day, and Miner Counties in South 

Dakota (South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union 1991). 

According to C.D. Kruse of the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, nesting in South Dakota has generally 

been limited to the Missouri River, primarily below 

the Gavins Point and Fort Randall Dams and on Lake 

Oahe. Piping plovers have occasionally nested on Lake 

Sharpe (Missouri River); they have been sighted on 

Lake Francis Case (Missouri River) during the nesting 

season, but nesting has not been documented. Along 

these rivers, plovers often nest near interior least 

terns (federally listed as endangered). 

Of the roughly 6,000 piping plovers left in the 

world, about half breed in the northern Great Plains. 

This population is declining between 6 and 12 percent 

annually (Larson et al. 2002, Plissner and Haig 2000, 

Ryan et al. 1993), and is expected to become extinct in 

50–100 years unless significant conservation activities 

are initiated. The decline and poor prognosis led to the 

listing of this population in the 1980s as threatened in 

the United States and endangered in Canada. 
46 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

The whooping crane is a listed species. 

Ryan Hagerty / USFWS 

Interior Least Tern 

The Service lists the Sand Lake WMD as an area 

where the least tern is known to occur. This tern, the 

smallest member of its family, arrives on its breeding grounds in early May. Interior least terns nest 

in small, loosely defined groups on barren beaches of 

sand, gravel, or shells; on dry mudflats and salt-encrusted soils (salt flats); and at sand and gravel pits 

along rivers. Nesting success depends on the presence 

of bare or nearly barren sandbars, favorable water 

levels during nesting, and abundant food. The chicks 

leave the nest only a few days after hatching, but the 

adults continue to care for them, leading them to shelter in nearby grasses and bringing them food. Terns 

hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to 

catch small fish. The interior least tern was federally 

listed as endangered in 1985, primarily due to the loss 

of nesting habitat as a result of dramatic alterations 

(channelization and impoundment) of important river 

systems. Water level fluctuations, vegetation of nesting 

habitat, and disturbance (from people, pets, predators, 

and livestock) continue to jeopardize nesting success. 

Sprague’s Pipit 

Once common, the Sprague’s pipit has now declined 

drastically. Surveys have found a long-term (approximately 40-year) population decline of approximately 

3.9 percent annually. Conversion of native grasslands 

to agriculture probably significantly reduced the total 

global population of Sprague’s pipit to current levels. 

Populations are still threatened by the loss and conversion of breeding habitat to agriculture and human 

development. Overgrazing by cattle and the invasion 

by exotic grasses have further reduced the quality 

of much of the species’ breeding habitat. In addition, 

loss, conversion, fragmentation, and degradation of 

grasslands on the pipit’s wintering grounds are continuing threats. 

The Sprague’s pipit is one of the few endemic species to the North American grasslands, requiring 

grassland habitat for both breeding and wintering. 

The species’ breeding range includes parts of Montana, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota. During 

the breeding season, Sprague’s pipits are most common in relatively large patches of prairie for nesting 

(estimated at between 170–776 acres), and thus may 

be area sensitive. Although they use exotic vegetation, 

they are significantly more abundant in, and prefer, 

native prairie. They avoid nonprairie features in the 

landscape, so the impact of an object (for example, an 

oil and gas well or a wind turbine) is much larger than 

the actual footprint of the feature. Energy development is increasing rapidly throughout the breeding 

range of the Sprague’s pipit, a trend that is expected 

to continue. 

The male has a high breeding flight display that 

can last up to 3 hours. On the ground, Sprague’s pipits have very secretive behavior, landing several 

meters away from the nest and approaching on foot. 

Sprague’s Pipits are one of the least-studied birds in 

North America, in part due to their elusive behavior 

and habit of singing high above the ground. 

The Service has determined that the Sprague’s pipit, 

a small grassland bird, warrants protection under the 

ESA, but that listing the species is precluded by the 

need to address other listing actions of higher priority. 
CHAPTER 3—District Resources and Description 47 

The Sprague’s pipit will be classified as a candidate 

species until a listing proposal can be prepared. The 

Service has completed a comprehensive status review—known as a 12-month finding—and determined 

that there is sufficient scientific and commercial data 

to propose listing the species as threatened or endangered throughout its range due to loss of habitat and 

the inadequacy of existing regulations to protect the 

habitat. However, the districts have chosen to postpone developing a species-specific objective for the 

Sprague’s pipit until a formal conservation strategy 

and guidelines for Sprague’s pipit management can 

be developed. 

Black-Footed Ferret 

It is assumed that ferrets occurred in association 

with prairie dog colonies—likely including portions 

of the three-district area. However, the most recent 

documented observation of wild black-footed ferrets 

in the vicinity was west of the Missouri River in 1974. 

Gray Wolf 

Gray wolves once lived in much of the contiguous 

United States. They were only absent from a portion 

of California, the southwest corner of Arizona, and 

the red wolf range in the southeastern United States. 

By 1974, when gray wolf was listed as an endangered 

species, the species’ breeding range had been reduced 

to a small corner of northeastern Minnesota and Isle 

Royale, Michigan. Individual wolves were periodically observed in the West, but there were no breeding packs. Recovery efforts have since restored the 

species to some areas of its historic range, including 

portions of the Southwest, the Rocky Mountains, and 

the western Great Lakes Region. No records exist 

for South Dakota. 

The Western Great Lakes Distinct Population 

Segment (DPS) has been proposed for delisting. 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

Humans have occupied central North America for more 

than 12,000 years and have left a diverse cultural material legacy on the landscape. Several researchers have 

summarized our understanding of the prehistory and 

history of the region (Bonnichsen et al. 1987, Gregg et 

al. 1996, Schneider 1982, SHSND 1990, Winham and 

Hannus 1989, Wood 1998), and only a brief review will 

be provided here. The following summary is adapted 

from Michael A. Jackson and Dennis L. Toom’s 1999 

report, “Cultural Resources Overview Studies of the 

Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge, Sargent County, 

North Dakota, and the Waubay National Wildlife Refuge, 

Day County, South Dakota” (Jackson and Toom 1999). 

The Northeastern Plains cultural chronology can 

be divided into five basic periods: 

1. Paleo-Indian (9500–5500 B.C.) 

2. Plains Archaic (ca. 5500–500 B.C.) 

3. Plains Woodland (500 B.C.–A.D. 1000) 

4. Plains Village (A.D. 1000–1780) 

5. Historic (A.D. 1780–1890) 

The names of the first four periods also refer to mainly 

prehistoric Native American cultural traditions, with 

the Plains Village tradition extending into early historic times. The Historic Period encompasses the 

decline of the Plains Village tradition and the rise of 

the Plains Equestrian tradition, which developed as a 

consequence of the introduction of the domestic horse, 

European manufactured trade goods, and epidemic diseases. It subsumes Native American lifeways during 

protohistoric and early historic times in the Northern 

Plains from about A.D. 1780 to A.D. 1880. Later in the 

Historic Period, at the end of the Plains Equestrian 

tradition at ca. A.D. 1880, the Euro-American tradition becomes dominant. 

PALEO-INDIAN PERIOD (9500–5500 B.C.) 

The Paleo-Indian Period has been provisionally dated 

to approximately 9500–5500 years B.C. The age range 

of this period is based mainly on paleo-Indian finds 

elsewhere in the Great Plains because the amount of 

paleo-Indian artifacts identified in the Northeastern 

Plains subarea is minimal. This period began with the 

initial entry of humans into the Northeastern Plains 

following the retreat of the last Pleistocene glaciers. 

These paleo-Indian peoples exhibited nomadic settlement 

patterns and subsistence economies based on hunting 

and gathering that were adapted to late Pleistocene 

and early Holocene climates, animals, and plants. 

Paleo-Indian artifacts have rarely been identified 

in the eastern Dakotas, but they are more common 

farther west. In the eastern Dakotas, including the 

Glaciated Plains and Prairie Coteau, erosion has been 

limited (in comparison to the western Dakotas); consequently, most of the upland land surfaces have been 

relatively stable since the last glacial retreat. The modern ground surface is therefore essentially the same 

surface as that on which paleo-Indian peoples lived, 

so cultural remains of those peoples should be present 

at or near the surface. If paleo-Indian materials are 

present, they are likely in poor context because of the 

cumulative effects of thousands of years of bioturbation 

and approximately 100 years of agricultural plowing. 

PLAINS ARCHAIC PERIOD (5500–500 B.C.) 

The Plains Archaic Period followed the Paleo-Indian 

Period from approximately 5500 B.C. to 500 B.C. 

Relatively few Plains Archaic sites have been identified in the Northeastern Plains, and even fewer have 

been extensively investigated. This period is characterized as an extension of the nomadic hunting and 

gathering adaptation from the preceding period, but it 

was adapted to essentially modern (Holocene) climate, 
48 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

fauna, and flora. Bison remained the principal quarry 

of these people, although deer, elk, and moose were 

exploited along the prairie/woodland transition. There 

is also evidence of intensified seed and plant gathering 

and processing during the Plains Archaic Period. Other 

changes included the adoption of the atlatl and dart, 

and an overall decline in the quality of flintknapping. 

PLAINS WOODLAND PERIOD (500 B.C.–A.D. 1000) 

Plains Woodland lifeways are thought to have shared 

many similarities with those of the Plains Archaic 

Period, particularly subsistence economies based 

on hunting and gathering. However, the practice of 

mound burial, possibly indicative of more complex 

ceremonialism; the production and use of ceramic 

vessels; and the first use of the bow and arrow all 

appear to have been developments that distinguish 

the Plains Woodland Period. It is also possible that 

horticulture made its first appearance during Plains 

Woodland times, but direct evidence of this is lacking 

in the Northern Plains. It also has been suggested 

that Plains Woodland peoples enjoyed a somewhat 

more settled lifeway, shifting from the fully nomadic 

settlement pattern of the Plains Archaic Period to a 

seminomadic pattern. 

Artifact assemblages of the Plains Woodland tradition reflect the introduction of ceramic technology 

and the acquisition of exotic trade materials. Late in 

the tradition, the transition from dart or spear points 

to arrow points can be seen in weapons technology. 

The lifeway is characterized by increased sedentism, 

population growth, and the construction of earthen 

burial mounds. The appearance of the Plains Woodland 

tradition in the eastern Dakotas is an extension of the 

general Woodland lifeway that flourished throughout 

the Midwest (to the east and southeast) during this 

period. Again, adaptation to the plains/prairie environment resulted in a distinctive subsistence pattern that 

relied heavily on bison hunting. Plains Woodland campsites are generally identified where river and stream 

valleys extended into the Plains proper, affording a 

riparian setting for the establishment of base camps. 

PLAINS VILLAGE PERIOD (A.D. 1000–1780) 

In the northern Plains, the Plains Village tradition is 

best known from its many village sites that have been 

found in the Middle Missouri subarea, a region consisting essentially of the Missouri River trench in the 

Dakotas. The Plains Village tradition first appeared in 

the Middle Missouri at about A.D. 1000. It flourished 

there throughout most of the late Prehistoric Period 

and persisted in attenuated form well into historic 

times. The period is brought to a close at A.D. 1780 

following the decimation of the Plains Village population base along the Missouri River by a smallpox 

epidemic that originated in the American Southwest. 

Plains Village culture was distinctly different from 

its Plains Woodland antecedent. It was characterized 

by the construction of substantial, permanent dwellings, known as earthlodges, that were arranged into 

villages of various sizes and configurations, some of 

which were fortified and some not. Subsistence was 

based on a mixed strategy of horticulture, or garden 

agriculture, including the cultivation of maize, beans, 

squash, and sunflowers; bison hunting; and general 

hunting and gathering, or foraging. Continued elaboration and sophistication in ceramic manufacture also 

typify the period, with well-made, globular-shaped and 

shouldered pots exhibiting a wide variety of stylistic 

variability typifying most village collections. 

The Plains Village settlement pattern is interpreted 

as semi-sedentary, with people residing in their villages 

at various times of the year, especially during times 

of important horticultural activity, and leaving their 

villages at other times to go on extended hunts. A key 

element in the Plains Village adaptation was the production of a dependable, storable, surplus food supply. 

This surplus consisted of both meat and garden produce 

that was usually stored in subterranean storage pits, 

commonly called cache pits, another identifying attribute of the tradition. Considerable archeological and 

ethnohistorical evidence indicates direct connections 

between the prehistoric Plains Village tradition; the 

related Coalescent Tradition in the Northern Plains; 

and the historically known Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara, 

and Cheyenne peoples. 

PROTOHISTORIC AND EARLY HISTORIC PERIOD 

(A.D. 1780–1890) 

The Plains Equestrian tradition, also referred to as 

the Equestrian Nomadic tradition, evolved during 

protohistoric and early historic times following the 

introduction of the domestic horse via trade networks 

extending into the Spanish Southwest. In the Northern 

Plains, acquisition of the horse by Native American 

peoples was well underway by about A.D. 1750. The 

Plains Equestrian tradition represents the well-known 

nomadic bison hunters of early historic times who spent 

much of the year in tipi camps. During this period, there 

was greater cultural interaction among native groups 

as a consequence of improved transportation (i.e., the 

horse) and ever increasing Euro-American influence. 

“Protohistoric” refers to the time of initial EuroAmerican cultural impact on native cultures prior to 

actual contact. European cultural influence may have 

come as early as A.D. 1650 with the introduction of 

trade goods filtering into the area from the north via 

native trade networks. As mentioned above, horses 

were introduced from the south by the mid-1700s. By 

the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of 

early historic times, fur trade expansionism had profoundly influenced Native American lifeways in the 

Dakotas. Participation in the trading system brought 
CHAPTER 3—District Resources and Description 49 

changes in material culture and subsistence practices 

as interaction with Euro-Americans intensified. 

Later in the Historic period—by about A.D. 1880— 

Euro-American domination of what was to become 

North and South Dakota was complete. Permanent 

non-Indian settlement of the States came about with 

the construction of railroads and the security of military protection. Military occupation of the Dakotas 

accelerated in response to the 1862 Sioux Uprising 

in Minnesota. The establishment of permanent forts 

in the Dakota Territory prepared the way for settlement. In addition to the military complement and their 

families, a civilian population was employed to supply 

goods and services to the army. Railroads penetrated 

the territory in the 1870s, and homesteaders immigrated to the area partly because transportation and 

military protection were assured. Settlers acquired land 

from the railroads or from the government through 

the Homestead, Pre-emption, and Timber Culture 

acts in the 1870s and 1880s. Agricultural settlement 

followed a cyclical pattern of boom and decline, especially in the eastern part of the State. Settlement 

spread generally from east to west, and in 1889 the 

Dakotas achieved statehood. 

3.4 Visitor Services 

The Improvement Act emphasizes the importance of 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation. The act 

identifies six priority public uses: hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation. 

HUNTING 

Centuries ago, the coteau areas were considered a 

prominent landmark to the Plains Indians and early 

European settlers who camped and hunted waterfowl 

and other game species in the wetlands and potholes 

areas. With the settlement of the prairie States, certain 

hunting restrictions were established for the protection and propagation of wildlife. 

Through Federal Duck Stamp sales, districts purchase and provide habitat for migratory and nesting 

waterfowl. Hunting of migratory waterfowl is allowed 

at WPAs, where only federally approved nontoxic shot 

is permitted. All other State regulations apply at WPAs. 

Most of the WPAs are open to hunting for upland 

birds (ring-necked pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, gray 

partridge). The districts also offer archery, rifle, and 

muzzleloader deer hunting. 

District programs reach out to young hunters. 

USFWS 

FISHING 

Fishing is allowed year-round at the districts; however, ice fishing during the winter months seems to 

be the most popular fishing activity. Restrictions on 

vehicle access into WPAs may be limited to designated 

trails. Permanent lakes at the districts offer fishing 

for northern pike, walleye, yellow perch, and a few 

other species. 

Due to the abundance of aquatic life in the permanent wetlands, growth rates of fish are often very 

high. Fishing on WPAs, like all fishing on Service 

lands, requires the angler to follow both State fishing 

regulations and special refuge regulations. 

WILDLIFE OBSERVATION AND PHOTOGRAPHY 

The districts provide outstanding opportunities for 

viewing wildlife. They offer optimal viewing for waterfowl, grassland birds, and shorebirds from April 

through early June and from late August through 

October. Seasonal highlights include the spring courtship dances of sharp-tailed grouse and western grebe, 

spring and fall shorebird migrations, daily fall movements of thousands of waterfowl, and winter activities 

of various bird and mammal species. Many wildlife 

species can be observed from public roads. In some 

areas, viewing blinds are available, and their locations 

on the districts change from time to time. Please contact individual district offices to obtain information on 

current viewing blind availability. 

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND 

INTERPRETATION 

Each district has a either a standalone headquarters 

or a headquarters co-located with a national wildlife 

refuge. Each headquarters office displays information 

in the visitor contact area. 

The visitor centers offer exhibits and a variety of 

informational pamphlets about the Service, district, 

Refuge System, and other natural resources–related 

information. Strategically located kiosks contain information about prairie wetlands and wildlife species 

found throughout the districts. District staff provides 

educational talks and tours for schools and other groups, 

on request. The environmental education and outreach 
50 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

programs expand beyond the boundaries of the districts. District staff is involved in local, regional, and 

statewide programs. 

TRAPPING 

Recreational trapping is available at all WPAs, in accordance with State trapping regulations. Authorized 

by 50 CFR, part 31.16, recreational trapping is administered by the Service. 

3.5 Partnerships 

District staff has established partnerships with a wide 

variety of local, State, and national groups in efforts 

to achieve habitat objectives or expand environmental education. Most districts have local partnerships 

with weed boards, water resource boards, rural volunteer fire departments, law enforcement departments, 

Scouts, 4-H clubs, and private landowners. The districts 

have worked closely with SDGFP on projects such as 

hunting and fishing opportunities, disease issues, and 

management of habitat and invasive plants. District 

staff has developed partnerships with groups and 

agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, National 

Audubon Society, National Wild Turkey Federation, 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, USGS, and 

NRCS for habitat management, research, and environmental education. 

3.6 Socioeconomic 

Environment 

A socioeconomic study prepared by BBC Consulting 

(2009) is the source for information in this section. 

BACKGROUND 

The three districts offer hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation opportunities to the public. These 

recreational opportunities attract visitors, who spend 

money in the surrounding communities. Ancillary 

visitor activity, such as spending on food, gasoline, 

and overnight lodging, provides local businesses with 

supplemental income. Management decisions regarding public use, expansion of services, and habitat improvement measures at the districts affect recreation 

activity and, consequently, visitor expenditure. 

CURRENT SOCIOECONOMIC, POPULATION, AND 

EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS 

The only large metropolitan area in the planning 

area is Sioux Falls in Minnehaha County. Other large 

communities in the planning area include Pierre, 

Huron, and Aberdeen. According to 2006 population 

estimates by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the 

planning area is home to almost 347,000 individuals, 

or about 44 percent of the South Dakota population. 

Population growth in the planning area has been 

driven exclusively by growth in the metropolitan area 

south of Sioux Falls, the most populous city in South 

Dakota. The population of this city grew by more than 

50 percent between 1980 and 2006, while the population in the rest of the planning area declined by more 

than 20 percent. 

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

the planning area employs about 268,500 workers. 

This same source discloses that most of the jobs 

in South Dakota are in government (13 percent), retail trade (12 percent), “other professional services” 

(12 percent), and health care and social assistance (11 

percent). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

unemployment in the planning area ranged from 

2.2 percent in Brookings County to 11.5 percent in 

Buffalo County in 2008. However, with the exception 

of Buffalo County, all counties in the planning area had 

unemployment rates below 5 percent. South Dakota’s 

statewide unemployment rate of 4.6 percent was one 

of the lowest in the country during this period. 

District Operations, Staffing Conditions, and 

Recreational Opportunities 

Huron, Madison, and Sand Lake WMDs share contiguous boundaries in eastern South Dakota. Similarly, 

they share management activities such as controlling 

water quality and quantity, mitigating the presence of 

invasive species, disease control, restoration of native 

plant species, and ecological research. 

Huron WMD currently employs 12 full-time, yearround employees, while Madison WMD employs 9 

full-time, year-round employees. Sand Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, of which Sand Lake WMD is 

part, employs 11 full-time, year-round and 6 seasonal 

employees, but most of these employees are shared by 

the district and Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Based on estimates of the relative amount of time 

spent by each employee on management at the district 

versus the refuge, and considering their full-time or 

seasonal status, the district supports the equivalent 

of about 6.25 full-time equivalents (FTEs). 

Hunting, the principal activity driving the area’s 

tourist industry, is by far the most popular visitor 

activity at all three districts, accounting for about 80 

percent of visitation. The fall hunting season brings 

thousands of visitors by road and air into eastern 

South Dakota, and in many communities lodging is 

fully booked throughout this period. The majority 

of these hunters come to hunt pheasant, but some 

hunt migratory birds and a small portion pursue big 

game. The largest number of hunters visit Madison 
CHAPTER 3—District Resources and Description 51 

WMD due to its proximity to Sioux Falls, and hunting activity generally decreases along the Highway 

14 corridor toward Huron WMD and the more remote 

Sand Lake WMD. Nevertheless, the cities of Huron 

and Aberdeen experience large influxes of hunters 

during the hunting season. 

Fishing accounts for about 12 percent of visitation 

to the districts. It is most popular at Madison WMD, 

accounting about 14 percent of the visitation to this 

district. Huron and Sand Lake WMDs report a combined total of fewer than 100 fishermen per year. 

Nonconsumptive recreational activities account for 

less than 8 percent of visitation to the districts and 

take place year-round, although they are most popular 

during the spring and summer months. Birding is the 

most popular nonconsumptive activity at the districts, 

especially during the migration season. 

Trapping is also permitted at the districts and accounts for about 19,800 visits per year to Madison 

WMD. Camping is not permitted on lands managed 

by the districts, although visitors often stay overnight 

in local commercial lodging establishments. 

Annual visitation to the three districts in recent 

years has totaled more than 240,000 visitor-days, according to district staff. The majority of visitation 

(more 207,500 visitor-days) takes place at Madison 

WMD, due to its proximity to Sioux Falls. Huron 

WMD sees about 27,000 annual visitor-days and Sand 

Lake WMD only about 6,000. 

District managers estimate that slightly less than 

a quarter of visitation (58,200 visitor-days) involves 

nonlocals, but this proportion varies greatly by visitor type. More than 60 percent of pheasant hunters 

are from outside the planning area, compared to only 

6 percent of big game hunters. District fisheries do 

not attract many trophy fishermen from outside the 

area, and fishing-related visitation to the districts is 

almost entirely local. An estimated 13 percent of nonconsumptive recreational visitors to the districts are 

nonlocal. The proportion of visitation that is nonlocal 

also varies by district: almost 80 percent of visitation 

to Madison WMD is local due the presence of Sioux 

Falls; Huron WMD draws a somewhat higher proportion of nonlocals (about one-third); and the more 

remote Sand Lake WMD has the highest proportion 

of nonlocal visitation (60 percent). 

Offsite spending by visitors helps support local lodging and retail establishments in surrounding towns. 

Only nonresident visitor spending can be considered 

when calculating the socioeconomic impact of refuges 

on the local economy in the planning area in eastern 

South Dakota. The money spent by local residents on 

visitation to these districts would likely be spent on 

other local recreational activities if the complex did 

not exist, so it cannot be considered “new” expenditure in the local economy. 

The Service’s Banking on Nature 2006 study examines visitor expenditure by activity (hunting, fishing, or nonconsumptive) for a sample of refuges and 

districts throughout the country. Huron WMD and 

Madison WMD are both profiled in this study; Sand 

Lake WMD is not. However, representations by district managers indicate that visitation to Sand Lake 

WMD is very similar to visitation to Huron WMD, 

and that spending levels are likely the same. Based 

on data reported in Banking on Nature, the average 

daily expenditure of nonlocal visitors to the districts 

is about $79 for hunters, $56 for anglers, and $25 for 

wildlife viewers and recreationists. 

Baseline Economic Activity 

The three districts affect the economy through the 

nonresident visitor spending they generate and the 

employment they support. The districts employ approximately 27.25 FTEs. A full-time year-round employee counts as one FTE, while seasonal and part-time 

employees, as well as those shared by districts and 

refuges, are counted as a fraction of an FTE. Payroll 

supported by the three districts totals $1,735,000, 

or nearly $64,000 per FTE. Using Bureau of Labor 

Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey data for individuals in this income category, roughly 79 percent 

of annual income is spent locally. Under this assumption, the WMDs contribute $1,371,000 to the local 

economies in employee spending. 

Visitor Spending 

The three districts currently experience total visitation 

of approximately 58,200 nonresident visitor days per 

year. Of these, roughly 54,400 are for hunting, 1,500 

for fishing, and 2,300 for nonconsumptive recreational 

activities. Combining these visitation numbers with 

nonresident spending averages from the Banking on 

Nature study, total visitor expenditure generated by 

the three districts is estimated to be $4,414,000 per 

year. Almost all expenditures (almost 97 percent) 

come from hunting and the remainder from fishing 

and nonconsumptive recreation. Combining the effects 

of Service employment and visitor spending, the total direct economic activity generated by the Huron, 

Madison, and Sand Lake WMDs on the planning area 

is approximately $5.79 million annually. 

3.7 Operations 

Funding for operations at the districts supports the 

staff, facilities, and equipment needed to carry out management activities to meet the each districts’ purposes, 

goals, and objectives. Each of the three stations that 

is not part of a complex has its own staff and facilities. 

Despite that, office working conditions are limited and 

can impose some constraints on conducting business. 

CHAPTER 4— Management Direction
 

Expansive grasslands characterize the districts. 

USFWS 

The planning team developed objectives in support of 

goals identified in chapter 2 to carry out the proposed 

action (alternative B) for management of the Huron, 

Madison, and Sand Lake WMDs. This chapter presents 

suggested strategies to achieve objectives; rationale 

supporting the goals, objectives, and strategies; and 

assumptions used in developing the plan. 

Biological goals and objectives emphasize management of plant communities as habitat for wildlife, especially migratory birds, and are organized by major 

habitat types that occur in the three districts. Goals 

and objectives are habitat- rather than wildlife-based, 

because wildlife often respond to factors beyond control of local refuge management (for example, disease 

outbreaks or habitat conditions on important staging 

or wintering sites can affect populations of migratory 

birds). Furthermore, management practices (such as 

fire, grazing, haying, tree removal, and water level 

manipulation) focus on plant communities rather than 

wildlife populations. Habitat-based objectives emphasize monitoring of important vegetation attributes such 

as community composition and vegetation structure 

over time. In most cases, wildlife population responses 

to habitat changes are not directly monitored. Rather, 

site-specific inventories, applied research, and literature reviews allow for reasonable predictions of wildlife response to habitat management. 

According to Section 7 of Director’s Order 172, 

“Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect 

Migratory Birds” (USFWS 2004a): 

Many Service programs are actively involved in 

bird conservation activities. Our objective for 

migratory bird management and conservation 

is to minimize the potential adverse effects of 

migratory bird take, with the goal of striving 

to eliminate take, while implementing our mission. All Service programs strive to take an 

ecosystem approach to protection and restoration of species and their associated habitats. As 

migratory birds is one of our trust resources, 

all programs must emphasize an interdisciplinary, collaborative approach to migratory bird 

conservation in cooperation with other Service 

programs, in addition to other governments, 

State and Federal agencies, and non-Federal 

partners. However, we recognize that direct 

or indirect actions taken by Service employees 

in the execution of their duties and activities 

as authorized by Congress may result in the 

take of migratory birds. In many instances, 

short-term negative impacts on migratory 

birds are balanced by long-term benefits. We 

will incorporate ecosystem integrity, reduction 

of invasive species, and long-term adaptive 

management in migratory bird management, 

using the best available scientific information. 

The Service decided to carry out the management direction in this chapter, based on a determination that 

it does the following: 
54 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

■■ best achieves the districts’ purposes, vision, and goals 

■■ helps fulfill the Refuge System mission 

■■ maintains and, where appropriate, restores the 

ecological integrity of the districts and the Refuge 

System 

■■ addresses the significant issues and mandates 

■■ is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management 

This chapter describes the overall management focus 

for the districts, as well as the objectives and strategies that will be carried out to help district staffs 

achieve the goals. In addition, this chapter includes 

descriptions of the funding, staff, and stepdown plans 

needed to meet the goals and objectives. Finally, this 

chapter briefly describes the monitoring and evaluation of both district resources and this CCP, along 

with the process to amend or revise the CCP. 

The management direction presented here meets 

the purposes, vision, and goals of the three districts. 

Objectives and strategies to carry out the goals would 

support both resource needs and public use. 

■■ A goal is a descriptive, broad statement of desired 

future conditions that conveys a purpose, but does 

not define measurable units. 

■■ An objective is a concise statement of what is to 

be achieved, how much is to be achieved, when and 

where it is to be achieved, and who is responsible 

for achieving it. 

■■ Strategies are ways to achieve an objective. 

■■ A rationale presents the background details used 

to formulate a objective. The rationale provides 

context to enhance comprehension and facilitate 

future evaluations. 

4.1 Management Direction 

Management of the three districts would emphasize 

developing and implementing an improved, sciencebased priority system to restore native prairie habitats for the benefit of waterfowl, State- and federally 

listed species, migratory birds, and other native wildlife. District staff would focus on high-priority tracts 

and, when possible, on medium-priority tracts. The 

districts’ focus would be to restore ecological processes 

and native grassland species to the greatest extent 

possible within the parameters of available resources 

and existing constraints. District staff would seek to 

maintain the existing levels and types of public use 

programs, ensuring that programs offered to the public are of consistently high quality. 

NATIVE PRAIRIE GOAL 

Conserve, restore, and improve the biological integrity 

and ecological function of the native prairies to support healthy populations of native plants and wildlife 

and promote the natural role of fire and grazing in 

shaping and managing these landscapes. 

The native prairie objectives address tracts of native 

prairie on fee-title lands within the districts. Native 

prairie is defined as native (“unbroken”) sod. It exists in all three districts in various acreages and with 

broad management histories. Most of the northern 

mixed-grass prairie and tallgrass prairie has been 

destroyed through conversion to agriculture, and 

remnant tracts appear to be particularly vulnerable 

to invasion by smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass 

(Murphy and Grant 2005). 

Contribution to ecosystem integrity and conservation of biological integrity are key roles of the Refuge 

System. Accordingly, the WPAs should contribute to 

the conservation of native prairies unique to South 

Dakota. 

Prioritization 

Waterfowl habitat protection and restoration are the 

districts’ primary emphases. Strategic planning enables the Service to make decisions on what habitats 

need protection and what landscapes have the greatest 

value to the health of waterfowl populations. HAPET, 

based in Bismarck, North Dakota, conducts research 

and develops predictive models. Through HAPET’s 

research and modeling of the Prairie Pothole Region 

of South Dakota, the Service can predict duck pair 

density. This modeling tool provides the Service with 

information needed to conserve and restore wetland 

and grassland landscapes that will benefit waterfowl 

and other bird species. The Service bases its protection priority for wetland and grassland habitat on this 

modeling effort. The Service’s goal is to protect habitat capable of supporting 25 or more breeding duck 

pairs per square mile. Figure 10 shows the predicted 

concentrations of duck pairs throughout the districts. 

A 2007 report by the Government Accountability 

Office analyzed the effectiveness of Service acquisitions under the WPA program. As a consequence of 

this analysis, the Service recently completed a “decision 

tree” matrix (shown in figure 11) that outlines how to 

set priorities for grassland and wetland acquisitions. 

Strategic planning increases the likelihood of making 

cost-effective decisions by avoiding misapplications of 

management treatments or investing in areas with limited potential to affect populations. Strategic planning 

for waterfowl applies not only to native prairie but to 

planted grasslands and wetlands as well. 

Prioritization Objective 

Implement the standardized, science-based prioritization decision tree developed for the CCP (figure 11) so 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 55
 

Figure 10. Map of predicted duck-pair concentrations in the three districts, South Dakota. 

CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 57 

Figure 11. Decision tree for prioritizing management of native sod tracts on WPAs. 
58 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

that limited funding and management resources are 

objectively allocated to native prairie tracts according to the potential for that tract to benefit waterfowl 

and grassland birds. Allocate limited resources to native prairie tracts as discussed in the Native Prairie 

Restoration Objectives below. Allow each district to 

further refine the prioritization system as additional 

biological information becomes available; reevaluate 

the prioritization system 15 years after CCP approval. 

Strategy 

Apply multiple selection criteria for prioritizing native 

prairie tracts according to the decision tree (figure 11) 

and as summarized below. 

1. Primary Criterion—Duck Pairs per Square Mile. 

This criterion is divided into four levels of priority—≥60, ≥40, ≥25, and <25 duck pairs per square 

mile—that match the Service’s Grassland Easement 

Priority Zones (Ron Reynolds, USFWS, HAPET, 

personal communication, 2010). 

2. Secondary Criterion—Percent Grass on the Landscape. 

The surrounding landscape is categorized as high 

or low grass composition—≥40 percent grass or 

<40 percent grass. This criterion coincides with 

requirements for maintenance levels of waterfowl 

nesting success (Reynolds et al. 2001). 

3. Tertiary Criterion—Native Floristic Composition. 

This criterion is divided into five levels characterizing the percentage of native species in the vegetation community—≥20, 15–19, 10–14, 5–9, and 

0–4 percent). Vegetation is characterized by mean 

frequency (percentage occurrence) of South Dakota 

Upland Plant Associations (Belt Transect Categories; 

see appendix I) as described in Grant et al. 2004a. 

The result of objectively applying these three criteria 

using the decision tree (figure 11) is the assignment of 

a priority level for each tract of native prairie in the 

three districts (table 8). In all, there are 40 priority 

levels from Priority 1A to Priority 4J. This provides 

each district with a range of flexibility in applying the 

Table 8. Assigned priority levels according to the decision tree for prioritizing management of native prairie. 

County WPA Priority code County WPA Priority code 

Huron WMD Sanborn Long Lake 1E 

Hand Slunecka 1A Hand Spring Lake 1E 

Buffalo Mills 1A Jerauld Johnson 1J 

Hand VenJohn 1B Beadle Moser 1J 

Hand Treichler 1C Hand McGillvrey 2A 

Beadle LeClaire 1D Hyde Cowan 2A 

Beadle Bauer 1D Hyde Harter 2A 

Sanborn Winter 1E Hand Boomsma 2C 

Beadle Yauney 1E Hand Millerdale 2D 

Beadle Weiting 1E Hughes Robbins 2D 

Beadle Maga-Ta-Hohpi 1E Beadle LeClaire 2D 

Beadle Shoemaker 1E Sanborn Reed 2E 

Beadle Ruppel 1E Beadle Reed 2E 

Beadle Rogers 1E Beadle Mud Lake 2E 

Hand Lingemann 1E Hand Johnson 2E 

Beadle Kleinsasser 1E Sanborn Hoarty 2E 

Beadle Ingle 1E Sanborn Brandenburg 2E 

Hand Campbell 1E Hand Fischer 2E 

Beadle Cain Creek 1E Sanborn Linn 2E 

Beadle Boomsma 1E Sanborn Long Lake 2E 

Beadle Andressen 1E Hand Spring Lake 2E 

Hand Reinhardt 1E Beadle Glanzer 2J 

Hand Mullenberg 1E Hughes Hyde 3A 

Sanborn Kraft 1E Sanborn Zink 3E 

Sanborn Jackson 1E Madison WMD 

Hand Cahalan 1E Deuel Schafer 1A 

Hand Weideman 1E Deuel Coteau Prairie 1A 
59 

Table 8. Assigned priority levels according to the decision tree for prioritizing management of native prairie. 

County WPA Priority code 

Deuel Eilen 1A 

Deuel Miller 1B 

Miner Sullivan 1D 

Miner North Windedahl 1D 

Miner Hepner 1D 

Deuel Bunde 1E 

Kingsbury R.S. Anderson 1E 

Kingsbury Silver Lake 1E 

Miner Corbin 1E 

McCook Gottlob 1E 

McCook Huls 1E 

Miner Twin Lakes 1E 

McCook Sabers 1J 

McCook Schuldt 1J 

McCook Hamaker 1J 

Hamlin Peterson 2A 

Deuel Nelson 2A 

Deuel Stoltenburg 2A 

Lake Alquire 2A 

Deuel Severson 2A 

Moody Long 2A 

Brookings Goodfellow 2B 

Brookings Errington 2C 

Kingsbury Shutler 2C 

Brookings Bjornlie 2C 

Lake Katke 2C 

Brookings Gerdink 2D 

Lake Murfield 2D 

Miner Raesley 2D 

Miner Foos 2D 

Kingsbury Muser 2E 

Brookings Brush Lake 2E 

Brookings Cotton 2E 

Brookings Lund 2E 

Brookings Eriksrud 2E 

Deuel Adams 2E 

Kingsbury Apland 2E 

Kingsbury Holland 2E 

Kingsbury Neu 2E 

Kingsbury Plum Lake 2E 

Lake Pekarek 2E 

Miner South Windedahl 2E 

Miner Hein 2E 

Miner Johnston 2E 

Lake Lake Henry 2E 

County WPA Priority code 

Moody Thompson 2E 

Miner Muller 2E 

Brookings Wenk 2J 

Hamlin Rider 2J 

Kingsbury Hodges 2J 

Kingsbury Katke 2J 

Kingsbury Ratfield 2J 

Kingsbury Williams 2J 

Lake Fischer 2J 

Lake Pearson 2J 

Moody Heinricy 2J 

McCook Reif 2J 

Moody Benson 2J 

McCook Holm 2J 

Lake Cassutt 2J 

McCook Hamilton 2J 

Deuel Nordquist 3A 

Hamlin Cox 3A 

Lake Long Lake 3B 

Lake Madison 3C 

Minnehaha Petri II 3C 

Minnehaha Jordan 3C 

Hamlin Wayrynen 3D 

Minnehaha Wise-becker 3D 

Minnehaha Kindt-Munce 3D 

Deuel Kreger 3E 

Brookings Pittenger 3E 

Lake Wolf 3E 

Minnehaha Island Lake 3E 

Minnehaha Graham 3E 

Minnehaha Petri I 3E 

Minnehaha Acheson 3F 

McCook Lukes 3F 

Deuel Lounsbery 3H 

Kingsbury Schultz 3H 

Lake Gerry 3H 

Brookings Bjornlie 3H 

Lake Katke 3H 

Deuel Bork 3I 

Brookings Dry Lake 3I 

Minnehaha Costello 3I 

Brookings Bolstad 3J 

Brookings Brookings 3J 

Moody Reaves 3J 

Moody Anderson 3J 
60 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Table 8. Assigned priority levels according to the decision tree for prioritizing management of native prairie. 

County WPA Priority code 

Moody Petsch 3J 

Minnehaha Clear Lake 3J 

Minnehaha Buffalo Lake 3J 

Minnehaha Voelker II 3J 

Minnehaha Lost Lake 3J 

McCook Bank 3J 

McCook Deneui 3J 

Minnehaha Schaefer 3J 

Brookings Kasperson 3J 

Brookings Kasperson 3J 

Brookings Kasperson 3J 

Lake Long Lake 4B 

Sand Lake WMD 

Campbell Goetz 1A 

Campbell Cooper 1A 

McPherson Anderson-Vilhauer 1A 

McPherson Burrer-Schnabel 1A 

McPherson Dockter 1A 

McPherson Eureka Grazing Association 1A 

McPherson Long Lake 1A 

McPherson Imberi 1A 

McPherson Schafer-Schafer-Hoffman 1A 

McPherson Weisser 1A 

McPherson Woehlhaff-Schnabel 1A 

Edmunds Bowdle Lake 1A 

Campbell Schlomer 1B 

Brown Hayes 1B 

McPherson Buntrock 1B 

McPherson Charley-Harley 1B 

McPherson Rau Lake 1B 

Edmunds Dewald 1B 

Edmunds Hosmer 1B 

Edmunds Schurr 1B 

Edmunds Stephan North 1B 

Brown Proud 1C 

Brown Ristau 1C 

Edmunds Anderson 1C 

Edmunds Stephan South 1C 

Faulk Christianson 1D 

McPherson 10/45 1D 

McPherson Cantwell 1D 

McPherson Ehresman 1D 

McPherson Hoffman-Gottleib 1D 

McPherson Klooz 1D 

McPherson Mehlhaff II 1D 

McPherson Perch Lake 1D 

County WPA Priority code 

McPherson Schafer 1D 

McPherson Swisher 1D 

McPherson West North 1D 

Campbell BLM-1A 1E 

Faulk Lane 1E 

Faulk Seidschlaw 1E 

Faulk Stephan 1E 

Faulk Waldman 1E 

Faulk Zell Lake 1E 

Faulk Zens 1E 

McPherson Adam-Gienger 1E 

McPherson Bauer-Fischer 1E 

McPherson Schnabel-Hoff 1E 

McPherson Eureka Demonst. Area 1E 

McPherson Feickert 1E 

McPherson Haerter 1E 

McPherson Helfenstein-Opp 1E 

McPherson Heyd Lake 1E 

McPherson Highland 1E 

McPherson Job-Anderson 1E 

McPherson Mehlhaff I 1E 

McPherson Neuharth 1E 

McPherson Schultz-Reinhold 1E 

Edmunds Bierman 1E 

Edmunds Hettich 1E 

Edmunds Kindlespire-Leboldus 1E 

Edmunds Ryman 1E 

Edmunds Mitzel 1E 

Edmunds Rieger 1E 

Edmunds Stotz 1E 

Edmunds Tang 1E 

Spink Jessen 1E 

Brown Lord Lake 1I 

Brown Maunu 1I 

Brown Engle Dam 1J 

Walworth Leibelt 2A 

Campbell Thullner 2E 

Campbell Goehring 2E 

Spink Boekelheide East 2E 

Spink Boekelheide West 2E 

Faulk Voight 2E 

McPherson Mettler 2E 

Spink Hahler-Carda 2J 

McPherson Mettler 3E 

Spink Sanderson, Bruckner 3I 
61 

standardized decision tree. Each district is permitted 

to individually identify high-priority, moderate-priority, and low-priority levels as outlined in the Native 

Prairie Restoration Objectives below. 

Figure 12. Dominant vegetation community types on native prairie, averaged by district, 2006–2008. 

Rationale 

Most northern mixed-grass and tallgrass prairie has 

been destroyed. Key roles of the Refuge System include conservation of biological integrity, diversity, 

and ecological health (USFWS 2001a). Accordingly, the 

Huron, Madison, and Sand Lake WMDs should contribute to the conservation of native prairie communities. 

However, Service-owned native prairie is badly 

deteriorated, mainly through extensive invasion by 

introduced, cool-season grasses. Recent inventory data 

suggest that relatively intact native herbaceous flora 

is uncommon on Service-owned land in the Dakotas, 

with few remaining large tracts dominated by native 

grasses and forbs (Grant et al. 2009). Across-district 

averages based on current inventory data (2008 for 

the Sand Lake and Madison WMDs and 2006 for the 

Huron WMD) indicate that native grasses and forbs 

comprise 12, 10, and 15 percent of the native prairie, 

respectively (figure 12). 

It is likely that some native prairie in the districts 

has already passed a threshold—in other words, restoration of a modestly diverse, native herbaceous flora 

in such areas is an unrealistic and impractical goal. 

Multiple experiments in the northern Great Plains 

have found that fire and other control methods such 

as herbicide applications depend heavily for their success on the presence of a minimum of 20 percent of 

native species in the matrix (Dill et al. 1986, Willson 

and Stubbendieck 2000). A grass matrix dominated 

by a few introduced species inhibits the germination, 

establishment, and persistence of most native species. However, restoration may be possible on some 

tracts, especially where native grasses, sedges, and 

forbs are more common and widespread. Such tracts 

need to be identified by objective criteria that focus 

on (1) the diversity and prevalence of existing native 

plants, and (2) landscape area and connectivity. 

Both criteria underlie the quality of nesting habitat for grassland birds, a species guild of significant 

conservation concern. Grassland birds have become 

the fastest and most consistently declining guild of 

birds in North America (figure 13) (Herkert 1995, 

Knopf 1994, Peterjohn and Sauer 1999, Samson and 

Knopf 1994, Vickery and Herkert 2001); 48 percent of 

grassland species are of conservation concern and 55 

percent show significant declines (North American 

Bird Conservation Initiative 2009). As a result, a multitude of grassland-dependent birds are of conservation concern (table 5). Johnson (2006) found that at 

current rates of decline, within 40 years only 10–25 
62 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

percent of the population of these grassland bird species will remain. Accordingly, because South Dakota 

constitutes the central portion of many grassland 

obligate bird species’ geographical ranges (Sauer et 

al. 2008), managing habitat for grassland birds is of 

critical importance. Each district has developed a list 

of focal species it is best positioned to help protect 

and maintain on the basis of the species’ geographic 

ranges and specialized habitats (table 6). 

A recent evaluation of habitat use and requirements 

for grassland bird species of greatest conservation 

need in central and western South Dakota provided 

the following recommendations to managers for preservation and restoration of grassland habitat to help 

maintain populations of grassland obligate bird species. 

To maintain current populations and species diversity, it is critical that managers preserve as much native grassland as possible. Due to the diverse habitat 

requirements of these species of concern, grasslands 

should be under varying management regimes including rest, grazing (in varying intensities), mowing, and 

prescribed burning. Reduction and removal of exotic 

plant species should be a key element in establishing habitat for grassland obligate species as many 

were negatively affected by increases in exotic plant 

coverage. Preserved patches should be large in size 

as some species were area sensitive and preferred 

patches ≥250–1,600 ha. Grassland patches should also 

have little to no woody edge. Finally, these patches 

should be located in close proximity to one another, 

or in areas of little fragmentation, to help increase 

the amount of grassland habitat in the landscape, as 

many of these grassland bird species were positively 

associated with the landscape variables, some up to 

3,200 meters (Greer 2009). 

A fundamental assumption is that, under current 

management—which lacks an objective, science-based 

system of identifying and prioritizing restoration of 

native prairie tracts—native herbaceous flora would 

continue to decline and disappear. Implementation of 

the Prioritization Objective and its supporting strategy 

would improve the chances that some native prairie 

would be restored. 

Figure 13. North American bird population indicators based on trends for obligate species in four major habitats. 

Source: North American Bird Conservation Initiative 2009. 

Native Prairie Restoration 

Native Prairie Restoration Objective 1 

On high-priority native prairie tracts, apply frequent 

and precisely timed disturbance (principally fire and 

grazing) to restore vegetation to the following standards within 15 years of CCP approval. This would 

provide habitat for most wildlife species that were 

characteristic of South Dakota’s eastern prairie regions. 

■■ At 5-year intervals, increase the composition of 

natives by at least 5 percent. 

■■ At 5-year intervals, maintain or decrease levels of 

smooth brome to the Huron WMD’s 2006 baseline 

levels and to the Madison and Sand Lake WMDs’ 

2008 baseline levels. 

■■ No planted shelterbelts or invasive volunteer 

trees, whether nonnative (such as Russian olive or 

Siberian elm) or native (such as eastern red cedar), 

exist on the landscape. 
63 

Strategies 

■■ On high-priority tracts, disturb the vegetation, 

typically using livestock grazing or fire, at least 2 

of every 3 years. 

■■ Actively participate in the NPAM project throughout its duration to maximize understanding of best 

management practices (BMPs) for restoration. 

■■ Reseed adjoining old cropland units into native 

vegetation that includes cool-season and warmseason grass components, as well as a native forb 

component. Manage these intensively, in concert 

with the high-priority tracts they adjoin, to sustain 

a native-dominated flora and to reduce sources of 

invasion by introduced cool-season grasses and 

noxious weeds (see Tamegrass Objective 1). 

■■ Experiment on low-priority tracts with new or 

high-risk restoration methods for use on highpriority tracts. 

■■ Experiment with control of introduced, cool-season 

grasses and subsequent release of native plants 

on a small, localized scale with selective herbicide 

treatment. 

■■ Periodically survey for noxious weeds. Use herbicides, mechanical treatment, or biological control as needed, especially along boundaries with 

private lands. 

■■ Avoid herbicides that are unnecessarily detrimental 

to native forbs. Stay abreast of advancements in 

chemical herbicides that increasingly do a better 

job of targeting State-listed noxious species while 

leaving desirable native forbs unharmed. 

■■ Remove local human disturbances and artifacts 

of twentieth-century origin. These include rock 

piles, junk piles, and old machinery. Restore such 

sites as close as possible to their original condition. 

■■ Experiment with noninvasive methods to interseed 

native plants into heavily invaded native prairie, 

such as prescribed fire followed by seeding with 

a grass drill. 

■■ NOTE: Service policy regarding refuge management implicitly promotes seeding to reestablish 

native plants in native prairie where such plants 

have become rare or absent (National Wildlife 

Refuge System Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 

Environmental Health [BIDEH], 601 FW 3, 2001). 

The short-eared owl is a focal grassland species. 

© Chris Bailey 

Rationale 

Native Prairie Restoration 

One of the most important management standards 

of the Improvement Act is a provision directing the 

Secretary of the Interior to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of 

the System are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (ecological 

integrity provision). With the exception of the Refuge 

System mission, the ecological integrity provision is 

the most important and pervasive provision of the 

Improvement Act. Maintaining the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of protected 

lands is a fundamental concept widely recognized as 

basic to modern scientific resource management, and 

by virtue of the Improvement Act, the Service now 

has a fundamental legal duty to do so. 

This objective focuses on restoration and maintenance of the floristic composition on tracts identified 

as high priority on the basis of criteria used to determine their restoration potential. 

A fundamental assumption is that, with continued 

management focused on vertical structure over other 

prairie qualities and values, native herbaceous flora 

would continue to decline and disappear on native 

prairie tracts. Native Prairie Restoration Objective 

1 would improve the chances that some native prairie 

would be restored on high-priority tracts by applying 

frequent and precisely timed disturbance. 

Over the last several decades, rest (that is, lack of 

grazing, haying, and prescribed fire) was emphasized as 

a management approach to increase densities of duck 

nests in uplands on WPAs in the Dakotas. In the short 

term (2–20 years), greater vertical structure may be 

maintained in northern grasslands that are rested. 

The structure of such idle vegetation is believed to be 

more important than plant species composition when 

the management goal is waterfowl production, in part 

because the density and survival of nests of prairie 

ducks are believed to be greatest on rested grasslands 

(Naugle et al. 2000, Schranck 1972). 

However, a management approach for upland-nesting duck habitat that emphasizes rest has long-term 

implications that are often overlooked in short-term 

management studies, because continuous idling without periodic defoliation disturbance fails to promote 

long-term grassland health (Naugle et al. 2000). With 

extended rest, introduced grasses, especially smooth 

brome and Kentucky bluegrass, may more rapidly 
64 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Prairie habitat on the Slunecka Waterfowl Production 

Area. 

Bridgette Flanders-Wanner / USFWS 

displace native vegetation (Murphy and Grant 2005). 

Monotypic stands of smooth brome and Kentucky 

bluegrass are less attractive to upland-nesting ducks 

than other types of grass-forb cover (Nenneman 2003). 

Studies conducted on exotic plant species and 

habitat quality for grassland birds have shown that 

grassland bird species richness and/or abundance are 

lower in grasslands dominated by exotic species than 

in grasslands containing native species (Bakker and 

Higgins 2009, Greer 2009, Lloyd and Martin 2005, 

Pampush and Anthony 1993, Wilson and Belcher 1989). 

Recent South Dakota research reported that increasing coverage of grasslands by exotic plant species had 

a negative effect on the occurrence and/or densities 

of four of South Dakota’s species of greatest conservation need—chestnut-collared longspur, western 

meadowlark, grasshopper sparrow, and lark bunting 

(Greer 2009). Bakker and Higgins (2009) found that 

intermediate wheatgrass monotypes and cool-season 

mixes of exotic species in South Dakota contained 40–60 

percent fewer grassland bird species than did native 

sod prairie. Ribic et al. (2009) found that grasshopper 

sparrows occurred in higher densities in native prairie 

remnants with greater native plant coverage than in 

CRP fields or hay fields containing greater amounts 

of exotic species. Increased vegetative heterogeneity in tracts of native sod prairie may support more 

arthropod prey for grassland birds (Hickman et al. 

2006, McIntyre and Thompson 2003); arthropod prey 

diversity is positively associated with grassland bird 

richness (Hamer et al. 2006). 

Losses of plant, bird, and arthropod species diversity are not the only consequences when introduced 

plants invade northern prairie. The long-term effect of 

introduced perennials does more than simply determine 

species composition; it also affects ecosystem processes 

(Wilson 2002). Ecosystem processes such as nutrient 

cycling and water-use patterns in prairies dominated 

by smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass differ from 

those in native grasslands (Hunt et al. 1991, Trlica 

and Biondini 1990). Nutrient pools, energy flows, soil 

invertebrate and mycorrhizal relationships, and the 

water cycle can all be altered significantly (Christian 

and Wilson 1999, Seastedt 1995, Vinton and Goergen 

2006, Wilson 2002). 

In efforts to emulate these natural regimes that sustained wildlife populations prior to pioneer settlement, 

land managers must attempt to simulate the ecological 

processes that maintained the habitat prior to settlement. A strategy to improve competitive advantages 

of native herbaceous plants should match the types, 

timing, and frequencies of prescribed disturbances 

to those under which these plants evolved. Several 

sources indicate that native grasslands devoid of grazing and fire deteriorate quickly (Anderson et al. 1970, 

Kirsch and Kruse 1973, Kirsch et al. 1978, Schacht and 

Stubbendieck 1985). The grasslands function similarly 

to living organisms in that they respond to activities 

within the ecosystem. Specifically, the forbs and grasses 

covering the landscape have developed biological adaptations to thrive in the presence of herbivory and 

fire. Wildlife managers use various tools—including 

prescribed fire and prescribed grazing—to emulate the 

defoliation process with which prairie plants evolved. 

The frequency of certain activities depends on the 

particular habitat components. For instance, a pristine native prairie tract may require a burn every 3–5 

years and intermittent, prescribed grazing of domestic 

cattle, whereas areas that are heavily invaded require 

more frequent management treatments. Prescribed 

burning, mowing, and herbicide application can reduce 

the abundance of smooth brome, but without sustained 

control efforts, the species is remarkably persistent 

(Willson and Stubbendieck 2000). 

In determining restoration actions, vegetation 

composition is considered along a habitat continuum, 

where plant communities can be separated by degree of 

invasion by undesirable plants. A continuum for native 

prairie in eastern South Dakota (beginning with the 

least desirable vegetation) could be shown as: noxious 

weeds (e.g., Canada thistle or leafy spurge) → nonna

tive, woody species (e.g., Russian olive, Siberian elm) 

→ invasive, volunteer woody species (e.g., eastern 

red cedar) → smooth brome → Kentucky bluegrass 

→ native low shrubs (e.g., western snowberry) and 

native herbaceous vegetation. With management, less 

desirable plant species are replaced by more desirable 

plant groups. For example, it is acceptable in the short 

term to increase Kentucky bluegrass in areas where 

leafy spurge is reduced. Conversely, replacement of 

Kentucky bluegrass by smooth brome is undesirable. 

Therefore, restoration management should focus 

more on strategies to reduce smooth brome. Smooth 

brome generally seems more difficult to control than 

other introduced cool-season grasses (Murphy and 

Grant 2005). Smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and 

crested wheatgrass are all “strong invaders” (Ortega 

­
65 

and Pearson 2005), able to become community dominants and form nearly monospecific stands. However, 

smooth brome more significantly alters the quality 

and structure of native prairie than does Kentucky 

bluegrass (Blankespoor 1987); may have a competitive advantage over native grasses, particularly in 

high nitrogen soils (Vinton and Goergen 2006); and 

can modify soil microbiota to directly facilitate its own 

invasion and subsequently impede restoration of native communities (Jordan et al. 2008). 

A strategy to decrease the competitive abilities of 

Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome should focus 

on the combined use of prescribed fire and prescribed 

grazing. Kentucky bluegrass responds well to fire, 

decreasing in abundance as fire frequency increases 

until it is nearly absent in annually or biannually 

burned plots in both low-productivity (Knops 2006) 

and high-productivity prairies (Smith and Knapp 

1999, Towne and Owensby 1984). Fire has the greatest 

negative effect on Kentucky bluegrass during stem 

elongation or in dry years (Murphy and Grant 2005). 

Conversely, Kentucky bluegrass tends to increase 

under prolonged rest or with grazing (Murphy and 

Grant 2005). Smooth brome also increases under rest 

but, in contrast to Kentucky bluegrass, appears sensitive to repeated grazing but unaffected or variably 

affected by prescribed fire (also reviewed in Murphy 

and Grant 2005). Periodic monitoring will ensure that 

the appropriate management treatment is applied for 

the invasive species and severity of the infestation on 

the given management unit. 

Historically, the prairie was a treeless landscape. 

Trees and tall shrubs can diminish the survival of 

nests of grassland birds by harboring potential nest 

predators. They also provide perches from which 

brown-headed cowbirds can find other species’ nests in 

which to lay eggs. Relatively small areas of tall woody 

vegetation can effectively fragment grassland habitats and cause many grassland bird species to avoid 

entire landscapes. Based on these findings, elimination 

of tall woody cover is a logical strategy for restoration 

of landscape structure and plant community composition, as well as a means to improve the attractiveness 

and security of the habitat for a variety of grasslandbreeding bird species. 

An upland sandpiper surveying its habitat from a 

convenient vantage point. 

© Chris Bailey 

Wildlife Response 

Although the focus of this objective is the restoration and maintenance of floristic composition in native 

prairie, wildlife would also benefit. The contemporary 

breeding bird community on WPAs in eastern South 

Dakota is characterized by species that tolerate introduced, cool-season grasses and relatively tall, 

dense, herbaceous cover. Habitat for a broader array 

of northern prairie birds (including several endemics 

and other species characteristic of the historical native prairie community) may be significantly increased 

by providing frequent disturbance and the resulting 

increases in early successional stages. 

Nevertheless, there are often tradeoffs in wildlife 

response to consider when reintroducing major habitat disturbances such as fire and grazing; short-term 

losses should be weighed against net gains over longer 

periods. For example, management treatments might 

influence the survival of grassland bird nests—directly 

by burning nests or through livestock trampling, or 

indirectly through increased predation or brood parasitism rates—when nest site vegetation is modified 

by fire or grazing. 

Despite declines in densities during the first growing season following a prescribed burn, Murphy et al. 

(2005) found that most species of breeding grassland 

birds in northern mixed-grass prairie are adapted to 

recurring fire (every 4–6 years) by nesting in unburned 

patches and returning to pre-burn levels of abundance 

and nest density after the first growing season. Further, 

the authors found that fire had almost no discernible 

impact on nest survival for all species of grassland 

birds examined, with the exception of the Savannah 

sparrow in the first post-burn growing season. 

Murphy et al. (2005) found similar results for waterfowl; duck nest densities were reduced during the 

first growing season following a fire, but recovered 

2–3 years post-fire. Similarly, Kruse and Bowen (1996) 

found that grazing alone reduced nest densities during the grazing years, but the vegetation and ducks 

recovered quickly after grazing ended. However, 

studies of nesting success have reported neutral to 

positive responses of waterfowl to grazing and prescribed fire. Murphy et al. (2005) found greater nest 

survival for mallards and gadwalls during the first 

post-fire growing season than in subsequent years and 

no fire effects on nest survival in other duck species, 

regardless of how recently fire had occurred. Kruse 

and Bowen (1996) found that waterfowl nest success 

was not influenced by burning and grazing treatments, 

while several studies have reported greater nesting 
66 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

success in grazed grasslands than in other habitats 

in the Prairie Pothole Region (Barker et al. 1990, 

Greenwood et al. 1995). Warren et al. (2008) found that 

nesting females were most successful at sites with 

above-average vegetation density that are in fields 

with increased grazing intensity (that is, nesting in 

clumps of vegetation in areas more generally characterized by low levels of residual cover). Grazed areas 

may attract fewer predators because of low densities 

of some types of prey, such as small mammals (Grant 

et al. 1982, Runge 2005); less cover for concealment; 

or both. Higher nesting success in grazed fields may 

occur because predators respond negatively to low 

prey density (Clark and Nudds 1991, Lariviére and 

Messier 1998). 

A badger on the move in prairie habitat. 

© Chris Bailey 

Native Prairie Restoration Objective 2 

Moderate tracts are managed as high-priority tracts 

as funding and staff time permits. In years with insufficient budgets or staff resources, moderate tracts 

are managed as low-priority tracts. 

Native Prairie Restoration Objective 3 

On low-priority native prairie and smooth brome–dominated tracts, apply disturbance approximately every 

4–7 years to remove plant litter, restore plant vigor, 

reverse woody plant expansion, and provide a mix of 

structural types that include (1) tall/dense vegetation 

for species such as mallard, northern harrier, gadwall, 

and bobolink; (2) vegetation of medium height and 

density for species such as blue-winged teal, shorteared owl, northern shoveler, northern pintail, and 

grasshopper sparrow; and (3) relatively short/sparse 

vegetation for species such as upland sandpiper, willet, marbled godwit, and chestnut-collared longspur. 

There is almost no monitoring of vegetation on 

these tracts except for routine, cursory surveillance 

for noxious weeds. Nevertheless, knowledge of the 

relationship between disturbance (that is, any management treatment or natural event that results in 

the significant removal of vegetative biomass) and 

the resulting post-disturbance vegetation structure 

enables land managers to predict the habitat conditions described below. Vegetation should exhibit these 

characteristics within 15 years of CCP approval. 

At least 50 percent of the total acreage of lowpriority native prairie is in a condition of 4–7 years 

post-disturbance, at least 25 percent is in a condition 

of 2–3 years post-disturbance, and less than 25 percent 

is in a condition of 0- to 1-year post-disturbance. These 

characteristics correspond roughly to structural categories, measured as visual obstruction reading (VOR) 

of at least 7 inches, 4–7 inches, and less than 4 inches 

(Robel et al. 1970). Such a distribution, or mosaic, of 

structural conditions is desirable to meet the needs 

of a wide array of grassland-nesting birds (figure 14). 

No invasive, volunteer trees exist on the landscape, whether nonnative (for example, Russian olive, Siberian elm) or native (for example, eastern red 

cedar). Removal of shelterbelts is not required as it 

is on high-priority tracts. 

Strategies 

■■ Manage tracts or portions of tracts with prescribed 

fire, grazing, or haying. 

■■ Burn opportunistically at any time, mainly to remove litter and control invasive, volunteer trees. 

Similarly, utilize livestock grazing with wide latitude on timing, intensity, and duration, mainly to 

remove litter and promote tillering (sending forth 

new shoots that sprout from the base of a grass) 

to improve plant vigor. 

■■ Experiment on low-priority tracts with new or 

high-risk restoration methods, including seeding or 

“interseeding” of native grasses and forbs, mainly 

to help develop effective restoration approaches 

for high-priority units. 

■■ Periodically survey for noxious weeds. Use herbicides, mechanical treatment, or biological control as needed, especially along boundaries with 

private lands. 

■■ Avoid herbicides that are unnecessarily detrimental 

to native forbs. Stay abreast of advancements in 

chemical herbicides that increasingly do a better 

job of targeting State-listed noxious species while 

leaving desirable native forbs unharmed. 

■■ Remove invasive, volunteer trees with a chainsaw, 

roller chopper, or other effective method of mechanical removal. Individual volunteer trees should be 

checked for the presence of migratory birds nests 

before removal. All tree removal activities will be 

conducted in accordance with the September 23, 

2010, policy and guidance (appendix J). 

Rationale 

By 2 years after CCP approval, district staff would 

have identified high-priority native prairie tracts to 

manage for biological integrity, ecological diversity, 
67 

and environmental health. This would improve the 

chances of restoring at least some native prairie by 

more intensively managing these areas. It is likely 

that low-priority native prairie tracts have already 

passed a threshold—in other words, restoration of a 

modestly diverse, native herbaceous flora in such areas is an unrealistic and impractical goal. However, 

with modest effort, the prevalent, introduced coolseason grasses can be managed to provide structural 

diversity, emphasizing structure that is tall/dense to 

medium for nesting waterfowl and apposite grasslanddependent birds. 

Structural habitat preferences of bird species vary 

widely. It is assumed that the needs of all species would 

not be met on a single tract or management unit, but 

rather the needs of various species groups would be 

met by providing a mosaic of vegetative structures (tall/ 

dense, medium, and short/sparse) across many tracts 

in the districts. Because WPAs are “waterfowl first” 

lands, it is appropriate to manage for a high percentage of tall/dense and medium VOR acres (at least 50 

percent and at least 25 percent, respectively) and low 

percentage of short/sparse VOR acres (less than 25 

percent). South Dakota’s five most abundant species of 

upland-nesting ducks (gadwall, mallard, blue-winged 

teal, northern shoveler, and northern pintail) prefer 

vegetation structure (as defined by VORs) in the 

medium (4–7 inches) and high (more than 7 inches) 

categories (Laubhan et al. 2006). 

Management of low-priority units for taller, denser 

vegetation (see Planted Grassland Objectives) can 

increase grassland habitat diversity across WPAs by 

providing a tallgrass prairie component for waterfowl. This may be increasingly important as vegetation height and density are reduced on much of the 

high-priority units. Such reduction results from the 

frequent and intensive management treatments to effectively restore native prairie and address the needs 

of a broader suite of grassland birds. 

-1 

Northern Harrier 

Gadwall 

Mallard 

Greater Prairie-Chicken1 

Short-Eared Owl 

Blue-Winged Teal 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

Northern Shoveler 

Bobolink 

Northern Pintail 

Baird’s Sparrow 

Wilson’s Phalarope2 

Chestnut-collared Longspur 

Upland Sandpiper 

Marbled Godwit 

Willet 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Huron's Data 

Minimum (25%) 

Maximum (75%) 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 

Visual Obstruction Reading (in) 

Figure 14. Quantitative measurements of visual obstruction readings of upland-nesting species. 

Source: Laubhan et al. 2006, except 1Svedarsky et al. 2003 and 2Dechant et al. 1999. 

Dakota Skipper 

The Madison and Sand Lake WMDs contain habitat 

suitable for Dakota skipper; occurrences are documented in Edmunds County in the Sand Lake WMD 

and Hamlin and Deuel counties in the Madison WMD 

(figure 15). Dakota skipper is likely to occur only in 

scattered remnants of high-quality native prairie 

across a vast area of grassland in the north-central 

United States and south-central Canada. The most 

significant remaining populations occur in western 

Minnesota, northeastern South Dakota, north-central 
North Dakota, and southern Manitoba. The species’ 

current distribution straddles the border between tallgrass and mixed-grass prairie; it occurs in two types 

of habitat (USFWS 2002a): 

■■ Flat, moist, native bluestem prairie in which three 

species of wildflowers are usually present—wood 

lily, harebell, and smooth camas. 

■■ Upland (dry) prairie that is often on ridges and hillsides; bluestem grasses and needlegrasses dominate 

these habitats and three wildflowers are typically 

present in quality sites—pale purple coneflower, 

upright coneflower, and blanketflower. 

Dakota skipper is a candidate for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act. Candidates are species for 

which the Service has information to support the listing of this species, but other species have higher priority for listing. Dakota skipper received a priority of 

11 on a scale of 1–12. 

Campbell Roberts 

Corson McPherson Marshall 

Harding 

Walworth Brown

Perkins Edmunds Day 

Grant Dewey Potter Faulk Butte Codington Spink Ziebach Clark l 

Meade 

e 

Sully Hamlin 

Duel

Lawrenc

yde

Hand

Hughes H

Beadle Stanley Kingsbury Brookings Haakon 

Pennington Buffalo Jerauld 

nrobna

Miner Lake Jones Moody Lyman 

Custer Brule 

urora 

S n

Jackson Mellette A

aviso D

Hanson

McCook

Minnehaha 

Shannon Douglas 

Fall River Tripp Hutchison Turner Bennett Todd Charles Lincoln Gregory Mix Bon Yankton n 

Homme Clay 

Unio

Figure 15. Known Dakota skipper locations (shaded) in South Dakota by county. Source: USFWS 2002b. 

68 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Dakota Skipper Objective 

At 5-year intervals, reevaluate native prairie areas 

larger than 80 acres in WPAs for suitability as Dakota 

skipper habitat on the basis of new species composition 

data. Manage sites deemed suitable for Dakota skipper 

(tier 2, after Murphy 2005) in accordance with its habitat needs, according to “The Conservation Strategy & 

Guidelines for Dakota Skippers on Service Lands in 

the Dakotas.” Within 5 years of classification, survey 

sites one or more times to document Dakota skipper 

presence or absence. 

Strategies 

■■ Use vegetation data to reevaluate vegetative species composition. 

■■ Systematically survey for Dakota skipper using either the checklist or Pollard Walk methods 

(Royer et al. 1998). Contract survey work to qualified lepidopterists. 

Rationale 

Dakota skipper populations have declined due to widespread conversion of native prairie for agricultural 

and other uses, leaving the remaining skipper populations isolated from one another in relatively small 

areas of remnant native prairie. In addition, many of 

the habitats where the species persists are threatened 

by overgrazing, conversion to cultivated agriculture, 

inappropriate fire management and herbicide use, 

woody plant invasion, and invasive plant species. 

Dakota skipper’s historical range is not known 

precisely, because extensive destruction of native 

prairie preceded widespread biological surveys in 

central North America. Although this butterfly likely 

occurred throughout a relatively unbroken and vast 

area of grassland in the north-central United States 

and south-central Canada, it now occurs only in scattered blanketflower remnants of high-quality native 

prairie. Scientists have recorded Dakota skippers 

from northeastern Illinois to southern Saskatchewan. 

Dakota skippers now occur no farther east than western Minnesota, and scientists presume that the species 

has been extirpated in Illinois and Iowa. 

The Madison and Sand Lake WMDs contain habitat capable of supporting Dakota skippers; these lands 

need to be systematically surveyed in an attempt to 

document the presence or absence of the species. 

Periodic reevaluation (every 5 years) of native prairie WPAs must be performed to capture changes in 

species composition that occur over time as a result 

of management, climatic changes, and other factors 

(such as new infestations by invasive plants). 
69 

Upland Management 

Upland Management Objective 

Enhance grassland systems in an ecosystem management context through the use of prescribed fire and 

grazing, applied scientifically under selected weather 

and environmental conditions. The use of fire should 

increase by 25 percent above levels in the 2006–2008 

field seasons to accomplish habitat management objectives. Grazing and fire will be symbiotically incorporated into grassland management to maximize 

management efficacy. 

Strategies 

The strategies listed below are applicable to all habitats in the three districts based on the priority system. 

■■ Use prescribed fire and grazing to maintain grassland health in restoration areas (stimulating native plant growth, increasing seed germination, 

supporting nutrient cycling, and reducing organic 

litter accumulation). 

■■ Apply fire and grazing at various times (spring– 

fall) to benefit phenology of native plant species 

(cool- and warm-season species). 

■■ Implement a patch-dynamic approach to grassland 

management to improve ecosystem function. 

■■ Use fire to prevent encroachment of woody-stemmed 

plants and invasive tree species. 

■■ Use fire to combat the invasion of cool-season exotic grasses (smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass) and thus maintain the integrity of grassland 

restorations. 

Rationale 

The prairie evolved through the interactions of a drying 

climate, herbivory, and fire (Anderson 1990; Axelrod 

1985; Pyne 1982, 1986; Sauer 1950; Webb 1983; Wells 

1970). Grasslands are disturbance-dependent systems 

that are significantly affected by the presence or absence of these disturbances. Without disturbance, 

grassland systems degrade and lose functionality. 

The accumulation of plant litter adversely affects the 

system functions of a grassland. According to Knapp 

and Seastedt (1986), plant litter limits available light 

energy input into the system; alters the microclimate 

and physiology of emerging shoots such that CO2 uptake is reduced; limits intake of inorganic nitrogen 

from rainwater as well as nitrogen fixing by free-living 

microbes and blue-green algae; and reduces soil temperature. These conditions diminish root productivity 

as well as invertebrate and microbial activities. Gibson 

and Hulbert (1987) determined that in tallgrass prairie, the diversity and percent cover of warm-season 

grasses decreases as time increases since fire occurrence. Briggs and Gibson (1992) determined that tree 

invasion is a function of the burning regime, dispersal 

vectors, habitat availability, and reproductive mode. 

Historically, fires were intermittent, occurring 

throughout the year (Jackson 1965). The timing of 

fire application affects the vegetation response. The 

greatest response to fire is observed in species that 

are approaching the initiation of spring growth when 

the treatment occurs (Towne and Owensby 1984). 

Treating grasslands with fire at different times in the 

seasonal cycle facilitates the manipulation of species 

composition. Additionally, the application of fire in the 

spring and fall negatively affects woody seedlings or 

saplings while increasing the productivity of many 

prairie forbs and grasses (Collins 1987; Collins and 

Wallace 1990; Hill and Platt 1975; Hulbert 1969, 1986; 

Knapp 1984, 1985; Knapp and Seastedt 1986; Old 1969; 

Peterson 1983). Grassland integrity and health cannot 

be achieved without restoring fire to the landscape. 

Herbivory can change plant species composition. 

Selective foraging, which decreases the presence of 

preferred forage species while increasing the presence 

of those not selected (Howe 1994), can affect the occurrence of individual species and determine species 

dominance in grasslands. The species of herbivore and 

the timing and density of prescribed grazing determines 

the magnitude and specific effect on the target area. 

The interaction of grazing and fire affects community structure differently than either alone (Collins 

and Barber 1985, Collins and Uno 1983). Grazing and 

fire affect the nitrogen cycling process that occurs 

belowground, creating a shifting mosaic of vegetation 

(Johnson and Matchett 2001). The interaction of grazing and fire can be maximized using a patch-dynamic 

approach. Fuhlendorf and Engle (2004) determined 

that the “patch-burn-graze” approach created a shifting mosaic of vegetation across the landscape and 

Vermeire et al. (2004) described the ability of a “patchburn-graze” system to create vegetative structural 

heterogeneity. A holistic approach to grassland management should include both forms of disturbance. The 

timing, frequency, intensity, and interaction of these 

ecological processes shape the community structure 

and species composition. 

Invasive and Planted Woody Vegetation on WPAs 

Historically, the northern Great Plains was a grasslanddominated ecosystem where fire and grazing restricted 

natural tree growth to riparian floodplains, wooded 

draws, islands in lakes, and small patches along leeward wetland edges (Higgins 1986). These patches and 

corridors of trees and shrubs were the only woodland 

features in the prairie landscape (Rumble et al. 1998). 

The prevalence of fire in the presettlement prairie 

created an environment inhospitable to trees (Higgins 

1986, Severson and Sieg 2006). The growing points of 

most grassland species are usually protected at the 

base of the plant. In contrast, woody vegetation possesses elevated growing points that are more vulnerable to injury or fatality from fire. Grassland plants 
70 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

persist and expand with frequent and repetitive burns, 

whereas woody plants tend to decrease (Vogl 1974). 

The tallgrass and mixed-grass prairie types that cover 

South Dakota produce large quantities of fuel that 

dry quickly and burn easily (Steuter and McPherson 

1995). Specifically, bluestem prairies recover quickly 

post-fire and can even provide enough fuel for multiple burns in a single growing season (Bragg 1982). 

Climate also played a pivotal role in the development of grasslands—particularly the limiting effect 

of periodic drought on the growth and expansion of 

trees (Weaver and Albertson 1936). Herbivory and 

hoof action of grazing animals also constrained the 

establishment and expansion of woody vegetation. 

The effects of ungulates, fire, and drought combined 

to inhibit tree growth and expansion across the grasslands of South Dakota. 

Presently, however, grassland fragmentation is escalating at an alarming rate. During 2008, in eastern 

South Dakota, the USDA and County Conservation 

Districts planted 255 miles of trees, covering 2,801 

acres of land with 1,115,780 trees (G. Yapp, USDA, 

personal communication, 2009). 

The response of grassland birds to unnatural tree 

conditions has received recent research emphasis. Grant 

et al. (2004) determined that the probability of occurrence of breeding grassland birds decreased notably 

for 11 species as the percentage of woody vegetation 

increased. Further, negative effects on grassland bird 

communities increased as the height of woody plants 

increased (that is, brush giving way to tall shrubs giving way to trees). By most accounts, the grasslands 

became unsuitable for nine species of grassland birds 

as woodland cover exceeded 25 percent (Grant et al. 

2004b). A recent study in the Dakotas determined that 

bobolink, Savannah sparrow, and sedge wren specifically avoided tree plantings; however, these species 

would utilize the same areas after tree-belts were 

removed (Naugle and Quamen 2007). 

Nest predators and nest parasite species increase 

near woody habitat edges (Burger et al. 1994, Johnson 

and Temple 1990); in other words, planting woody vegetation in previously treeless grasslands exacerbates 

these problems. Tree plantings in grasslands create 

den and foraging sites for predators historically uncommon to grasslands (Kuehl and Clark 2002, Pedlar 

et al. 1997, Sargeant 1972, Sargeant et al. 1987). Gazda 

et al. (2002) indicated that duck nest success decreases 

near planted woodlands as a result of increased predation by mammal and bird species associated with 

trees and shrubs. Waterfowl and waterbirds have been 

shown to avoid wetlands where trees and shrubs occur along wetland margins, presumably to evade predation (Rumble and Flake 1983, Shutler et al. 2000). 

Johnson and Temple (1990) determined that nest predation rates were lower for five species of grassland 

songbirds in areas where nests were more than 148 

feet from woody vegetation. 

Brown-headed cowbird is a nest parasite whose 

population has increased in recent decades to the detriment of other birds (Shaffer et al. 2003). Cowbirds 

lay eggs in the nest of other birds, and the host birds 

act as foster parents to the cowbird young, thus reducing survival of the host bird’s young (Lorenzana 

and Sealy 1999). Studies in mixed-grass prairie and 

tallgrass prairie determined that grassland birds nesting close (less than 541 feet [165 meters]) to wooded 

edges incur higher rates of brood parasitism from cowbirds than nests farther away (Johnson and Temple 

1990, Patten et al. 2006, Romig and Crawford 1995). 

Shaffer et al. (2003) documented that brown-headed 

cowbirds parasitize 24 of the 36 North American 

grassland bird species. 

Service-owned lands in South Dakota are part 

of this historically grassland-dominated ecosystem, 

where fire, grazing, and drought restricted natural 

tree growth to limited areas (Higgins 1986). Now, 

planted or volunteer trees and shrubs occur in many 

WPAs. Although most woody plantings existed before 

Service ownership of these lands, the Service did establish tree planting after acquisition in attempts to 

improve wildlife habitat. Volunteer trees are prevalent 

primarily due to lack of fire. Planted trees and shrubs 

such as green ash, cottonwood, and buffaloberry are 

native to North America; however, many others, such 

as caragana, Russian olive, and Siberian elm, are nonnative species. The most troublesome species planted 

in South Dakota is eastern red cedar. The species’ extreme adaptability has enhanced the spread of these 

trees into areas where they were formerly rare or 

absent. Additional increases in their spread are due 

to tree plantings and the selection of the most aggressive cultivars (Ortman et al. 1996). Most of these 

plantings are considered unnatural components of 

the historical habitat. Additionally, nonnative species 

such as Russian olive and Siberian elm are invasive 

and also readily spread from both Service-owned and 

non-Service-owned plantings into new areas. 

Preventing the encroachment and planting of woody 

vegetation into grassland ecosystems contributes significantly to the recovery of grassland bird populations (Herkert 1994). Recent research indicates that 

the elimination and reduction of invasive and planted 

woody vegetation will benefit most grassland-dependent bird species (Bakker 2003, Grant et al. 2004b, 

Johnson and Temple 1990, Naugle and Quamen 2007, 

Patten 2006 et al., Shaffer et al. 2003, Sovada et al. 

2005). Although many woodland bird species might 

nest in planted woodlands, few are of management 

concern (Kelsey et al. 2006), suggesting that the loss 

of planted woodlands will have negligible effects on 

woodland bird species whose populations are stable 

or expanding. 
71 

In view of the research that has highlighted the 

deleterious effects of woody vegetation on prairie ecosystems, systematic removal of invasive and planted 

woody vegetation from Service lands is critical to 

the improvement of habitat for grassland-dependent 

birds. Sites for tree removal on WPAs are prioritized 

on the basis of landscape characteristics; the majority 

of removal is targeted in areas with the largest blocks 

of grassland, with emphasis on native prairie tracts 

and areas to be restored to planted native vegetation. 

Reducing fragmentation in these core areas has the 

potential to provide the most benefits to grasslanddependent birds. In addition, the removal of woody 

species more than 3.28 feet (1 meter) tall should target the removal of the larger shrubs and trees that 

pose the greatest ecological threat to grassland ecosystems on Service lands, rather than on small native 

shrubs, such as prairie rose, leadplant, and western 

snowberry, which are an important component of 

grassland ecosystems. 

Invasive nonnative plants, such as this Russian olive tree, can degrade prairie habitat if they remain unchecked. 

Bridgette Flanders-Wanner / USFWS 

Invasive and Planted Woody Vegetation Objective 

Over a 15-year period, remove invasive or planted 

woody vegetation on a minimum of two sites per year 

on priority units (based on the ability to remove woody 

vegetation across the landscape such that doing so will 

create larger blocks of habitat for grassland birds). 

Strategies 

■■ Cut standing trees and shrubs and remove belowground woody material (stumps and roots) using chainsaws and a variety of heavy equipment. 

Where removal of stumps and roots is not viable, 

herbicide treatment may be necessary for control. 

■■ Apply herbicides in situations where suckering 

occurs or is anticipated. 

■■ Pile and burn downed woody material. 

■■ Use high-intensity spring or fall fires to initially 

kill trees within 4 years. Then use fire or herbicides 

to reduce viability of recurring growth. Continue 

control of trees and tall shrubs with periodic fire 

(every 3–6 years). 

■■ Plan and conduct tree removal to minimize the 

impacts on nesting migratory birds. If it is determined that these activities will be conducted during the nesting season, they will be limited to sites 

where improvements to the ecological integrity 

of the site will outweigh the short-term losses of 

individual birds. 

■■ Restore bare areas resulting from woody vegetation removal to perennial grass cover. 

■■ Due to the potential controversial nature of this 

management strategy, conduct outreach and appropriate education to the relevant local communities, 

politicians, media, and other interested parties. 

■■ Use appropriate bird survey methods to monitor 

bird response to removal of woody vegetation. 

Rationale 

Prior to Euro-American settlement in South Dakota, 

woody vegetation primarily occurred in riparian or 

streamside areas in broken topography in the upper drainages of streams, as well as on escarpments 

and in sandhills. These areas often had increased soil 

and foliar moisture, standing water, and relatively 

steep topography that provided protection from fires 

(Severson and Sieg 2006). 
72 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Although numerous patches of native woodlands 

still exist in the northern Great Plains, today, large 

expanses of once nearly treeless prairie are now intermixed with cropland and scattered small (less than 

5 acres) linear and block-shaped tree plantings (also 

commonly referred to as windbreaks, shelterbelts, and 

tree belts). Baer (1989) estimated that these plantings 

cover 3 percent of the landscape in the State. Tree 

plantings are designed to reduce soil erosion from 

croplands (Baer 1989) and to provide shelter for farm 

sites and livestock, and are viewed by many as striking 

landscape features that symbolize settlement of the 

western United States. However, they also further 

fragment remaining grasslands by creating abrupt 

boundaries that exacerbate edge effects (O’Leary 

and Nyberg 2000, Ribic and Sample 2001, Winter et 

al. 2000). Additionally, the suppression of ecological 

processes such as fire and grazing has allowed an increase in the encroachment of woody plants into grasslands (Bakker 2003). These factors have been linked 

to the deterioration of grassland bird populations, 

which are declining faster and more consistently than 

any other group of North American birds (Herkert 

1995, Samson and Knopf 1994). Research indicates 

that native grassland birds need large, contiguous 

tracts of treeless grasslands to maintain populations 

(Bakker et al. 2002, Herkert 1994, Winter et al. 1999). 

The literature overwhelmingly indicates that invasive and planted trees in prairie landscapes often adversely affect a variety of bird groups (Bakker 2003). 

Specifically, trees on the prairie are correlated with 

adverse consequences for ducks (Rumble and Flake 

1983), wetland birds other than ducks (Naugle et al. 

1999), prairie grouse (Hanowski et al. 2000, Niemuth 

2000), grassland songbirds (Grant et al. 2004b, Winter 

et al. 2000), and ring-necked pheasant (Schmitz and 

Clark 1999, Snyder 1984). 

PLANTED GRASSLANDS GOAL 

Manage planted grasslands to contribute to the production and growth of continental waterfowl populations, other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife. 

Prioritization 

Planted Grasslands Prioritization Objective 

Implement the standardized, science-based prioritization decision tree developed for the CCP (figure 16) so 

that limited funding and management resources are 

objectively allocated to planted grasslands according 

to the potential for that tract to benefit waterfowl and 

grassland birds. Allocate limited resources to planted 

grasslands as outlined in the Planted Grasslands 

Management Objectives below. Allow each district to 

further refine the prioritization system as additional 

biological information becomes available; reevaluate 

the prioritization system 15 years after CCP approval. 

Strategies 

■■ Apply multiple selection criteria for prioritizing 

planted grassland tracts according to the decision 

tree (figure 16) and as summarized below. 

➤■Primary Criterion—Duck Pairs per Square 

Mile. This criterion is divided into four levels 

of priority—at least 60, at least 40, at least 25, 

and fewer than 25 duck pairs per square mile— 

that match the Service’s Grassland Easement 

Priority Zones (Ron Reynolds, USFWS, HAPET, 

personal communication, 2010). 

➤■ Secondary Criterion—Percent Grass on the 

Landscape. The surrounding landscape is categorized as high or low grass composition—at 

least 40 percent or less than 40 percent grass. 

This criterion coincides with requirements for 

maintenance levels of waterfowl nesting success (Reynolds et al. 2001). 

➤■Tertiary Criterion—Native Floristic Composition. 

This criterion is divided into three levels that 

characterize the percentage of native species 

in the vegetation community: 25–65, 66–100, 

and 0–24 percent). Vegetation is characterized 

by mean frequency (percentage occurrence) 

of South Dakota Upland Plant Associations 

(Belt Transect Categories; see appendix I) as 

described in Grant et al. 2004a. 

The result of objectively applying these three criteria using a decision tree (figure 16) is the assignment of a priority level for each tract of planted 

vegetation in the three districts (table 9). In all, 

there are 40 priority levels from Priority 1A to 

Priority 4J. This provides each district with a 

range of flexibility in applying the standardized 

decision tree. Each district is permitted to individually identify high-priority, moderate-priority, 

and low-priority levels as outlined in the Planted 

Grasslands Management Objectives below. 

Rationale 

In attempt to restore the prairie lost to conversion 

to agriculture, Service personnel have planted various types of vegetation to restore the functions of a 

grassland ecosystem on Service lands. This discussion 

examines previous grassland restoration activities and 

considers future efforts. 

The prairie was once the most common ecosystem 

in North America, but the modern loss of prairie habitats exceeds that of most other major ecosystems in 

North America (Noss et al. 1995, Samson and Knopf 

1994). Consequently, grassland birds have experienced 

steeper, more consistent, and more widespread population declines than any other group of North American 

birds (Herkert 1995, Igl and Johnson 1997, Peterjohn 

and Sauer 1999). Breeding Bird Survey data from 1966– 

1996 indicates that populations of 13 species of North 
73 

Figure 16. Decision tree for prioritizing management of planted grasslands. 
Table 9. Assigned priority levels according to the decision tree for prioritizing management of planted native 

vegetation. 

County WPA 

Management 

unit 

Priority 

code 

Huron WMD 

Beadle Schull 1A 

Beadle Weaver 1C 

Beadle Wipf 2A 

Beadle Kahre 1B 

Beadle Rogers 1C 

Beadle Thesenvitz 1B 

Beadle South Weaver 1B 

Beadle Yauney 1B 

Beadle Weiting 1B 

Beadle Kleinsasser 1A 

Beadle Cain Creek 1B 

Beadle LeClaire Unit 4&5 1B 

Beadle LeClaire Unit 6A 1B 

Beadle LeClaire Unit 6&3 1C 

Beadle Clouser Unit 1B 1B 

Beadle Clouser Unit 2 1B 

Beadle Ingle Unit 3 1B 

Beadle Ingle Unit 1&2 1B 

Beadle Maga-Ta-Hohpi Unit 5 1A 

Beadle Maga-Ta-Hohpi Unit 12,13&8 1B 

Beadle Maga-Ta-Hohpi Unit 7 N/A* 

Beadle Maga-Ta-Hohpi Unit 3&4 1B 

Beadle Bauer Unit 4C 1B 

Beadle Bauer Unit 2 1B 

Beadle Bauer Unit 4A 1B 

Beadle Bauer Unit 3 1B 

Buffalo Mills Unit 5 1B 

Buffalo Mills Unit 4 N/A* 

Hand Slunecka Unit 2A&2C 1B 

Hand Slunecka Unit 1 1B 

Jerauld Freudenburg 1B 

Jerauld Winter 1B 

Madison WMD 

Brookings Brush Lake 2A 

Brookings Gerdink 2A 

Brookings Eriksrud 3B 

Brookings Bjornlie 2B 

Brookings Kenneth Nelson 2A 

Deuel Schafer 1C 

Deuel Bunde 2C 

Deuel Coteau Prairie 1C 

Deuel Fox Lake 2E 

County WPA 

Management 

unit 

Priority 

code 

Deuel Stoltenburg 2C 

Deuel Johnson I (W) 3F 

Hamlin Juntunen 2E 

Hamlin LaClair 1E 

Kingsbury Albrecht 2E 

Kingsbury Duffy 2E 

Kingsbury Easland 2D 

Kingsbury Hoyer 2B 

Kingsbury Kattke 2F 

Kingsbury Kopperud 2C 

Kingsbury Plum Lake 2A 

Kingsbury R.S. Anderson 1C 

Kingsbury Warne 3E 

Kingsbury Williams 2E 

Kingsbury Silver Lake 1A 

Kingsbury Johnson 2B 

Kingsbury Sterr 2B 

Lake Hart 3D 

Lake Gerry 3D 

Lake Lentsch 2F 

Lake Krug 2E 

Lake Habeger 2E 

Lake Hansen 3D 

Lake Alquire 2C 

Lake Fischer 2E 

Lake Kattke West 2D 

Lake Kattke East 3D 

Lake Lake Henry North 3E 

Lake Lake Henry South 3D 

McCook Garrett 2F 

McCook Gottlob 1B 

McCook Schimmel 1A 

McCook Lions Lake 1C 

McCook Sabers 1D 

McCook Holm 2F 

McCook DeNeui 3D 

Miner Corbin 1C 

Miner Eyekamp 3E 

Minnehaha Johnson 3A 

Minnehaha Fensterman 3A 

Minnehaha Wise/Becker 3A 

Minnehaha Island Lake 3C 

Minnehaha Jordan 1F 

74 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 
75 

Table 9. Assigned priority levels according to the decision tree for prioritizing management of planted native 

vegetation. 

County WPA 

Management 

unit 

Priority 

code 

Minnehaha Buffalo Lake West N/A* 

Minnehaha Buffalo Lake East 3D 

Minnehaha Kindt/Munce North 3A 

Minnehaha Kindt/Munce Middle 3B 

Minnehaha Kindt/Munce South N/A* 

Moody Reaves 2F 

Moody Dobbs 3E 

Moody Long 2B 

Moody Benson 2E 

Moody Bothwell East 2E 

Moody Lee Northwest 3E 

Moody Lee Southeast 2E 

Moody Bothwell West 3E 

Moody Anderson North 3E 

Moody Anderson South N/A* 

Sand Lake WMD 

Edmunds Tang 1A 

*Species composition data not available 

County WPA 

Management 

unit 

Priority 

code 

Brown Hayes 1A 

Brown Hecla 1B 

Brown Ryman 2B 

Spink Einspahr 1A 

Spink Stroschein 2E 

Spink Jessen 1A 

McPherson Helfenstein-Opp 1C 

McPherson Kary 1C 

McPherson Haerter 1A 

McPherson Bauer-Fischer 1A 

McPherson Schell 1C 

McPherson Stuglemayer 1C 

McPherson Rath 1C 

McPherson Heyd Lake 1C 

Edmunds Bieber-Buechler 1C 

Edmunds Feiock 1C 

Edmunds Grismer 1C 

American grassland birds declined significantly, while 

populations of only 2 species increased (Peterjohn and 

Sauer 1999). Declines are attributed to severe habitat 

loss (e.g., Herkert 1994) and degradation of remaining 

prairie remnants (Herkert et al. 2003). 

The conversion of native prairie to cropland has directly affected wetland and grassland birds by reducing 

and fragmenting available breeding habitat (Batt et 

al. 1989, Sugden and Beyersbergen 1984). In addition, 

encroachment of woody vegetation has fragmented 

grasslands and created suitable habitat for predators 

and forest-edge bird species. As a result, birds considered grassland obligates have been displaced and are 

less productive (Johnson 2006b, Naugle and Quamen 

2007). Moreover, many avian species occurring in the 

Great Plains are grassland and wetland obligates (Igl 

and Johnson 1995), whereas birds associated with 

woody vegetation are habitat generalists with wider 

distributions across the continent (Johnson et al. 1994, 

Kelsey et al. 2006). 

Current grazing regimes often do not emulate the 

historical processes under which grasslands evolved, 

resulting in altered grassland communities. In addition, some areas of native sod have remained idle for 

extended periods—a condition that is advantageous 

to invasive plant species such as smooth brome and 

Kentucky bluegrass. These invasive species tend to 

dominate and displace native species and degrade the 

habitat. Wilson and Belcher (1989) found that Eurasian 

plant species in the North American prairie not only 

replace the native plant community, but also affect 

wildlife species richness. 

Planted Grasslands Management 

Native prairies typically exhibit a diversity of plant 

forms that includes short, rhizomatous grasses; taller 

bunchgrasses; a low shrub component; and a variety 

of forbs, depending on management and location. In 

comparison, structural diversity in tamegrass fields— 

which are dominated by introduced vegetation such 

as smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass, and invasive species such as Canada thistle, wormwood, and 

leafy spurge—is usually lower, exhibiting a more homogeneous height across a field (Wilson and Belcher 

1989). Grassland-dependent birds have adapted to the 

diverse structure of native prairie, whereas dense nesting cover (DNC)–type mixtures limit this structural 

diversity and likely attract only bird species that key 

in on this tall, dense cover. 

Restoration efforts will focus on converting tamegrass grasslands to planted native grasslands. These 

areas will be restored using a diversity of native 

vegetation that, with active management, will be 

relatively resistant to infestation by invasive plant 

species and noxious weeds (Davis and Pelsor 2001, 

Dukes 2001, Tilman et al. 1996). This approach will 
76 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

benefit grassland and wetland birds by providing 

vegetative structure that resembles historical conditions, thereby expanding and improving habitat 

for grassland-obligate wildlife species. Howell (1988) 

suggested that attempting to recreate the elements 

found in native communities may promote desirable 

species interactions and allow for natural selection. 

For example, Baird’s sparrow and Sprague’s pipit appear to use short, sparse grass structure and mostly 

associate with native bunchgrasses, rather than the 

broad-leaved introduced species used for DNC mixes 

(Madden et al. 2000). Moreover, according to Stewart 

(1975) and Kantrud and Higgins (1992), marbled godwit and willet typically select native grass cover over 

tamegrass cover. 

Planted native grasslands are meant to mimic the 

diversity of native prairie areas. Tilman (1997) stated 

that biological diversity is dependent on the functionality and sustainability of the ecosystem, supporting 

the premise that grassland restoration actions should 

use diverse seed mixtures. Inclusion of forbs in native 

mixtures appears to be necessary in attempts to restore 

system functions such as nutrient cycling and energy 

flow (Pokorny et al. 2005). Sheley and Half (2006) indicated that seeding a wide range of forbs increases the 

likelihood that more niches will be filled and facilitates 

overall survival of the forbs. The use of multiple forbs 

may also be important because forb germination can 

vary by species in response to the yearly variation in 

weather conditions (Sheley and Half 2006). More specifically, varying numbers and combinations of species 

in differing developmental phases may be a requirement for a native seeded area to achieve the best possible results. As a stand matures, a diverse mixture 

may play an important role in the belowground community by providing a well-developed root system for 

sustainability over time (Guo and Shaffer 2006). It is 

suggested that planting a species-rich seed mixture 

will lead to the establishment of highly diversified native vegetation that is more resilient to infestation by 

invasive plants in restored grasslands (Biondini 2007, 

Blumenthal et al. 2003, Carpinelli 2001, Pokorny 2002, 

Pokorny et al. 2005, Sheley and Half 2006, Tilman 

1997). Diverse plant communities may use resources 

more completely, leaving fewer resources available 

for potential invaders (Case 1990, Jacobs and Sheley 

1999). The dominant theory in the literature indicates 

that planting a diverse seed mixture increases the 

inclusion of various functional groups among plant 

species and increases the ability of the grassland to 

maintain integrity. Moreover, in theory, native seed 

mixtures should persist into perpetuity under appropriate management, which entails disturbances that 

mimic the natural regimes that sustained wildlife 

populations before human interventions. Habitat management on district lands typically involves various 

strategies—especially prescribed fire and rotational 

grazing—to emulate the defoliation agents with which 

prairie plants evolved. The prescription of management treatments depends on the particular vegetative 

components that determine the quality of the habitat 

(species and structure). 

With extremely limited data on the reestablishment 

of native flora mixtures, there is a need to begin longterm research in this area. Ensuring science-based 

management for reseeding these areas is paramount 

to the perpetuation of the grassland resources. 

The districts’ focus on using native plants to restore 

WPAs is in line with the Improvement Act, which includes an “Integrity Policy” that states that Refuge 

System units are to promote biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health and attempt the 

restoration of historical conditions on Refuge System 

lands (Schroeder et al. 2004). 

Planted Grasslands Management Objective 1 

On high-priority planted native units, apply appropriate 

management practices to maintain vegetation at the 

specified standards within 15 years of CCP approval. 

Strategies 

■■ At 5-year intervals, increase or maintain native 

plants as the dominant vegetation cover, monitored using qualitative estimation in the Sand Lake 

WMD and quantitative estimation in the Huron 

and Madison WMDs. 

■■ At 5-year intervals, maintain or decrease smooth 

brome and Kentucky bluegrass levels. 

■■ No planted shelterbelts or volunteer nonnative 

trees (such as Russian olive or Siberian elm) exist 

on the landscape. 

■■ Increase the diversity of native species by interseeding a mixture of native forbs. The mixture of native 

forbs should include species that are competitive 

across the topographic gradient and varying soils 

of the unit, as well as including species of the successional gradient (that is, pioneer to conservative 

species. Pioneer species are the early successional, 

frequently weedy, species that quickly colonize 

open spaces. Conservative species are the climax 

species that establish permanently and maintain 

site stability). The diversification process may also 

include the integration (through interseeding) of 

more native grass species over time as funding or 

availability allows. 

■■ Develop a management plan for maintaining grasslands at the established levels. 

■■ Careful consideration of the type of treatment used 

will depend on vegetation composition and succession status of the site (Gillen et al. 1987), timing of 

spring burning (Towne and Owensby 1984), and 

proper application time of chemicals (Rehm 1984). 
77 

The Savannah sparrow is a South Dakota Priority 

Species. 

© Chris Bailey 

Rationale 

Certain “established” native grass plantings may 

lack a diversity of native forbs—perhaps as a result 

of cultivation, herbicide use, or lack of management 

(that is, disturbance). Native forbs are an important 

habitat component for prairie-obligate wildlife species. Dakota skippers utilize the nectar (Cochrane and 

Delphey 2002), while grassland birds benefit from the 

invertebrate community (Hickman et al. 2006) associated with the native forb component. 

Seed mixes that contain a larger percent of forbs 

(50–60 percent by weight) tend to produce more diverse prairie communities of both grasses and forbs 

(Diboll 1997). Furthermore, establishing native forbs 

during restoration is critical for invasive species management because indigenous forbs improve community sustainability and resist invasion by exotic plants 

(Carpinelli 2001, Pokorny et al. 2004, Sheley and Half 

2006). Ultimately, planting a mixture of forbs compared 

to a single forb species will help to mitigate seasonal, 

annual, or local conditions that can impair the success 

of forb establishment (Sheley and Half 2006). 

Planted native sites need to be appropriately managed to ensure grassland health. Management treatments such as fire, grazing, and haying are critical to 

restoration success. The site-specific timing, frequency, 

and type of management treatment will be based on 

monitoring information. 

Planted Grasslands Management Objective 2 

Moderate units are managed as high-priority units 

as funding and staff time permits. In years with insufficient funding or staff resources, moderate units 

are left idle. 

Planted Grasslands Management Objective 3 

On low-priority units, apply disturbance every 5–8 

years to remove plant litter, restore plant vigor, reverse woody plant expansion, and provide a mix of 

structural types that include (1) relatively short/sparse 

vegetation for species such as upland sandpiper, marbled godwit, northern pintail, and chestnut-collared 

longspur; (2) moderately short vegetation for species 

such as blue-winged teal, short-eared owl, northern 

shoveler, and grasshopper sparrow; and (3) tall/dense 

vegetation for species such as mallard, northern harrier, gadwall, and bobolink. 

There is almost no monitoring of vegetation on 

these WPAs except for routine, cursory surveillance 

for noxious weeds. Nevertheless, knowledge of the 

relationship between fire frequency and the resulting 

post-fire vegetation structure enables land managers to predict the habitat conditions described below. 

Vegetation should exhibit these characteristics within 

15 years of CCP approval. 

Strategies 

■■ One-fourth of the total acreage of low-priority 

planted native grassland is in a condition of 0–1 

year post-disturbance, one-fourth is in a condition 

of 2–3 years post-disturbance, and one-half is in a 

condition of 4–6+ years post-disturbance. These 

characteristics correspond roughly to VOR categories of 6 inches or less, 6–14 inches, and more than 

14 inches, respectively (Robel et al. 1970). Such 

a distribution, or mosaic, of structural conditions 

is desirable to meet the needs of a wide array of 

grassland-nesting birds. 

■■ Target volunteer and nonnative trees (such as 

Russian olive or Siberian elm) for removal (this 

does not require removal of shelterbelts as in highpriority units). 

Rationale 

Under the native floristic composition criterion for 

prioritizing, planted vegetation with native floristic composition of 0–24 percent is considered highly 

degraded and is the lowest priority. In the northern 

Great Plains, fire and other control methods, such as 

herbicide applications, depend heavily for their success on the presence of a minimum of 20 percent of 

native species in the matrix (Dill et al. 1986, Willson 

and Stubbendieck 2000). A grass matrix dominated 

by a few introduced species inhibits the germination, 

establishment, and persistence of most native species. 

Willson and Stubbendieck (2000) suggested that, at 

sites dominated by smooth brome and supporting less 

than 20 percent native species, alternative methods 

for prairie restoration should be tried. Because restoration of highly degraded prairies is not likely to be 

successful using traditional methods such as grazing 

and prescribed fire, these tracts are of low management priority. Further, these tracts are likely to be 

approached as tamegrass tracts, where the most appropriate action is to completely restore the area to 

planted vegetation through preparation of the seedbed and reseeding. 
78 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Tamegrass Grassland 

“Tamegrass grassland” is a term used to identify uplands with a farming history that are dominated by 

cool-season exotic species such as smooth brome and 

Kentucky bluegrass. Some tamegrass grasslands were 

acquired during the establishment of wetland management districts when grasslands enrolled in the CRP 

were purchased for the benefit of wildlife as part of a 

WPA. CRP grasslands were typically tame grasses 

(such as smooth brome) designed to stabilize highly 

erodible land. Additionally, during the procurement 

of property for WPAs, cropland was purchased and 

reseeded to DNC. Although DNC is beneficial on multiple levels, this mixture requires intensive inputs to 

maintain over the long term. Oftentimes, fields are 

not reseeded at the prescribed frequencies; this allows cool-season invasive species to outcompete, and 

results in tamegrass grasslands. 

Tamegrass Objective 1 

Over a 15-year period, annually seed a minimum of 

200 acres of old cropland in high-priority WPAs to a 

native grass mix to develop grassland communities 

of varied structure as appropriate to the site. By 5 

years post-establishment, these areas should be characterized by native plants as the dominant vegetation 

cover, as determined by qualitative estimation in the 

Sand Lake WMD and quantitative estimation in the 

Huron and Madison WMDs. 

■■ Special Note: For this objective, planning team 

members used their knowledge and expertise to 

develop an acreage objective. This objective was 

deemed to be achievable under the funding and 

staff levels specified in the draft CCP. 

Strategies 

■■ Use appropriate site preparation techniques to 

ensure a weed-free seedbed. These may include a 

combination of cropping and chemical treatment 

using a glyphosate-based herbicide. 

■■ Develop a seed mixture with equal parts by weight 

of grass and forbs. The grass component should 

contain both cool- and warm-season species. The 

forb component should contain both early and 

late-flowering species. Both grass and forb species 

should be selected to span the gradients associated 

with site topography, successional stages (that is, 

early pioneer to conservative plants), and soil types. 

■■ Use a variety of tools in post-seeding management, 

including clipping, prescribed fire, prescribed grazing, and appropriate IPM strategies. 

■■ Monitor results of vegetation establishment. 

■■ To ensure that grassland restoration efforts are 

science-based, conduct research on selected newly 

seeded sites to determine the establishment success of species included in the mixtures. From this 

dataset, within 15 years of CCP approval, develop 

a decision matrix to help with selecting optimal 

species to use in grassland restoration projects. 

■■ To ensure effectiveness of native seed mixes containing grasses and forbs, conduct research on 

wildlife response that focuses on Lepidoptera and 

grassland-dependent migratory birds (waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and songbirds) within 10 years of CCP 

approval. 

Rationale 

The establishment of native-dominated perennial herbaceous cover, in concert with prescribed application 

of periodic fire and grazing, resists the encroachment 

and establishment of invasive species. Sources in the 

literature suggest that species-rich seed mixtures 

may reduce weed invasion on native seeded grasslands (Blumenthal et al. 2003, Carpinelli 2001, Pokorny 

2002, Sheley and Half 2006, Tilman et al. 1996). In a 

study by Pokorny et al. (2005), the investigators determined that indigenous forbs resisted invasion by 

spotted knapweed better than grasses did. The overall theory in the literature indicates that seeding a 

species-rich seed mixture increases the inclusion of 

various functional groups among plant species. The 

more species included in a mixture, the higher the 

probability of providing competition to resist invasion 

by nonnative plants. 

Moreover, native vegetation is preferred over 

nonnative vegetation by a number of grassland birds 

(Bakker and Higgins 2009). Mark Sherfy of USGS found 

that ducks nesting in CRP fields in North Dakota and 

South Dakota showed no significant preference for 

tamegrass-seeded (that is, DNC) fields over native 

seeded fields. In addition, nest success was slightly 

higher in native seedings than in tamegrass seedings. 

According to Klett et al. (1984), nest initiation rates for 

mallard, gadwall, and blue-winged teal in the Dakotas 

were as high or higher in native-seeded fields than in 

seeded fields that lacked natives. Similarly, nest success 

was not significantly different in native-seeded than 

in tamegrass-seeded study fields (Klett et al. 1984). 

Ultimately, restoration success (habitat improvement) is dependent on monitoring and management 

efforts. Monitoring determines the nature and the appropriate timing of the management action. Effective 

management (prescribed fire, grazing, mowing, or 

chemical treatment) of restoration sites is critical 

for establishment, productivity, and longevity of the 

grassland stands. 

The districts’ focus on using native plants to restore 

WPAs is consistent with the Improvement Act, which 

includes an “Integrity Policy” that states that Refuge 

System units are to promote biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health and attempt the 

restoration of historical conditions on Refuge System 

lands (Schroeder et al. 2004). 
79 

Tamegrass Objective 2 

Over a 15-year period, continue to maintain perennial 

grass cover (DNC, tamegrass) on tracts that have not 

yet been seeded to native grass or begun the seedbank 

preparation process (for example, multiple years of 

row cropping) for eventual reseeding. 

Strategy 

■■ Use various combinations of management actions 

(chemical application, mowing, haying, grazing, 

and burning) to maintain grassland vigor and treat 

infestations. 

Rationale 

Tamegrass fields that have not yet entered into the 

seedbed preparation process generally consist of a 

predominance of introduced cool-season grass species. 

Prior to initiating seedbed preparation management 

for eventual seeding to native grass, these sites are 

of relatively low priority. Management efforts can be 

better directed toward higher priority upland areas 

(specifically native prairie, tracts already reseeded to 

native grass, and tracts being actively prepared for 

native reseeding). Despite their substantial degree 

of degradation in the context of floristic diversity, perennial grass cover will likely support multiple plant 

species and generalist birds, including upland nesting ducks, northern harriers, and sedge wrens, and 

is also important for maintaining soil organic matter 

(McLauchlan et al. 2006), a condition that is critical 

for future restoration potential. 

Dense Nesting Cover 

Certain upland areas were seeded back to an herbaceous cover of introduced vegetation known as DNC. 

Traditionally, these seed mixtures comprised cool-season 

introduced grasses and legumes (intermediate wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass, alfalfa, and sweetclover) that 

establish well under a wide variety of soil, moisture, 

and climatic conditions that exist across the Prairie 

Pothole Region. Such a mixture provides nesting cover 

for generalist birds including upland-nesting ducks 

(Duebbert et al. 1981), northern harrier, and sedge 

wren (Johnson et al. 2004). DNC provides attractive 

nesting cover for 6–8 years after seeding and up to 15 

years with proper management (Duebbert and Frank 

1984, Higgins and Barker 1982, Lokemoen 1984). 

Ideally, the majority of these tracts planted to 

DNC will be seeded back to a native mixture; however, 

certain situations may limit the opportunity to do so. 

If a DNC mixture is used, intermediate wheatgrass 

and tall wheatgrass are viable grasses to select, and 

alfalfa is an appropriate legume. Under no circumstances should smooth brome or sweetclover be used 

in DNC mixtures. DNC tracts must also be managed 

to maintain optimal vigor throughout the life cycle of 

the planting. Especially in cropland-dominated areas, 

invasive plant threats will persist and will require 

appropriate treatments to control. Management methods such as grazing and fire may be used to stimulate 

the height and density of DNC mixtures. Mechanical 

methods such as haying may also benefit plantings by 

removing the litter layer. Finally, the most productive 

stands of DNC are those that are reseeded approximately every 10–15 years, including appropriate crop 

rotation frequency as seedbed preparation (Duebbert 

et al. 1981). Before a tract is planted back to DNC, 

the Service’s Integrity Policy and the sustainability 

of native grasslands should be considered. 

Dense Nesting Cover Objective 

During the life of the CCP, manage habitat blocks of 

DNC to sustain a composition of approximately 25 

percent legumes. 

Strategies 

■■ Use appropriate site preparation techniques to 

ensure weed-free seedbeds. 

■■ Use farming activities to provide an appropriate 

seedbed for seeding. 

■■ Manage this habitat using varying tools such as 

fire, haying, grazing, and idling. Reseed introduced 

DNC species mixes every 10–15 years. 

Rationale 

Tamegrass grassland tracts that have not begun the 

seedbed preparation process will be maintained in an 

idle state that generally consists of a predominance of 

introduced cool-season grass species. Before seedbed 

preparation for seeding to native grass, these sites 

are of relatively low priority. Management efforts 

can be better directed toward higher priority upland 

areas such as native prairie, tracts already reseeded 

to native grass, and tracts being prepared for native 

reseeding. According to Mark Sherfy of USGS, there 

is evidence that, despite the presence of introduced 

cool-season perennial grass cover, DNC likely supports 

multiple plant species and generalist birds, including 

upland-nesting ducks. 

Noxious Weeds 

Significant infestations on Service lands have resulted 

in a loss of habitat for wildlife and a decline of species 

diversity in prairie grasslands. Control of noxious 

weeds is costly in time and money. Control requires 

careful planning, implementation, and monitoring as 

defined by an integrated approach to management of 

noxious weeds designed to meet a habitat objective. 

Noxious Weeds Objective 1 

After CCP approval, maintain the current IPM plan, 

following stated guidelines for the use of chemical, 

mechanical, and biological control of priority invasive plants. 
80 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Strategies 

■■ Review and update the IPM plan every 5 years. 

■■ Prepare annual progress reports in the Pesticide 

Use Proposal Database. 

■■ Hold annual meetings to share current treatment 

techniques and results, including information on 

successful and unsuccessful treatment protocols, 

future plans, and new problematic species. 

Rationale 

Each district has developed an IPM plan specific to 

its needs. These plans detail strategies for (1) inventory and mapping of invasive plants, including noxious 

weeds; (2) prevention and control of new infestations; 

and (3) control of current known infestations. An integrated approach to pest management will be used to 

treat infestations of invasive plants on Service lands. 

The IPM plans identify the statewide distribution of 

species of concern and suitable control methods. A 

surveillance program will be designed and carried 

out to document the current infestations and document the introduction and spread of new invasive 

plants. The implementation of an early detection and 

rapid response system requires annual coordination 

with the South Dakota Department of Agriculture; 

county weed boards; and other Federal, State, and 

local partners. All parties will share information and 

discuss the most effective, economical, and environmentally appropriate control strategies for priority 

invasive plant species. 

Noxious Weeds Objective 2 

The Huron and Madison WMDs will maintain an inventory of all noxious weeds on Service lands. 

Strategies 

■■ Utilize Refuge Land Geographic Information System 

(RLGIS) to ensure standardized mapping format. 

■■ Repeat inventories at a minimum of 2-year intervals. 

■■ The Sand Lake WMD has initiated an RLGIS inventory of noxious weeds on Service lands. 

Rationale 

Noxious weeds are a major threat to native ecosystems in the United States. Invasions of natural ecosystems by nonnative species now rank second to habitat 

loss as the major threat to biodiversity (ISSG 2001, 

Wilcove et al. 1998:607, Wilson 1992:253). Infestations 

of noxious weeds have a direct effect on the ability of 

the districts to fulfill their wildlife conservation mission—particularly species recovery and the maintenance and restoration of biological diversity, integrity, and ecological health. The utilization of RLGIS 

to inventory and maintain noxious weed information 

will provide managers with a starting point in ranking areas to be treated. 

Trying to manage an infestation of noxious weeds 

without any idea of the size, canopy cover, or rate of 

spread jeopardizes the efficacy of the control efforts 

and wastes precious time and money. An inventory 

will help establish priorities for the strategies used 

both to eliminate new and isolated infestations and to 

contain or reduce larger infestations by attacking the 

perimeter and working toward the center. Inventory 

maps are an invaluable planning tool for management 

and play a critical role in monitoring the effectiveness 

of control methods—for example, by ensuring that a 

treated area is not reinfested after several years by 

viable dormant seed. 

The Service, the State of South Dakota, and other 

partners have not yet developed and universally adopted 

criteria for mapping noxious weeds. Regional invasive 

species experts and IPM coordinators in Region 6 are 

in the process of drafting protocols for field mapping 

noxious weeds for entry and storage in the RLGIS. 

These protocols will provide guidelines for (1) mapping new and old infestations, (2) minimum mapping 

units, and (3) the use of point data versus polygons 

and canopy cover. The guidelines will incorporate the 

minimum standards outlined in “The North American 

Invasive Plant Mapping Standards” (North American 

Weed Management Association 2002). Once a baseline inventory has been completed for Service lands 

in South Dakota, the focus will shift to more scientific 

surveys to provide quantifiable data. 

Noxious Weeds Objective 3 

Carry out measures to reduce and control 20 percent 

of targeted noxious weeds on priority WPAs by 15 

years after CCP approval. 

Strategies 

■■ Conduct a surveillance program for new infestations of noxious weeds. 

■■ Apply early detection, rapid response strategies to 

attack new infestations before they become large 

and costly to treat. 

■■ Respond promptly to all landowner or other public complaints. 

■■ Monitor infestation rates and effectiveness of control efforts. 

■■ Map sites of invasive plant treatments in the RLGIS. 

■■ Use GIS to predict areas at greatest risk of new 

infestations. 

■■ Monitor change over time by collecting RLGIS covertype data for all invasive plant species. Share GIS 

layers of invasive plant infestations with partners. 

■■ Obtain help with noxious weeds (treatments and 

monitoring) by pursuing additional money through 

partnerships, grants, and invasive plant programs. 
81 

■■ Communicate with and educate local, State, and 

Federal agencies and the public about invasive 

plant issues. 

■■ In a timely manner, make known information about 

new infestations, effective or ineffective treatment 

methods, and new treatment options. 

■■ Coordinate invasive plant control by meeting at 

least once per year with county weed boards, representatives from weed management areas, and 

other partners to share information and discuss 

control strategies. 

■■ Address public complaints about noxious weeds on 

Service-owned lands, using IPM strategies. 

■■ Use only certified weed-free seed to restore habitat. 

■■ Avoid purchasing seed from sources known to have 

violated the weed-free seed regulation. 

■■ Focus restoration activities on high-diversity mixes 

of native grasses and forbs in order to develop 

habitat that will be more resistant to invasion by 

noxious weeds. 

Control of Canada thistle is one objective of upland 

management on the districts. 

Mason Sieges / USFWS 

Rationale 

In 2008, an estimated 2 million acres of Canada thistle 

(1,600,989 acres) and leafy spurge (307,558 acres) infested South Dakota’s pastures, cropland, and wildlife 

areas (Moechnig et al. 2009). Using IPM methods to 

control State-listed noxious weeds is a Service priority. 

These problem plants can displace native vegetation 

over large areas and have the ability to form nearly 

monotypic stands in the absence of management; 

therefore, these plants threaten native biodiversity 

(Bedunah 1992, Hutchison 1992, Svedarsky and Van 

Amburg 1996, Trammell and Butler 1995, Watson 

1985). Due to the extent of infestation, these species 

have been the priority noxious weeds on Service lands 

in South Dakota. 

The first step in control programs is to prevent 

the introduction, reproduction, and spread of noxious 

weeds. Many of the newer invasive plants and “watch” 

species were introduced by seed imported from States 

and countries that have noxious weeds. Wherever 

possible, all grass seed should be bought from seed 

grown in South Dakota to minimize the introduction 

or spread of new invasive plant species. 

The conversion of tamegrass areas to plantings of 

native grasses and forbs is a form of grassland restoration utilized to improve habitat. This restoration 

process targets invasive cool-season grasses (smooth 

brome and Kentucky bluegrass); however, the same 

process also addresses noxious weeds. The grassland 

restoration process often incorporates a cropland 

phase, which may include the use of genetically modified (Roundup® ready) varieties of corn or soybeans 

that are treated with glyphosate, a nonselective herbicide. The utilization of genetically modified organisms 

(specifically crops) has been approved for each station 

by the assistant regional director, National Wildlife 

Refuge System based on the authority and process 

identified in “Guidance and Approval for the Use of 

Genetically Modified Crops on the Nation Wildlife 

Refuge System,” memo and attached exhibits, issued 

January of 2008. 

Maintaining these fields in crop production for several years helps prepare the seedbed for planting and 

restoration by significantly depleting the percentage 

of viable invasive plant seed in the upper soil layer, 

thereby reducing germination potential. The cropland phase of the restoration process is more critical 

when areas are heavily infested with Canada thistle 

or other noxious weeds. Such fields will be replanted 

to a grass and forb mixture designed to meet habitat 

objectives for individual tracts. 

Mowing or haying may be used to remove the 

aboveground growth of noxious weeds before flowering and seed production in areas where other treatments may not be available or practical. Heavily infested areas can often be hayed early to prepare the 

site for other control practices (for example, biological 

control agents and chemical control). Two common obstacles to haying for control of noxious weeds are (1) 

excessively rough and uneven ground, usually due to 

pocket gopher activity; and (2) potential to spread the 

noxious weeds in hay transported off Service lands to 

private lands. Grazing by sheep or goats can be used 

to maintain an invasive plant population at a level 

that the plant no longer presents an economic hardship. Prescribed fire and grazing may also be used as 

a pretreatment to prepare for herbicide application. 

Biological control may be the most cost-effective 

and long-term solution to controlling large areas of 

leafy spurge. Flea beetles have been used successfully to reduce root density, stem density, biomass, and 

number of roots buds (Kirby et al. 2000). Significant 

results are usually detectable in root biomass within 

2–3 years and aboveground after 5 years post-release (Kirby et al. 2000). Researchers from North 

Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming have 
82 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

documented that approximately 85 percent of all release sites are established by releasing 1,000–6,000 flea 

beetles (Anderson et al. 2003). They also detected an 

average rate of control of approximately 1.6 acres per 

release site per year. These flea beetles tend to grow 

and decline exponentially depending on the amount 

of forage that is available for them to consume. The 

use of other biological controls for other invasive plant 

species needs to be investigated. Releases of Canada 

thistle stem mining weevil, seed head weevil, and 

stem gall fly have shown mixed results for control of 

Canada thistle. Biocontrol is commercially available 

for musk thistle, yellow and Dalmatian toadflax, yellow star-thistle, knapweeds, and purple loosestrife. 

WETLANDS GOAL 

Protect, restore, and enhance prairie pothole wetlands 

to support diverse plant communities and provide 

habitat to waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and 

associated wetland-dependent wildlife. 

Natural Wetlands on WPAs 

Service-owned wetlands in the three districts consist of 

a wide variety of wetland sizes and regimes (temporary, 

seasonal, semipermanent, and permanent) (Stewart 

and Kantrud 1971). Wetland clusters of these diverse 

types constitute wetland complexes (Weller 1988). 

The majority of wetlands on Service lands are 

natural wetlands (that is, they are not influenced 

by water level management features or activities). 

Natural wetlands are dynamic systems: some—temporary and seasonal wetlands—are influenced only 

by spring runoff and rainfall. Others—semipermanent and permanent wetlands—are also influenced 

by ground water interaction. However, in all these 

types, natural processes guide temporal fluctuations 

in water levels, abiotic conditions such as salinity, and 

biotic conditions such as plant and invertebrate communities. All these conditions drive the nutrient and 

vegetation cycles that shape the dynamic character 

of these wetlands. 

The drought and deluge frequencies associated with 

a given climate determine the speed of the nutrient 

and vegetation cycles (Murkin et al. 2000, Weller and 

Spatcher 1965). Prolonged high water produces a “lake” 

wetland with little emergent cover and few nutrients 

in detritus, whereas persistent low water produces 

heavy emergent cover and high nutrient sequestering 

in plant material. The occurrence of these extremes 

during weather cycles causes plant population turnover (maintaining biological diversity) and nutrient 

mobilization. Euliss et al. (2004) stressed the need to 

consider the changes these prairie wetland systems 

undergo as a result of normal climatic variation when 

evaluating biological wetland data or wetland conditions (for example, dry, devoid of emergent vegetation, 

or choked with emergent vegetation). 

Wetland ecologists have recognized the contribution of the Prairie Pothole Region wetland complexes 

to ecosystem goods and services at the landscape scale 

(Brown and Dinsmore 1986, Fairbairn and Dinsmore 

2001, Swanson et al. 2003). Five key wetland functions 

provide important services: flood abatement, water 

quality improvement, biodiversity enhancement, 

carbon management, and aquifer recharge (Gleason 

et al. 2008). However, provision of wildlife habitat 

and the sustainability of waterfowl and other waterdependent populations have traditionally received 

the most attention. 

Although the Prairie Pothole Region occupies only 

10 percent of North America’s waterfowl breeding 

range, it produces approximately 50 percent of the 

continental waterfowl population (Kantrud 1983). 

While semipermanent and permanent wetlands provide brood-rearing and migratory stopover habitat, 

temporary and seasonal wetlands draw breeding duck 

pairs to South Dakota and other parts of the Prairie 

Pothole Region. Complexes of depressional, palustrine 

wetlands scattered throughout eastern South Dakota 

attract breeding duck pairs, support nesting and renesting intensity, and provide brood habitat (Kantrud 

et al. 1989). According to Ron Reynolds of the Service’s 

Habitat and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET), 

it is estimated that every ten 1-acre wetlands can 

predictably support 20 duck pairs; in contrast, one 10­

acre wetland likely supports only seven duck pairs; 

hence, the availability of wetlands is a major factor 

driving duck breeding in the Prairie Pothole Region. 

Meeting the objectives for natural wetlands requires 

habitat management activities such as restoration 

and protection against wetland degradation (such as 

sedimentation, invasive plant infestation, drainage, 

filling, and contamination). 

An American bittern enjoying the bounty of its wetland 

habitat. 

© Chris Bailey 

Natural Wetlands Management Objective 

Over a 15-year period, wetlands will be managed 

along with the uplands in which they are embedded 
83 

according to the priority systems developed for upland vegetation. A minimum of 10 degraded (drained, 

filled, leveled, invasive-choked, and contaminated) 

wetlands will be restored for improved wetland function in each district. 

Strategies 

■■ Initiate restoration actions on wetlands as the 

need for restoration is identified (for example, 

discovery of an old drainage ditch would trigger 

restoration actions). 

■■ On selected wetlands, control the invasion of hybrid cattail and reed canarygrass. 

Rationale 

Wetland managers have been restoring prairie wetlands since the 1960s (Dornfeld 1988). Most wetland 

restorations are accomplished by plugging ditches 

with simple clay-core dams and seeding the surrounding upland to perennial grassland cover (Knutsen and 

Euliss 2001). Fill and sediment may be removed to 

restore hydrologic function. 

It has generally been concluded that, whenever possible, restoration efforts in the Prairie Pothole Region 

should focus on restoring wetland complexes rather 

than individual basins. Wetlands in a single complex, 

even if widely separated, are often hydrologically 

connected by surface or ground water (Murkin et al. 

2000, Winter and Rosenberry 1995). The biodiversity 

and productivity of wetland complexes are affected 

by exogenous forces, such as climate, and endogenous 

forces, such as the mix of permanence types, surficial 

geology, water regimes, wetland juxtaposition, and 

vegetation (Swanson et al. 2003; van der Valk 2005; 

Weller 1994, 1999; Weller and Fredrickson 1974). 

Organisms move among components of the wetland complex seeking food, water, and cover (Naugle 

et al. 2001). Because of the variability of water conditions over seasons and years, wetland complexes 

are more likely to have at least some wetlands in a 

water and plant regime favorable to a given species, 

thus ensuring diverse species representation in wetland landscapes (Weller 1999). Waterbirds often build 

their local habitat units around a wetland complex 

that provides various needs and that may also act as 

a backup in the event of catastrophic change (Weller 

1999). Knutsen and Euliss (2001) suggested that targeting large blocks of wetlands for restoration would 

increase the chances for the successful return of all 

wetland characteristics, including wildlife. 

The Canadian toad is a denizen of the Prairie Pothole 

Region. 

© Chris Bailey 

Wetlands with Water Control Structures on 

WPAs 

Wetlands with water control structures or other capability for managers to manipulate water levels are 

generally managed impoundments. Their relatively 

shallow depths and periodic flooding and drying regimes 

support highly productive systems with respect to invertebrates and wetland vegetation. Corresponding 

bird use is generally quite diverse. 

Meeting objectives for developed wetlands would 

require that water level management actions are carried out in a timely and appropriate manner. Ideally, 

impoundments should provide a mosaic of wetland 

habitat types to a wide variety of wetland-dependent 

birds such as waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds. 

Wetlands with Water Control Structures Objective 

Throughout the life of the CCP, manage the developed 

wetlands as dynamic wetland systems that cycle between drawdown and flood events to provide quality 

habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds. 

During periods between drawdowns, manage developed wetlands to provide 30–70 percent emergent 

vegetation and annual species. 

Strategies 

■■ In high-priority wetlands, implement periodic disturbance using water control structures to provide 

the full spectrum of wetland conditions—dry marsh, 

densely vegetated marsh (regenerative phase), 

hemi-marsh, open marsh (degenerative phase), 

and open water—to benefit wetland-dependent 

species of wildlife. 

■■ Review all water management structures for improvements or repairs that would enhance management capability and seek funding necessary to 

carry out the improvements or repairs. 

Rationale 

Periodic drought may hasten full or partial drawdowns 

in some units. Although such drawdowns maximize 

the long-term viability of wetlands, the availability 

of wetlands with water is reduced during drought. 

In contrast, some past management approaches emphasized retaining as much water as possible to offset 

landscape-level drought effects on migratory birds at 
84 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Figure 17. Whooping crane sightings throughout South Dakota. 
85 

the expense of long-term capacity to sustain wetland 

productivity. The speed of the cover cycle (return 

time) and the number of switches between cover-cycle 

stages over a period of time are strongly correlated 

to wetland productivity and biodiversity (Swanson et 

al. 2003, van der Valk and Davis 1978). Long return 

times or extended periods without switches produce 

wetlands “stuck” in either the lake stage or the dry 

stage with stable but relatively unproductive conditions. Weller and Fredrickson (1974) noted that stable 

water levels produce ornithologically “dead” marshes 

characterized by a centrally open marsh with a perimeter of dense emergent vegetation. 

This objective purposely includes broad ranges, as 

water levels are intended to vary like those in natural 

wetlands. Previous research has indicated that wetlands with an approximate 50:50 ratio of open water to 

emergent vegetation (such as cattails and bulrushes) 

resulting from a combination of regenerating and 

degenerating states (that is, hemi-marshes) attract 

the highest densities and diversities of wetland birds 

(Weller and Spatcher 1965). Open water to emergent 

vegetation ratios should be close to the 50:50 ratio 

(that is, between a ratio of 30:70 and 70:30) in most 

developed wetlands, as recommended by Weller and 

Spatcher (1965), in most years (approximately 11 of 

15), through targeted water level management. 

Because of the temporal dynamics that influence 

prairie wetland conditions, in certain years the coverage of emergent vegetation may fall well outside 

the target range (30–70 percent coverage). During 

years of extreme drought, emergent vegetation may 

exceed the upper-end target of 70 percent; during extremely wet periods, wetlands may revert to a more 

open-water state, supporting far less than 30 percent 

coverage by emergent vegetation. 

Drawdowns and, more specifically, drawdown intervals can influence plant species composition, structure, and seed production (Fredrickson 1991). Periodic, 

growing-season drawdowns stimulate production of 

seed-bearing annual plants, increase invertebrate 

biomass, and stimulate establishment and expansion 

of emergent and submergent plant species. A sharp 

increase in invertebrate populations when wetlands 

reflood following a dry phase is an important reason for artificially flooding and draining wetlands to 

enhance waterfowl habitat (Cook and Powers 1958, 

Kadlec and Smith 1992). 

Whooping Crane 

Each spring and fall, endangered whooping cranes 

use wetlands and agricultural fields, primarily along 

the Missouri River, as migratory stopover areas en 

route to their summer and winter grounds (figure 17, 

Austin and Richert 2001). In the absence of any historical records of whooping cranes nesting in South 

Dakota (Tallman et al. 2002), the CCP planning team 

deemed management actions directed at the occasional sighting of migrating or dispersing individuals 

most appropriate. 

Dragonflies in a prairie wetland. 

© Chris Bailey 

Whooping Crane Objective 

Over a 15-year period, annually inform the public of 

migrant whooping cranes stopping in the districts in 

an effort to reduce the risk of accidental shootings or 

other disturbances. 

Strategies 

■■ Post warning signs in the areas being used by 

whooping cranes. 

■■ Contact the local media (radio, television, newspapers) upon confirmed observations, when it appears that whooping cranes will stay in the area 

for multiple days and where hunting activity exists or is likely. 

■■ Actively patrol areas being used by whooping 

cranes to monitor their whereabouts and inform 

the public of their presence. 

■■ On a case-by-case basis for each occurrence of a 

whooping crane, consider the merits of a possible 

voluntary hunting closure on private lands where 

whooping crane use is regularly occurring. If this 

is deemed appropriate, contact the landowner(s) to 

discuss a possible voluntary closure in accordance 

with the “Contingency Plan for the State-Federal 

Protection of Whooping Cranes” (USFWS 2001b). 

Rationale 

Known as one of the most endangered birds in North 

America, whooping crane was listed as endangered 

in 1967 (Federal Register, March 11, 1967). The wild, 

migratory population of whooping cranes in the 

Central Flyway (Aransas–Wood Buffalo population) 

is expected to reach 290 individuals in fall 2010 (Tom 

Stehn, USFWS, personal communication). Adults 

stand 4–5 feet tall with a wingspan of 7.5 feet; adult 

plumage is described as snow white with contrasting 

black wing tips and red facial skin. Because of their 
86 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

often close interaction with sandhill cranes and their 

use of similar habitats, potential exists for whooping 

cranes to be mistaken for sandhill cranes. With sandhill cranes being a relatively popular game species in 

South Dakota, the Service hopes that by informing 

and educating area hunters about whooping cranes’ 

use of district lands, it can greatly reduce any risk of 

an accidental shooting. The Service will consult the 

“Contingency Plan for the State-Federal Protection 

of Whooping Cranes” (USFWS 2001b) for appropriate 

actions when dealing with migrant whooping cranes 

that show potential for remaining in the district for 

multiple days. 

RESEARCH AND MONITORING GOAL 

Provide a learning platform that uses science, monitoring, applied research, and adaptive management to 

advance understanding of the Prairie Pothole region 

and management of these areas. 

Research and Monitoring 

Most of the baseline inventories and monitoring of 

Service lands in the three districts is recent (2003 

to present), corresponding with the appointment of 

wildlife biologists to the districts. While progress has 

been made in accruing baseline biological data, habitat 

goals and objectives should form the basis for future 

monitoring and research priorities for district lands. 

Goals and objectives emphasize management of vegetation communities as habitat for wildlife. Monitoring 

and research should be used to predict and validate 

wildlife response to management. It is the Service’s 

policy to encourage and support management studies 

in order to provide scientific data upon which decisions may be based. The Service’s “Wildlife Refuges 

Manual” (1957) states, “Managers who analyze and 

test wildlife management concepts and report results 

accurately will be operating in a more challenging, effective manner.” According to the Service’s “Fulfilling 

the Promise” document (1999), “Habitat monitoring 

is critical. If we are to lead the world in habitat conservation, management, and monitoring, it must be 

by example...,.” Too often, biological needs of wildlife 

species and their habitats receive less consideration 

than socioeconomic and political factors in the decisionmaking process. Biology should guide management 

decisions for the Refuge System. 

Research and Monitoring Objective 1 

Within 10 years of CCP approval, Sand Lake WMD 

will establish a vegetation inventory (that is, a habitat 

cover map) of upland habitats on all fee-title properties. 

Strategy 

■■ Use the National Vegetation Classification System 

mapping standards in the RLGIS. 

Rationale 

Most factors that contribute to the dynamics of wildlife 

populations, especially those of migratory birds, may 

not be directly influenced at the individual district or 

WPA level, but can be indirectly influenced through 

appropriate or inappropriate management of habitat. 

A basic inventory of habitats is the first step in developing detailed objectives describing the desired future 

vegetation conditions. While maps of the upland habitats have been completed for the Huron and Madison 

WMDs, a map is needed to establish a baseline of current upland habitats in the Sand Lake WMD. 

Research and Monitoring Objective 2 

Within 2–5 years of completion of the habitat cover 

map, develop and complete a habitat management plan 

and inventory and monitoring plan for the districts. 

Strategies 

■■ Develop specific habitat goals and objects for priority management units based on data from baseline surveys. 

■■ Ensure that all elements of the monitoring protocol are documented: 

➤■question 

➤■ sampling design 

➤■methodology 

➤■anticipated analysis and analytic tools 

➤■data management and reporting strategy 

➤■ schedule 

■■ Use supporting processes as needed (for example, 

conducting a station biological review, requesting 

a biological assessment, developing annual habitat 

work plans, completing a wildlife and habitat review handbook [USFWS 2008b]). 

■■ Complete detailed and accurate plans within the 

allowed timeframes. 

Rationale 

Because the CCP is a broad umbrella plan that provides general concepts and specific management and 

operational objectives for Service lands, it is imperative that stepdown plans such as inventory and monitoring plans and habitat management plans are produced. The purpose of stepdown plans is to provide 

detail and clear direction to Service managers and 

other employees who will carry out the strategies 

described in the CCP. 

A habitat management plan provides staff with 

detailed information about various management practices. However, completion of vegetation inventories 

is recommended before starting this process. Upon 

completion of essential surveys, such as the habitat 

cover map, managers will be able to thoroughly assess the biological integrity, diversity, and ecological 

health of the upland and wetland habitats they manage. 
87 

The habitat management plans would identify specific 

habitat objectives for each district. Each plan would 

also provide detailed information about various management practices (such as timing of prescribed fire; 

timing and intensity of grazing; timing, application 

rate, and pesticide type for chemical applications; and 

water level manipulations). An inventory and monitoring plan outlines proposed activities for habitat and 

wildlife data collection and provides detailed information on methodology and analysis. 

A white-tailed buck easily clears a livestock fence. 

© Chris Bailey 

Research and Monitoring Objective 3 

Over a 15-year period, focus priority inventory, monitoring, and research efforts on information needs outlined in the biological objectives set forth in the CCP. 

Strategies 

■■ Continually update and refine the list of priority 

research needs using the annual meeting of South 

Dakota biologists as a platform for discussion. 

■■ Share annual progress on current monitoring and 

research, results to date, and future projects during the annual South Dakota biologists meeting. 

Include information on the success or failure of 

particular treatment protocols in achieving stated 

objectives and include plans for future treatments. 

■■ Use initial inventories as baseline data to assess 

past and future changes in plant and animal community composition. 

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

to assess vegetation composition of high-priority 

district habitats. 

■■ Strive to ensure that all data and information derived from inventory and monitoring are well documented, maintained, and archived and that they are 

open and accessible both internally and externally, 

unless otherwise stated. Report results in a format 

and schedule that are usable, understandable, and 

responsive to the user. 

■■ Whenever feasible, use and build on existing monitoring and data management efforts, both internal 

and external. When appropriate, strive to design 

and link local and regional monitoring efforts to 

support national assessments (that is, integrate 

the data across scales). 

■■ Design and conduct issue-driven research unlikely 

to be reliably addressed using long-term monitoring. Develop predictive models for habitat management and restoration. 

■■ Focus wildlife population research on assessments 

of species-habitat relationships. Develop models 

that predict wildlife responses to habitat management or restoration. 

■■ Promote research and science priorities within the 

broader scientific community. Ensure that cooperative research addresses information needs identified in habitat management goals and objectives. 

■■ According to WH-14 of “Fulfilling the Promise,” 

“Use adaptive management to evaluate effectiveness of wildlife conservation programs and periodically evaluate programs to determine if [district] 

goals and objectives are being achieved.” Support 

research that inherently integrates science with 

management, such as adaptive management studies. 

■■ Encourage efficient and productive cross-station 

collaboration on common interests by participating 

in large-scale monitoring and research projects. 

Contributions to this effective strategy for addressing priority research needs may include providing 

on-the-ground study plots, equipment or staff for 

data collection, technical assistance, consultation, 

or other forms of support and collaboration. 

■■ Host a North Dakota–South Dakota Workshop 

to develop an initial set of Dakota-wide research 

priorities for the next 10–15 years. 

■■ Huron-specific strategy: Evaluate biological information needs identified in Huron WMD’s Biological 

Assessment, supplementary to those addressed in 

the CCP’s biological objectives, to determine which 

deserve consideration as secondary priority needs. 

Rationale 

Applied Research and Adaptive Management 

Knowledge gaps regarding natural resources are 

many and varied. Research needs include information 

about treatment tools, response to various treatments, 

and wildlife response to management treatments and 

habitat changes. Investigations must be adequately 

designed, funded, and conducted to reliably address 

proposed hypotheses or questions. Partnerships would 

need to be developed for a variety of disciplines from 

various State and Federal agencies and institutions 

to meet the research goal and objectives. Cooperative 

efforts would be supported with shared funding, lodging, vehicles, equipment, knowledge, and expertise. All 

research needs would need to be prioritized because 
88 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

resources (funding, staff, and equipment) are always 

limited and often insufficient. According to Platt 

(1964), ‘‘Biology, with its vast informational detail and 

complexity, is a ‘high-information’ field, where years 

and decades can easily be wasted on the usual type of 

‘low-information’ observations or experiments if one 

does not think carefully in advance about what the 

most important and conclusive experiments would be.’’ 

The following are examples of ongoing partnership and cooperative research across Service lands: 

■■ In 2005, the Dakota Working Group’s Grassland 

Monitoring Team conducted a survey to assess 

management issues and threats to Service lands. 

Survey results identified smooth brome invasion as 

the most common threat to native prairie. Following 

a 2-day technical meeting (the “Brome Summit”) to 

discuss the ecology and control strategies for smooth 

brome, the Native Prairie Adaptive Management 

(NPAM) project was initiated. The NPAM project is a large-scale investigation of the efficacy of 

various management treatments used to promote 

recolonization by native species on prairie that has 

never been broken and cropped. The NPAM project 

has been widely adopted and broadly supported as 

a strategy for effectively addressing management 

issues that are common to all Service lands in the 

Prairie Pothole Region. The project’s 2009 pilot 

year involved all Service stations in North Dakota 

and South Dakota. This project serves as a model 

of collaboration to efficiently address priority research needs in the future within the context of 

adaptive management. Like the NPAM project, 

future multi-station research and adaptive management endeavors should incorporate study designs that enable vegetation response to multiple 

treatments to be measured over time and across 

gradients in landscape characteristics (such as soils 

and precipitation). Permanent research plots should 

be established so that research is not terminated 

before the synergy of complementary treatments 

can be fully assessed. 

■■ Another adaptive management research project 

focused on an invasive species is the Reed Canary 

Grass Adaptive Management project. Begun in 

2007, this project involves participants from 10 refuges in 2 regions (Regions 3 and 6). Its purpose is 

to ensure that efforts to control reed canary grass 

are well informed and are improved upon over time 

through the use of predictive models and a feedback monitoring design. This learning process is 

the best approach to employ when management 

outcomes are uncertain. 

Examples of specific research needs identified during 

the CCP process include the following: 

■■ Gain a better understanding on the hydrology of 

prairie pothole wetlands. 

■■ Commit to participate in large-scale, collaborative 

adaptive management projects, such as the NPAM 

project, throughout the life of this CCP to address 

these identified research needs: 

➤■Efficacy of various management treatments 

(specifically grazing, prescribed fire, graze-burn 

combination treatments, haying, and rest) in 

controlling introduced cool-season grasses on 

native prairie. 

➤■Frequency and intensity of management treatments for restoring native prairie: 

➤■ Are there optimal treatment intervals that 

will maximize progress toward restoration 

of native herbaceous plants on native prairie 

without otherwise adversely affecting the 

biological integrity, diversity, and ecological 

health of the prairie ecosystem? 

➤■Threshold levels for infestation of native prairie 

by introduced cool-season grasses: 

➤■ Is there a level of invasion beyond which 

the restoration of native prairie to a modestly diverse, native herbaceous flora is an 

unrealistic goal? 

➤■ Are there biological indicators of a native 

prairie that is “too far gone” to be successfully restored without unreasonably excessive or expensive intervention? 

➤■The efficacy of herbicide treatment for toadflax: 

➤■ What is the best timing for spraying toadflax 

for optimal control while minimizing adverse 

effects on native herbaceous plants? 

➤■ Evaluate spot spraying versus blanket spraying in native prairie—will native grasses and 

forbs recover if widespread spraying is used 

to aggressively treat the toadflax threat? 

➤■ The role of fire in controlling toadflax and 

Canada thistle. 

■■ In addition to vegetation sampling and bird surveys, 

investigate other indicators of biological diversity, 

integrity, and ecological health that can be easily 

measured in the field to assess overall health of a 

prairie ecosystem or to monitor progress towards 

restoration. 

■■ Investigate effects of climate change on prairie 

potholes, including the identification of indicator 

species to monitor in assessing such effects. 

■■ Identify or develop indices reflecting relationships 

between precipitation-evaporation rates and soil 

moisture measurements as a means to link vegetation performance with long-term moisture regimes. 

Such indicators could be used to guide restoration 

efforts, vary seed mixtures, or adjust stocking rates 

for grazing management. 
89 

■■ Evaluate grassland bird response to native prairie restoration: 

➤■When management treatments prove successful 

in increasing the native herbaceous cover and 

suppressing introduced cool-season grasses on 

a tract of native prairie, do the desired changes 

in vegetation structure and plant species diversity exert the anticipated positive influence on 

grassland bird species richness or abundance? 

➤■Apply modern technology and scientific resources 

to grassland restoration efforts: 

➤■Conduct or evaluate research focused on establishing high-diversity stands of native grasses 

and forbs. 

➤■Evaluate effectiveness of native seed mixes containing grasses and forbs, and conduct research 

on wildlife response, focusing on Lepidoptera 

and grassland-dependent migratory birds (i.e., 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and songbirds), within 

10 years of the CCP’s approval. 

Inventory and Monitoring 

Unlike research, monitoring should not be viewed as 

a clean experiment, but rather as the collection and 

subsequent application of limited data that have utility in improving management practices. For instance, 

if we are 75 percent certain that a particular management treatment will result in a desired effect, it is 

probably wiser to proceed with the assumption that 

such is the case than to wait until more certain information is available. Monitoring enhances our ability 

to manage our resources wisely in full knowledge of 

inevitable uncertainty. 

In specific situations, baseline inventory is necessary to improve the biological understanding on 

which management decisions are based. Aside from 

such baseline inventory, monitoring should not be 

viewed as a standalone activity, but rather as a targeted component of a larger process of science-based 

management (Nichols and Williams 2006). Monitoring 

data are not gathered with a vague hope that somehow they will prove useful for conservation. Instead, 

monitoring focuses on precisely the information needed 

to make management decisions. The important issue 

is efficiency, given the Service’s limited resources 

for monitoring. The power of monitoring is to detect 

change, or the lack of it, and to define the direction of 

changes that are good or bad for conservation goals 

(Doak et al. 2009). 

Wildlife Disease 

As of 2006, each of the three districts has a current 

wildlife disease contingency plan in place (USFWS 

2006). Annual reviews and updates by district staff 

will be conducted as new disease information becomes 

available. With emerging disease threats, Service 

staff can no longer rely on past, often informal, disease protocols. 

Wildlife Disease Objective 

Annually review and update Disease Contingency Plans. 

Strategies 

■■ Follow the monitoring and response protocols outlined in Disease Contingency Plans. 

■■ Maintain a supply of personnel protective equipment on hand for emergency cleanup operations. 

■■ Cooperate with USDA Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) Wildlife Services and 

SDGFP for response to highly pathogenic avian 

influenza [HPAI], or bird flu), where possible. 

■■ Continue to support SDGFP with chronic wasting 

disease (CWD) surveillance. 

Rationale 

Bird disease response is a readily evolving process. 

Prior to 2006, districts dealt primarily with two diseases 

in the avian communities: West Nile virus (WNV) and 

avian botulism. WNV is a flavivirus with an enzootic 

cycle that involves primarily mosquitoes and birds. 

It was introduced into the Prairie Pothole Region in 

2002. By 2003, WNV had been shown to affect 162 

species of birds. The ecology of the northern prairie 

seems to offer favorable conditions for its continued 

enzootic transmission (Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention 2003). 

Avian botulism is a disease that affects the peripheral nerves and results in paralysis of voluntary 

muscles. It is contracted when a bird ingests toxin 

produced by the bacterium Clostridium botulinum. 

Outbreaks of avian botulism have occurred in the United 

States since at least the beginning of the 20th century. 

Botulism outbreaks are often characterized by lines of 

carcasses on wetland peripheries during the summer 

when ambient temperatures are high and water levels 

are receding. Filter-feeding and dabbling waterfowl 

and probing shorebirds appear to be among the species at greatest risk (Friend and Franson 1999). With 

safe handling practices, birds affected by botulism and 

WNV pose a relatively minor threat to the health of 

individuals directly handling the infected individuals 

(Domek 1998, Friend and Franson 1999). 

With each new disease presenting itself as a threat 

to Service staff and the general public (for example, 

the highly pathogenic H5N1 strain of HPAI), concurrent disease responses are developed to coincide 

with each threat. HPAI is a disease caused by a virus 

that infects both wild birds (such as shorebirds and 

waterfowl) and domestic poultry. Each year, there is 

a bird flu season just as there is an influenza season 

for humans and, like human influenza, some forms of 

avian influenza are worse than others (USGS 2006). 

Recently, the H5N1 strain of HPAI has been found in 
90 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

an increasing number of countries in Europe, Asia, and 

Africa. This strain is not present in the United States, 

but is likely to spread to this country (Dr. Thomas Roffe, 

veterinarian, USFWS, Montana, personal communication). There are a number of ways that the H5N1 

strain could potentially reach the United States: (1) 

wild bird migration, (2) illegal smuggling of birds or 

poultry products, and (3) travel by infected people 

or people traveling with virus-contaminated articles 

from areas where H5N1 already exists (USGS 2006). 

Avian cholera is widely distributed and poses a 

constant threat to migratory bird populations, especially where dense concentrations of birds occur. Avian 

cholera epizootics (diseases affecting large numbers of 

animals) were found to be inversely related to densities of semipermanent wetland basins. It is not known 

with certainty what environmental or physiological 

factors trigger an outbreak, but it appears to be associated with physiologically stressed birds that are 

concentrated on a limited number of wetlands (Smith 

and Higgins 1990). 

CWD is a disease of the nervous system in deer 

and elk that results in distinctive brain lesions. It was 

first discovered in South Dakota in a captive elk herd 

in McPherson County during the winter of 1997–98. 

McPherson County is within the Sand Lake WMD. 

From 1999 through 2003, more than 300 hunter-harvested deer were tested, but no positive samples were 

found. The infected herd was traced back to captive 

elk herds adjacent to the Black Hills. In South Dakota, 

CWD has only been detected in free-roaming wildlife in Lawrence, Pennington, Custer, and Fall River 

Counties and Wind Cave National Park (as of July 

2008) (SDGFP 2010). None of these areas is within the 

boundaries of the three districts. There is potential 

for CWD to be present but undetected, or eventually 

to infect deer in the districts. Service staff will adhere 

to protocols in the “Chronic Wasting Disease Plan for 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in the Dakotas” 

(USFWS 2004b) for all CWD-related work. This plan 

acknowledges SDGFP as the lead in all CWD efforts 

in the State and describes the Service as a supporting 

partner. If the threat of CWD increases, refuge staff 

will cooperate with SDGFP to assess the impact on 

district populations of white-tailed deer. The districts 

will continue to make use of the most current information to stay informed of current wildlife disease threats. 

A blue-winged teal taking wing. 

© Chris Bailey 

CONSUMPTIVE USES GOAL 

Provide visitors with quality opportunities to enjoy 

hunting, fishing, and trapping in waterfowl production 

areas and expand their knowledge and appreciation 

of the prairie landscape and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. 

Hunting 

The Improvement Act identifies six wildlife-dependent recreational (priority) uses—hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation—that receive 

enhanced consideration over other general public 

uses in planning and management of the districts. 

Hunting is one of the consumptive uses provided for 

in the Improvement Act. 

Hunting Objective 

Throughout the life of the CCP, maintain or enhance 

hunting opportunities on WPAs. Continue to provide 

information about public opportunities for hunting in 

accordance with State and Federal regulations. 

Strategies 

■■ Ensure that all WPAs have the most recent version of boundary signage in accordance with current policy. 

■■ Participate in updating the WPA Mapper initiative, 

which provides electronic information on location 

and features. 

■■ Explore options to develop or improve infrastructure to support hunting opportunities. 

■■ Explore opportunities for development of universally accessible facilities and locations for hunters 

with mobility impairments. Work with partners to 

help fund such facility development. 

■■ Establish criteria for eligibility to use privileges 

for hunters with mobility impairments, such as 

drive-in access. 

■■ Keep data current to allow the State to incorporate 

district information into the SDGFP hunting guide. 
91 

Rationale 

Hunting ring-necked pheasant, prairie grouse, deer, 

waterfowl, and other migratory gamebirds on WPAs 

in the districts is very popular. The major hunting 

seasons for all species are during October through 

December. A light goose Conservation Order hunting 

season provides hunters an opportunity to harvest 

snow geese during the spring migration. 

WPAs are open to hunting as authorized by 50 CFR 

part 32.1. This provision states that WPAs shall annually be open to the hunting of migratory game birds, 

upland game, and big game subject to the provisions 

of State law and regulations. 

Because the popularity of hunting on WPAs is increasing, crowding is becoming an issue that affects 

the quality of the hunting experience. Crowds of hunters lead to unsafe hunting conditions and compromised 

harvest opportunities as game is dispersed. 

Pressure for hunting is intensifying on Service lands. 

The number of nonresident hunters is increasing. In 

addition, the extent of private property off limits to 

hunting is increasing, while CRP grassland acres on 

private lands are decreasing. 

To ensure a high-quality hunting experience, it is 

essential to maintain healthy populations of resident 

wildlife and migratory birds through habitat management. There is a growing demand for hunting opportunities accessible to hunters with mobility impairments, such as wheelchair-bound hunters. Hunting 

by young people is already taking place, because the 

WPAs are managed in accordance with State regulations that include hunt days for youths. 

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks supports youth 

hunting through a variety of programs. 

USFWS 

Fishing 

Fishing is another consumptive use allowed for in the 

Improvement Act. 

Fishing Objective 

Throughout the life of the CCP, maintain and/or enhance 

fishing opportunities on WPAs. Continue to provide 

information about public opportunities for fishing in 

accordance with State and Federal regulations. 

Strategies 

■■ Ensure that all WPAs have the most recent version of boundary signage in accordance with current policy. 

■■ Participate in updating the WPA Mapper initiative, 

which provides electronic information on location 

and features. 

■■ Keep data current to allow the State to incorporate 

district information into the SDGFP fishing guide. 

■■ The Madison WMD will continue to work with the 

State to maintain healthy fish populations through 

the Natural PONDS Program by special use permit). 

Rationale 

A few of the more permanent lakes in the districts 

provide fishing for northern pike, perch, walleye, and a 

few other species during high precipitation years. Parts 

of these lakes may be on WPAs. Fishing in districts 

is available summer and winter. Winter ice fishing is 

far more popular than fishing during warmer weather. 

These areas are open to fishing according to State 

regulations and special refuge regulations. SDGFP’s 

Natural PONDS fisheries program is permitted on 11 

wetlands in the Madison WMD. Fry and adult crappies, perch, bluegills, and walleyes are stocked in the 

spring and then retrapped as fingerlings and adults 

and stocked into local lakes that can support a fishery. 

Trapping 

Trapping is a consumptive use allowed for in the 

Improvement Act. 

Trapping Objective 

Throughout the life of the CCP, maintain or enhance 

trapping opportunities on WPAs. Continue to provide 

information about public opportunities for trapping in 

accordance with State and Federal regulations. 

Strategies 

■■ Ensure that all WPAs have the most recent boundary signage in accordance with current policy. 

■■ Participate in updating the WPA Mapper initiative, 

which provides electronic information on location 

and features. 

■■ Keep data current to allow the State to incorporate 

district information into the SDGFP hunting guide. 

Rationale 

WPAs are open to trapping as authorized by 50 CFR 

part 31.16. This provision states that WPAs shall be 

open to public trapping without Federal permit, and 

that each person trapping shall possess the required 

State license or permit and shall comply with the provisions of State laws and regulations. 
92 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

The great blue heron is an iconic symbol of wetlands 

across the country. 

© Chris Bailey

A photographer on Vaillancourt-Schneck Memorial 

Natural Trail. 

Bridgette Flanders-Wanner / USFWS 

NONCONSUMPTIVE USES GOAL 

Provide visitors with quality opportunities to enjoy, 

observe, photograph, and appreciate the prairie ecosystem while expanding their knowledge of and support for the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Photography and Wildlife Observation 

Among the six priority uses identified in the Improvement 

Act, several are consumptive and several are nonconsumptive. Photography and wildlife observation 

constitute a nonconsumptive use. 

Photography and Wildlife Observation Objective 

Throughout the life of the CCP, develop, maintain, and 

enhance visitor opportunities for wildlife observation 

and photography. 

Strategies 

■■ Within 3 years of CCP approval, the Huron WMD 

will develop a new general brochure. 

■■ Within 1 year of CCP approval, the Madison WMD 

will develop a new general brochure. 

■■ Ensure that the public is aware of wildlife observation and photography opportunities at the districts 

and identify observation areas open to the public 

through signage, publications, and maps. 

■■ Incorporate district lands into the regional birding 

trail pamphlets by promoting WPAs as stops. Seek 

out partners to establish and promote birding trails. 

■■ Provide checklists to inform visitors of seasonal 

wildlife presence and abundance. 

■■ Each district will host a bird identification event 

annually. 

■■ Develop website-based observation materials such 

as bird lists and information, locations of observation blinds, maps, and web cams. 

■■ Where feasible, develop a simple map for each 

district’s visitor center or contact station where 

visitors can record what they saw and where (for 

example, a laminated map that people can write on 

with a dry-erase marker or magnet board). 

■■ Where feasible, provide a computer kiosk where 

visitors can access birding information (for example, 

songs using Thayer birding software). 

■■ The Huron WMD will prepare a feasibility study 

for the establishment of an observation blind for 

prairie chickens on the Harter WPA within 2 years 

of CCP approval. 

■■ The Huron WMD will pursue the development of 

a birding trail for visitors with visual impairments. 

Rationale 

WPAs provide visitors with tremendous opportunities for viewing and photographing wildlife species 

that make the prairies and wetlands of the Prairie 

Pothole Region their home. Excellent opportunities 

can be found in all three districts, which together reach 

from the Minnesota/South Dakota border west across 

the Missouri River. Spring is an especially good time 

to visit WPAs and see a wide variety of abundant 

migratory birds as they migrate north to their summer breeding grounds. Remote prairie potholes with 

wildflowers displaying their colors on tracts of native 

prairie can provide beautiful and inspiring vistas that 

are preserved for the enjoyment of future generations. 

Appendix A contains the compatibility determination for wildlife observation and photography. 

Wildlife observation and photography are both 

wildlife-dependent recreational (priority) uses listed 

in the Improvement Act. In fiscal year 2008, wildlife 

photography alone accounted for more than 3,000 visits to the three districts. Facilities that support these 

activities include visitor centers, interpretive displays, 

auto routes, overlooks and observation platforms, and 

informational kiosks. 
93 

OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION GOAL 

Through effective communication and innovative 

partnerships, secure and efficiently utilize funding, 

staffing, and volunteer programs for the benefit of all 

natural resources in the districts. 

Land Protection 

The Huron, Madison, and Sand Lake WMDs are three 

of 37 districts throughout the Prairie Pothole Region. 

They were established by the legislation that authorized the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program to save 

wetlands from various threats, particularly draining. 

The passage of Public Law 85-585 in August 1958 

amended the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation 

Stamp Act (Duck Stamp Act) of 1934, allowing for the 

acquisition of WPAs and “Easements for Waterfowl 

Management Rights” (easements). The nation’s first 

WPA was acquired in the Waubay study area (now 

known as the Waubay WMD) when the 160-acre 

McCarlson WPA in Day County was purchased from 

Arnold McCarlson on January 19, 1959. The Wetlands 

Loan Act (P.L. 87-383), passed on October 4, 1961, allowed for the advancement of funds against future 

revenues from Duck Stamp sales. As a result, the first 

wetland management districts were created in 1962. 

Wetland Easement Objective 

Throughout the life of the CCP, each district will secure 

perpetual conservation easements on 1–5 percent of 

remaining unprotected, high-priority wetland acres. 

Strategies 

■■ Continue to focus the protection of wetlands using 

conservation easements in areas where the Service 

is also protecting priority grasslands. Because of 

the administrative process involved in calculating 

values (using the assessed value of the land and a 

multiplier derived from the relationship between 

the sales price of similar properties and the assessed 

values of those properties), it is most efficient for 

the Service’s Division of Realty to focus acquisition efforts in specific areas (for example, counties) before moving on to other areas. Focusing on 

specific areas and making multiple offers to many 

landowners reduces the administrative burden of 

purchasing conservation easements, thereby increasing the number of acres that can be protected. 

■■ Use mass mailings to prospective sellers in targeted areas with information about the conservation easement program. 

■■ Maintain and update the wetland easement program brochure. 

■■ Maintain lists of willing sellers, some of whom 

have been waiting several years for an easement 

offer. Continue to process these offers, based on 

habitat potential and funding, to protect the highest priority areas. 

■■ Continue to “piggyback” on the Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program as a way to inform prospective sellers of the Service’s conservation easement 

program. Oftentimes, staff of the Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program is the first point of contact for 

many landowners who might not otherwise be aware 

of the conservation programs available to them. 

■■ Continue to use the Service’s strong partnership 

with SDGFP and NGOs that support the Service’s 

easement acquisition programs. These NGOs provide 

a critical link to many sources of funding that can 

be leveraged to provide additional funds for easement purchases. Notable supporters include Ducks 

Unlimited, North American Wetlands Conservation 

Act (NAWCA), The Nature Conservancy, Pheasants 

Forever, and many other conservation organizations that generate non–Duck Stamp funding to 

buy conservation easements. 

Rationale 

Given a constant acquisition budget over the next 15 

years (and using an average acquisition target based 

on 2008 Division of Realty figures), it is projected that 

more than 40,000 wetland acres can be protected with 

conservation easements within the three districts. 

HAPET has identified those wetlands that are especially at risk—temporary and seasonal wetlands, often less than 1 acre in size, that are totally or partially 

embedded in cropland. The pressure to drain and fill 

these wetlands to support tillage agriculture puts 

these basins at higher risk of conversion than those 

in grasslands. At the same time, these wetlands have 

important value for waterfowl. Based on predictive 

models developed by HAPET, the Service has prioritized conservation easement acquisitions to focus 

on the following: 

■■ wetlands that are not protected 

■■ wetlands capable of supporting more than 25 breeding duck pairs per square mile 

■■ wetlands embedded in cropland, where the risk of 

degradation is especially high 

■■ wetlands at greatest risk of degradation (from 

drainage and filling): seasonal and temporary basins 

■■ semipermanent and permanent wetlands less than 

1 acre in size 

According to HAPET, waterfowl pairs in the PPJV 

are supported on 7.33 million wetland acres, of which 

1.49 million acres are currently protected by wetland 

easements or WPAs. An estimated 1.15 million duck 

pairs reside in these wetlands, leaving the majority of 

pairs (3.10 million, or 73 percent) dependent on wetlands that are currently unprotected except through 

the “Swampbuster” provision of the Farm Bill. Using 

the criteria above, HAPET identified 1.4 million acres 

of priority wetlands within the area encompassed by 
94 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

the PPJV that are in greatest need of protection; these 

wetlands would support 1.5 million duck pairs (figure 

18). This number has been adopted as a protection goal 

by both the Dakota Working Group (a team consisting 

of refuge managers and project leaders from refuges 

and districts in South Dakota and North Dakota) and 

the PPJV (Ringelman 2005). 

Securing protected status on 40,000 priority wetland acres in the next 15 years would help the Service 

advance toward the Dakota Working Group and PPJV 

goal. Protection of priority wetlands with conservation easements would not only benefit waterfowl, 

but would also have benefits for other migratory 

waterbirds. Niemuth et al. (2006) presented results 

demonstrating the importance of temporary and seasonal wetlands embedded in agricultural landscapes 

for migrant shorebirds in the Prairie Pothole Region. 

Specifically, they found that temporary wetlands were 

selected by migrant shorebirds, but pointed out that 

presence of water and lack of drainage activity were 

also strong predictors of shorebird presence. 

Partnerships between the Service and area ranchers are 

powerful tools to manage wildlife habitat. 

USFWS 

Grassland Easement Objective 

Throughout the life of the CCP, each district will secure 

perpetual conservation easements on 1–5 percent of 

remaining unprotected, high-priority grassland acres. 

Strategies 

■■ Continue to focus the protection of grasslands with 

conservation easements in areas where the Service 

is also protecting priority wetlands. Because of the 

administrative process involved in calculating values (using the assessed value of the land and a multiplier derived from the relationship between the 

sales price of similar properties and the assessed 

values of those properties), it is most efficient for 

the Service’s Division of Realty to focus acquisition 

efforts in specific areas (for example, counties) before 

moving to other areas. Focusing on specific areas 

and making multiple offers to many landowners 

reduces the administrative burden of purchasing 

conservation easements, thereby increasing the 

number of acres that can be protected. 

■■ Use mass mailings to prospective sellers with information about the conservation easement program 

in targeted areas. 

■■ Maintain and update the grassland easement program brochure. 

■■ Maintain lists of willing sellers, some of whom 

have been waiting several years for an easement 

offer. Continue to process these offers, based on 

habitat potential and funding, to protect the highest priority areas. 

■■ Continue to “piggyback” on the Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program as a way to inform prospective sellers of the Service’s conservation easement 

program. Often, staff of the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program is the first point of contact for 

many landowners who might not otherwise be aware 

of the conservation programs available to them. 

■■ Continue to use the Service’s strong partnership 

with SDGFP and NGOs that support the Service’s 

easement acquisition programs. These NGOs provide 

a critical link to many sources of funding that can 

be leveraged to provide additional funds for easement purchases. Notable supporters include Ducks 

Unlimited, NAWCA, The Nature Conservancy, 

Pheasants Forever, and many other conservation 

organizations that generate non–Duck Stamp funding to buy conservation easements. 

Rationale 

The initial focus of the Small Wetland Acquisition 

Program was primarily the protection of wetlands 

through purchasing land in fee title and acquiring perpetual wetland easements. However, data also revealed 

the importance of upland grasslands to successful 

nesting of waterfowl. With the continued conversion 

of grassland to cropland and consistent declines in the 

populations of grassland-dependent birds, the need to 

protect adjacent grassland habitats became evident. 

The Service received authorization and began to acquire grassland easements in South Dakota in 1989. 

Like a wetland easement, a grassland easement 

transfers limited perpetual rights to the Service for a 

one-time, lump-sum payment. The purpose of a grassland easement is to prevent the conversion of grassland to cropland, while minimally restricting existing 

agricultural practices. 

More specifically, the purposes of a grassland easement are: 

■■to improve the water quality of wetlands by reducing soil erosion and the use of chemicals and 

fertilizers on surrounding uplands; 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 95
 

Figure 18. Priority wetlands. 
96 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Figure 19. Distribution of priority grasslands. 
97 

 

■■to improve upland nesting habitat for all groundnesting birds, especially waterfowl, and enhance 

nesting success on private lands; 

■■to perpetuate grassland cover established by other 

Federal programs (for example, CRP); 

■■to provide an alternative to the purchase of uplands in fee title, thus maintaining lands in private 

ownership. 

Grassland easements restrict the landowner from 

altering the grass by digging, plowing, disking, or 

otherwise destroying the vegetative cover. Haying, 

mowing, and seed harvest are restricted until after 

July 15 of each year. The landowner can graze without 

restriction (appendix A). 

Considering the strong and ongoing partnership 

with Ducks Unlimited and the consistent success of using their non-Federal money to help acquire NAWCA 

grants, it is likely the Service’s grassland easement 

program will enjoy stable, if not increasing, funding 

over the next 15 years. Under these circumstances 

and using an average acquisition target based on 2008 

Division of Realty data, the Service would secure protected status for more than 500,000 grassland acres 

in South Dakota. 

HAPET has developed a model that shows the 

distribution of priority grassland patches (at least 55 

acres) in relation to breeding duck pairs (at least 25 

per square mile) (figure 19) and predicts that for every 

1 percent decline of priority grassland in the Prairie 

Pothole Region, there will be 25,000 fewer ducks in 

the fall. Protection of priority grassland patches not 

only benefits waterfowl, but also a wide variety of 

grassland-dependent migratory birds such as western 

meadowlark (Johnson and Igl 2001). 

HAPET identified 11.56 million acres in the PPJV area 

of North Dakota, South Dakota, and eastern Montana 

that meet the above criteria. By subtracting grasslands 

already protected on WPAs or grassland easements, 

HAPET identified 10.4 million grassland acres in need 

of protection. The Dakota Working Group and the 

PPJV (Ringelman 2005) have adopted this figure as a 

protection goal. Securing protected status on 500,000 

acres of priority grassland in the next 15 years would 

help the Service advance toward meeting this goal. 

Additionally, the HAPET model has identified 

larger grassland areas with respect to area-dependent 

grassland-nesting birds such as northern harrier, upland sandpiper, and grasshopper sparrow (Johnson 

and Igl 2001). These areas consist of contiguous grass 

cover encompassing at least 640 acres with at least 30 

percent of the area comprising permanent or semipermanent wetlands. Protection of these large, contiguous 

blocks of grass within a larger, grassland-dominated 

landscape should provide adequate protection for a 

wide range of grassland-dependent migratory bird 

species that are of management concern (Estey 2007). 

Fee Interest Objective 

On average, each district will annually strive to purchase additional land in fee title (WPAs) at a rate of 

1 percent over the existing land base. 

Strategies 

■■ Purchase standalone or roundout properties with 

habitat values equal to or greater than existing 

high-priority WPAs. 

■■ Standalone properties could be purchased ahead 

of a roundout property or any easement. 

■■ Continue to use the Service’s strong partnership 

with others to acquire WPAs through purchase 

and donation. 

■■ Consider exchange proposals with other conservation organizations with the goal of improving 

management capability. 

■■ Survey boundaries on all newly acquired and existing WPAs as needed. 

Rationale 

WPAs are public lands purchased by the Federal 

Government for increasing the production of migratory birds, especially waterfowl. The purchase of 

land—or ownership in fee title—entails the Federal 

Government holding ownership of land on behalf of 

the American public. Money to buy WPA lands generally comes from the public purchase of Federal Duck 

Stamps. This important program aims to ensure the 

long-term protection of waterfowl and other migratory bird breeding habitat—primarily in the Prairie 

Pothole Region of the northern Great Plains. WPAs 

are open to the public for hunting, fishing, bird watching, trapping, hiking, and most other nonmotorized 

and noncommercial outdoor recreation. 

The majority of WPAs in the Madison, Huron, 

and Sand Lake WMDs were purchased in the 1960s. 

Historically, acquisition of WPAs focused on larger 

semipermanent wetlands; often, very little associated 

upland was included in the tract. As grassland cover 

was converted to cropland, the Service recognized the 

importance of purchasing uplands adjacent to wetlands 

for waterfowl production. When considering a WPA 

purchase from willing sellers, the Service ranks sites 

with native prairie, rare wildlife and plant species, a 

diversity of temporary and semipermanent wetlands, 

and areas near or adjacent another WPA as higher priorities for acquisition. Currently, the Service purchases 

on average one WPA in each district every 3 years. 

Funding and Staffing 

Goals, objectives, and strategies described in this 

chapter are based on full, adequate funding and staff. 

Current policy for Region 6 refuge operations requires 

that each station is allocated a base budget comprising no more than 75 percent fixed cost and 25 percent 

management capability (flexible) funding. Districts 
98 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

will construct and/or maintain buildings, roads, and 

other infrastructure at or above Service standards 

(see Facilities Objective). In addition, districts will 

purchase new equipment and maintain and replace 

equipment and vehicles at or above Service standards. 

Other sources provide additional funding for fire management, law enforcement, volunteers, challenge cost 

share, biological inventory and monitoring, land acquisition, and deferred maintenance. 

The Service’s current approved staffing model was 

used to determine each district’s needed staff (appendix 

K). A national team of Refuge System professionals 

developed a new staffing model to determine the level 

of staff needed to most effectively operate and manage the variety of field stations in the Refuge System. 

The staffing model used 15 factors to drive workload 

including the following: number of acres, number of 

easement contracts, number of acres actively managed, level of invasive species infestations, endangered 

species, biological management and monitoring, wilderness management, visitor services, and maintenance needs. Data for the model were drawn from the 

Service’s “Annual Report of Lands,” “Refuge Annual 

Performance Plan,” “Real Property Inventory,” and 

other Service data sources. 

The new staffing model recommends additional staff 

of 19.5 FTEs for the Sand Lake WMD, 14.5 FTEs for 

the Huron WMD, and 11 FTEs for the Madison WMD 

over the next 15 years. During the life of the CCP, it 

is anticipated that staffing increases will comprise five 

FTEs for the Sand Lake WMD, four for the Huron 

WMD, and three for the Madison WMD. 

Potential New District Objective 

Within 2 years of CCP approval, the Sand Lake WMD 

will evaluate the feasibility of establishing a standalone 

wetland management district. 

Strategies 

■■ Identify a WPA capable of supporting a complete 

wetland management district headquarters complex consisting of an office–visitor center, operations and maintenance facilities, equipment storage facilities, staff and visitor parking areas, and 

interpretation areas. 

■■ Prioritize the building and maintenance schedule 

based on funding projects in the Service Asset 

Maintenance Management System. Identify an 

office–visitor center as the top priority construction project. 

■■ Schedule equipment and vehicle replacements to 

achieve industry standards when normal life expectancy is reached. 

■■ Work with partners and the regional office to obtain funding to fill four additional positions: outdoor 

recreation planner, law enforcement officer (park 

ranger), maintenance worker, and refuge operations specialist. 

■■ Prepare a socioeconomic fact sheet of area businesses, schools, and services for personnel recruitment purposes. 

Rationale 

The Sand Lake WMD is the largest district in the 

Refuge System, encompassing 692,132 acres of feetitle land and perpetual conservation easements in 10 

counties of north-central South Dakota. All personnel, 

equipment, and facilities are based at the Sand Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge in extreme northeastern 

Brown County and are shared with the refuge. While 

this location adequately serves the refuge, it does not 

efficiently serve the district. Wetland management 

districts that share management and facilities with 

national wildlife refuges suffer a multitude of negative consequences under this organizational structure. 

In addition to shortfalls in deleted adequate staffing 

and funding for the district, the mere location of the 

current Sand Lake Refuge Complex office results in 

management inefficiencies for adequate land management and biological monitoring. Figure 7 illustrates the 

distances from the Sand Lake Refuge headquarters 

to district fee-title properties and resources. Clearly, 

this arrangement results in extended travel times, resulting in less management and monitoring, increased 

fuel costs, and inefficient response times to various 

district needs. Biological monitoring has been lacking 

for many years, largely as a result of staff shortages 

and this geographic arrangement. 

Establishing a district headquarters location in 

western Edmunds County would greatly enhance all 

facets of district management. Such a site would be 

centrally located for the majority of land resources 

in six counties of the current district. U.S. Highway 

12, a primary travel artery through South Dakota, 

bisects the county from east to west and can provide 

an increase in visitor services and interpretative contacts for the public. Two small communities—Roscoe 

and Bowdle—in the western half of Edmunds County 

offer a variety of services. Three WPAs of suitable 

size, space, and habitats to provide adequate sites for 

a district headquarters facility are located on State 

Highway 47 north of Bowdle. 

Properties along U.S. 12 will be investigated for 

possible acquisition and development of district facilities. Temporary quarters for researchers, seasonal staff, and volunteers would be included in the 

proposed facilities. These facilities would streamline 

the logistics required to house fire crew and other 

personnel supporting interagency cooperative land 

management and research agreements. In addition, 

biological monitoring personnel could utilize the facilities for continued research. 
99 

Two counties—Brown and Spink—would remain 

with the Sand Lake Refuge Complex for complete 

management purposes. These two counties combined 

encompass approximately 97,015 acres of fee-title land 

and conservation easements and can be efficiently managed by refuge staff. The remaining eight counties— 

McPherson, Edmunds, Faulk, Campbell, Walworth, 

Potter, Corson, and Dewey—encompass 590,289 acres 

of fee and conservation easements. The new district— 

comprising 8 counties rather than 10—would remain 

the largest district in the Refuge System. 

Cultural Resources 

Cultural Resources Objective 

Throughout the life of the CCP, integrate the process 

for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) into all applicable district projects by 

notifying the Service’s cultural resource staff early in 

the planning process and, whenever possible, completing the review without delay to the project. Avoid or, 

when necessary, mitigate adverse effects on significant 

cultural resources. 

Strategies 

■■ Incorporate the NHPA section 106 review process 

into project development as early as possible and 

complete the process, as applicable. 

■■ Complete a programmatic agreement with the 

State Historic Preservation Officer to expedite 

project review. 

■■ Continue cultural resource review of the districts’ 

projects to identify concerns. 

Rationale 

The protection and interpretation of cultural resources 

is important to the public and the Service. Federal laws 

and policies mandate the consideration and, often, the 

protection of significant cultural resources. 

Law Enforcement 

Law Enforcement Objective 1 

Throughout the life of the CCP, protect all wetland and 

grassland areas under perpetual easement through active monitoring and law enforcement in accordance with 

the provisions of the conservation easement contracts. 

Strategies 

■■ Following the guidelines contained in the “Easement 

Manual” for enforcement procedures, conduct annual surveillance flights to detect potential conservation easement violations and promptly follow up 

with needed enforcement action. 

■■ If personnel and funds are available, annually send 

letters to new landowners informing them of existing conservation easements on their property, 

including associated easement provisions. 

■■ Proactively map pre-1976 wetland easements and 

provide maps to landowners along with a copy of 

the easement contract containing provisions. 

■■ Proactively provide to county USDA offices a map 

of Service interests showing WPAs and easements. 

USDA personnel will use maps to identify Service 

easements prior to granting any wetland drainage 

requests. Annually update these maps. 

■■ Conduct aerial flights to obtain digital photography 

of all wetland easements. 

■■ If personnel and funds are available, annually contact the county road supervisors to see if they have 

any federally funded road projects that might affect easement wetlands or unprotected wetlands 

and provide advice to minimize impacts. 

■■ Seek assistance from HAPET for spatial data requests on the locations of Service interests in the 

pre-planning of wind generator farms, fuel pipelines, overhead distribution power lines, or other 

large-scale commercial developments. 

■■ Complete a workforce analysis to identify law enforcement staff needs and strengthen these areas 

through position management, new staff, or both. 

This will prevent protected wetlands from being 

lost through violations as a result of insufficient 

law enforcement staff. 

Rationale 

When the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program was 

initiated more than 50 years ago, the Service believed 

that conservation easements would require little to 

no maintenance or enforcement efforts. However, it 

soon became evident that in order to protect the government’s interest in these easements, a systematic 

approach was necessary for easement administration 

and enforcement. 

“Swampbuster” provisions of the Farm Bill (which 

prohibit conversion of wetlands for the production of 

commodity crops by Farm Bill participants) notwithstanding, pressures to drain and fill wetlands have 

continued to intensify. As farm implements such as 

drills, sprayers, and tractors become larger, landowners increasingly view small isolated wetlands as nuisance spots because they are tired of working around 

them. Other Farm Bill programs can also unintentionally increase pressure to violate wetland easement 

provisions. One such program, “prevented planting,” 

provides compensation to a landowner for acres that 

cannot be seeded to a crop. To qualify for payment, 

the operator must only make an attempt to farm the 

acres (oftentimes, these are wetland acres). Simply 

plowing the ground once in the fall, when wetlands 

are naturally dry, can constitute an attempt. To facilitate plowing, landowners often burn off the wetland 

vegetation. It is common for these burns to occur on 

conservation easement–protected wetlands without 
100 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

the required permit from the administering district, 

which is a violation of the easement provisions. 

In the absence of active and effective enforcement, 

the Service’s conservation easement interests could 

be lost forever, in contrast to resources that the government owns outright. A 15-year hiatus in enforcement action would likely result in irreparable harm 

to the Service’s easement interests and permanent 

loss of habitat. 

Because most grassland easements protect native prairie, the major enforcement concern is cultivation. While violations involving the conversion 

of native prairie to cropland are extremely rare, full 

restoration is arguably impossible (although restoration of grassland is possible to regain compliance with 

grassland easement provisions, which do not specify 

native prairie). Accordingly, enforcement is essential 

to the protection of these habitats. Haying, mowing, 

or harvesting seed before July 15, in violation of the 

conservation easement provision, could cause direct 

losses of grassland-nesting birds, including waterfowl. 

Haying is not common on native prairie, but it is more 

likely to occur on tamegrass grasslands. Enforcing 

early hay violations affords another opportunity to 

meet and visit with landowners and operators. These 

contacts may serve to remind landowners and operators of the conservation easement provisions and 

hopefully prevent more serious violations in the future. Like any law enforcement action, the ultimate 

goal is voluntary compliance. 

Law Enforcement Objective 2 

Throughout the life of the CCP, the districts will 

protect natural and cultural resources pursuant to 

all relevant laws, executive orders, regulations, and 

policies. The districts will provide law enforcement 

for all consumptive and nonconsumptive public uses 

on Service lands. 

Strategies 

Provide adequate law enforcement coverage of all 

hunting, fishing, and trapping seasons to ensure compliance with laws and regulations while providing for 

public safety and welfare. 

■■ Develop extensive methods for signage, to facilitate 

information transfer, and to address communication needs through the use of kiosks, public use 

leaflets, and tear sheets explaining regulations and 

prohibited activities. 

■■ Develop, coordinate, and maintain working relationships with State and local law enforcement authorities and fire departments to protect district 

properties and Federal trust species. 

■■ Continue to work cooperatively and share information with SDGFP to conduct law enforcement 

patrols to ensure compliance with regulations. 

■■ Conduct an active migratory bird law enforcement 

program throughout the districts. 

Rationale 

For management purposes, WPAs and permanent 

conservation easements are organized into wetland 

management districts. District staff use managed 

grazing, haying, and prescribed burning to enhance the 

habitats found on WPAs. WPAs are open to hunting, 

fishing, trapping, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation. 

All other activities are prohibited. 

Wildland Fire Management 

Wildland Fire Management Program Objective 

Throughout the life of the CCP, provide adequate collaboration and teamwork between the fire program 

and refuge program to ensure that the objectives of 

DOI fire policies and other Federal policies are met. 

At the same time, the program will attain the following objectives: 

■■ safely suppressing all wildfires within the districts 

and maintaining an initial attack success rate of 

95 percent or higher on wildfires occurring on 

Service lands 

➤■Prior to European settlement, wildfires had 

the ability to burn vast areas. Today, large fires 

(more than 300 acres) are still possible, but the 

likelihood has been reduced primarily as a result 

of habitat fragmentation. Nevertheless, there 

is still a high probability of wildfires damaging 

neighboring property. Due to the small size of 

Service lands, rapid rates of spread in grass 

fuels, and potential for wildfire to cross onto 

neighboring lands, the districts have chosen 

to suppress all wildfires to reduce potential 

threats to neighboring private land. 

➤■Region 6 has identified fire management districts 

throughout the region. Under this approach, 

the level of fire management staffing would be 

determined by established modeling systems 

based on workload. Data used to determine the 

workload are based on historical wildfire suppression activities as well as on historical and 

planned fuel treatments. 

➤■Realizing that fire management staff and equipment may be placed anywhere within the fire 

management district, utilizing local refuge staff 

as well as other Federal and non-Federal partners to assist in wildfire suppression is a priority. The districts will attempt to maintain and 

encourage fire qualifications for refuge staff. 

In addition, local agreements between Federal 

and non-Federal partners will be pursued and/ 

or maintained. 
101 

■■ utilizing Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) 

or Burned Area Rehabilitation (BAR) funding as 

needed following wildfires 

➤■Wildfires can damage natural and cultural resources and improvements. BAER treatments 

are intended to protect public safety and stabilize 

and prevent further degradation of natural and 

cultural resources. These treatments are considered emergencies and are conducted within 

1 year of wildfire containment. BAR treatments 

are nonemergency efforts conducted within 3 

years of wildfire containment to improve firedamaged lands that are unlikely to recover to 

management-approved conditions, or to repair 

or replace minor facilities damaged by wildfire. 

For example, BAR funding can be used to repair or replace fences damaged by wildfire or 

to treat burned areas to prevent the spread of 

invasive plants. The use of BAER and BAR 

funding will follow National and regional policy 

and guidance. 

➤■ It is anticipated that BAR funding has the 

greatest potential to be used in the districts. 

■■ completing an updated fire management plan (FMP) 

that reflects the goals and other objectives identified in this CCP 

➤■Service policy requires that every unit containing burnable vegetation have an FMP. The FMP 

is a stepdown plan from the CCP and provides 

guidance in how the fire management program 

will be instituted to meet National, regional, 

and refuge goals and objectives. An approved 

FMP allows the manager to consider a wide 

range of suppression alternatives and to conduct prescribed fires. 

➤■The FMP is intended to be dynamic and reflect 

current policies and situations; therefore, an FMP 

is periodically reviewed and revised. Required 

updates and revisions will follow National and 

regional policy and guidance. 

■■ implementing and monitoring a rotational prescribed burn program over the life of the CCP that 

supports the fire-dependent communities within 

the districts 

➤■Fire is an important natural component in the 

maintenance and restoration of nearly all the 

habitats in the districts. The frequency and 

magnitude of prescribed fires can have a profound impact on a habitat’s successional state 

and the transition from one habitat type to another. Following European settlement, wildfire 

suppression disrupted the natural disturbance 

cycle, leading to habitat succession into different seral stages or into different habitat types 

altogether. 

➤■Prescribed burning is an effective tool for restoring plant communities to historic benchmark conditions, recycling nutrients, reducing 

hazardous fuels, reducing the threat of fires 

at the wildland-urban Interface, reducing or 

eliminating nonnative vegetation, increasing the 

growth and production of native plants, reducing woody encroachment, and reducing the risk 

of catastrophic wildfire. The Improvement Act 

states that the Service must “ensure that the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained.” By 

definition, these include “...the natural biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, 

and communities...” such as fire. 

■■ implementing and monitoring prescribed fire, chemical, or mechanical treatments, that are conducted 

to reduce hazardous fuels throughout the districts 

■■ over the life of the CCP, treating 20 percent of the 

Service lands adjacent to the South Dakota communities at risk and South Dakota communities of 

interest (table 10) 

➤■Hazardous fuels treatments are conducted to 

reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire to 

values at risk. Values at risk may include sensitive habitats and species, cultural resources, 

Federal and private infrastructure and facilities, and nearby local communities. Fire management and refuge staff will collaborate with 

affected parties (such as the State of South 

Dakota Wildland Fire Division and local communities) in developing Community Wildfire 

Protection Plans and hazardous fuels reduction 

treatments, as well as adding or removing communities at risk or of interest. Table 10 identifies the communities at risk and communities 

of interest within the districts. 

The Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI) and the Healthy 

Forests Restoration Act have equipped land managers 

with additional tools to achieve long-term objectives 

in reducing hazardous fuels protecting wildland-urban 

interface areas and restoring fire-adapted ecosystems. 

The HFI calls for reducing hazardous fuels that feed 

wildfires and improving forest and rangeland management. The HFI also requires that communities 

within the wildland-urban interface create “community 

wildfire protection plans,” designating areas adjacent 

to communities that should receive fuel treatments 

to prevent wildland fires from burning directly into 

communities. 

The goal is to provide for firefighter and public 

safety, reduce the potential for wildfires by reducing 

hazardous fuels on district lands, protect homes in the 

wildland-urban interface, and accomplish habitat management objectives. To achieve these interconnected 

goals, fire program staff will collaborate with refuge 
102 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Table 10. Wildland-urban interface communities on Federal communities at risk and South Dakota communities 

of interest lists. 

County Community Federal list South Dakota list 

Beadle Broadland X —
 

Beadle Cain Creek Subdivision X —
 

Beadle Lake Byron Subdivision X —
 

Beadle Maga-Ta-Hohpi Complex X —
 

Beadle Virgil X —
 

Brookings Lake Poinsett X —
 

Brookings Sinai X —
 

Brown Hecla X —
 

Buffalo — — —
 

Campbell Pollock X —
 

Clark — — —
 

Codington — — —
 

Day Enemy Swim X —
 

Day Waubay Complex X —
 

Deuel Astoria X —
 

Deuel Lake Cochrane X —
 

Edmunds Bowdle X —
 

Faulk — — —
 

Grant — — —
 

Hamlin Bryant X —
 

Hand — — —
 

Hughes Green Grass Subdivision — X
 

Hughes Pheasant Run Subdivision — X
 

Hyde — — —
 

Jerauld Wessington Springs — X
 

Kingsbury DeSmet — X
 

Lake Chester — X
 

Lake Madison — X
 

Lake Nunda — X
 

Lake Peninsula Point Subdivision X —
 

Lake Ramona — X
 

Lake Sunset Harbor Subdivision X —
 

Lake Wentworth — X
 

Marshall Lake City X —
 

Marshall Red Iron X —
 

McCook — — —
 

McPherson Eureka X —
 

McPherson Long Lake X —
 

Miner — — —
 

Minnehaha Buffalo Lake — X
 

Moody — — —
 

Potter — — —
 

Roberts Big Coulee X —
 

Roberts New Effington X — 
103 

 

personnel and seek additional supplemental support 

(when available) for desired subsequent prescribed 

burns to manage habitat on unqualified priority units. 

Fire management and habitat management are 

separable processes; accordingly, the strategies for 

prescribed fire and wildfire were developed to support 

the achievement of meeting the goals of the National 

Fire Plan (NFP) while adhering to Federal policy and 

habitat objectives for uplands, river bottoms, riparian 

areas, wetlands, and shorelines. 

Table 10. Wildland-urban interface communities on Federal communities at risk and South Dakota communities 

of interest lists. 

County Community Federal list South Dakota list 

Roberts Long Hollow X — 

Roberts Summit X — 

Sandborn — — — 

Spink — — — 

Sully — — — 

Walworth — — — 

Strategies 

■■ Fire program managers will work together with 

management and biological staff to find ways to 

prioritize and rank the most valuable treatment 

units in the districts and ensure that Federal fire 

policies are included in the process if hazardous 

fuels reduction funds or wildland urban interface 

funds are to be used. 

■■ Upon completion of the CCP, the FMPs will be 

revised using the most current information. The 

FMPs will be updated as determined by policy. The 

Huron Fire District and the Mid Dakota District 

FMPs are stepdown plans from the CCP. 

■■ As new lands are acquired and new housing developments are built adjacent to Service lands, 

both fire program managers will be responsible 

for identifying these new communities at risk and 

working with the State of South Dakota Wildland 

Fire Division to have them added to the State list 

of communities at risk or communities of interest. 

■■ Treat 20 percent of the Service lands adjacent to 

the South Dakota communities at risk and the 

South Dakota communities of interest (table 10). 

■■ Utilize a Department of Interior Fuels Prioritization 

Process and in cooperation with local and private 

cooperators carry out fuel reduction projects on 

Service lands adjacent to the Federal Register list 

of communities at risk and communities of interest 

in South Dakota (table 10). 

■■ The three districts encompass 445 WPAs totaling 

approximately 101,094 acres. To obtain an average 

fire return interval of 5 years across all the lands, the 

Service would need to burn roughly 20 percent, or 

20,018 acres, per year to maintain grasslands, hazardous fuel loadings, and wildland urban interface 

fuels at the appropriate level. This approach would 

assist with the suppression of unwanted wildfires 

and help to keep the lands in a more natural condition based on historical records. However, current 

staffing and budget levels do not support this level 

of prescribed burning. At a minimum, the districts 

should attempt to burn 10,100 acres annually; this 

level would approach the 10-year interval. Other 

treatments are available to produce similar landscape effects. 

■■ Use a combination of treatments, including prescribed fire, mechanical treatment, and chemical 

treatment, for the reduction of hazardous fuels 

and wildland-urban interface fuels. This will assist 

with the suppression of unwanted wildfires and 

will help the land return to a more natural condition. Mechanical treatments include the following: 

➤■Chainsaw work to cut down trees and shrubs in 

an attempt to remove woody biomass. 

➤■Heavy equipment, such as bulldozers, can be 

utilized to remove trees and shrubs. 

➤■Tractors with mulching heads or masticators 

that will grind the woody biomass into mulch 

could be used to reduce hazardous fuels. 

➤■Haying could be used to reduce the heavy thatch 

that builds up in upland areas when fire and 

grazing are not applied as a management tool. 

■■ Make excess biomass from mechanical fuels treatments available for public utilization. 

■■ Support communities in acquiring community assistance grants for mechanical treatment of the 

wildland-urban interface and collaborate with rural 

fire departments, emergency managers, and the 

public in hazardous fuel reduction projects. 

■■ Maintain necessary firefighting resources and 

personnel to ensure they are available to respond 

to wildfire that threatens lives and property and 

other values at risk. 

■■ Fire management staff will work with county emergency managers to encourage both counties and 

individual communities to complete Community 
104 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Wildfire Protection Plans; these plans will identify 

mitigation actions that can be taken to assist in protecting communities from catastrophic wildfires. 

■■ When identified treatments for habitat management 

or maintenance burns do not meet the priorities 

of national fire policy, project leaders and fire program managers will collaborate and seek additional 

supplemental support (when available) for desired 

subsequent prescribed burning needed to meet 

unqualified refuge habitat management priorities. 

■■ Update and execute cooperative agreements with 

interagency partners, the counties in the three 

districts, NGOs, and neighboring landowners for 

improved collaboration and cooperation. 

Rationale 

Having long recognized fire as a key process that shapes 

wildlife habitat structure and function, the Service 

has managed and used fire extensively for the past 70 

years. Guiding principles of fire management in the 

Service include responsible stewardship, hazardous 

fuel reduction, wildland-urban interface management, 

and habitat management strategies based on conserving ecological integrity, meeting the objectives of the 

NFP, and establishing effective partnerships. 

The emphasis of the Service’s fire management 

program has shifted from one of suppression to the 

use of prescribed fire and wildfire as management 

tools to achieve national fire policy objectives, habitat 

objectives, and landscape-level change. 

Fuel treatments need to be properly planned using 

an interagency and interdisciplinary approach when 

possible and practical, using an integrated approach 

across different programmatic areas. 

The 2010 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fire 

Management Handbook established a statement of 

intent: “Fuels treatments should properly be planned 

on an interdisciplinary basis and be integrated as 

much as practicable with other resource management 

activities, and serve to implement the appropriate 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. With the guidance from the Service Fire Management Handbook, 

fire management staff will strive to work closely with 

all other staff in the district to plan prescribed fire activities in a way that will reduce the risk of wildfires 

and also have positive results in the area of habitat 

management.” 

Other Uses 

Other Uses Objective 

Over the life of the CCP, districts will apply policy 

(such as appropriate uses and compatibility determinations) to evaluate other proposed uses. 

PARTNERSHIPS GOAL 

Promote and develop partnerships with landowners, 

public and private organizations, and other interested 

individuals to maintain, restore, and enhance a diverse and productive landscape in the Prairie Pothole 

Region. 

Partnerships Objective 

Throughout the life of the plan, create opportunities 

for new and maintain existing partnerships among 

Federal, State, and local agencies; Friends groups; 

organizations; schools; corporations; communities; 

and private landowners to promote the understanding 

and conservation of ecosystem and Refuge resources, 

activities, and management. 

Strategies 

■■ The Sand Lake WMD will develop a Friends group 

within 5 years of CCP approval in combination with 

Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

■■ The Huron WMD will expand membership in the 

Friends of Maga-Ta-Hohpi. 

■■ The Madison WMD will engage existing partners 

and seek additional staff support. 

■■ All three districts will pursue new partnerships to 

accomplish mission goals and purposes. 

Rationale 

Many of the districts’ wildlife, habitat, and visitor services programs would not continue without support 

from partners. Without partners’ support and their 

non-Federal funding, many of the habitat protection, 

restoration, and enhancement projects would go unfunded. Over time, the diversity of wildlife species 

would begin to decline as habitat degrades in the absence of adequate management. Partners also lend 

public support for fee-title acquisitions in front of 

county commission hearings. 

The three districts span much of the South Dakota 

landscape with fee-title ownership and wetland and 

grassland easements. The district management activities have the potential to affect neighbors and communities. Effective communication—both through 

media outlets and on an individual basis—is essential for successful management and fulfillment of the 

Refuge System mission and goals. Staff participate in 

local events and activities that maintain and support 

district programs. 

The Service assigns personnel to the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program, an internal Service partner that works with neighboring private landowners. 

This program helps with restoration and enhancement 

of habitat to benefit Federal trust species, while also 

helping Refuge System units through a landscapescale approach to conservation. The Partners Program 

provides technical assistance to private landowners to 

give them the information they need to apply for other 

habitat improvement programs. In addition, Partners 

Program personnel work with private landowners interested in perpetual conservation easements held by 
105 

the Service to maintain wetland and grassland ecosystems for future generations. Private lands adjacent 

to Refuge System lands benefit species that require 

larger landscapes for their survival. These partnerships benefit many sensitive fish and wildlife species. 

Volunteer Programs Objective 

Throughout the life of the CCP, recruit volunteers to 

support annual events; visitor services; and biological, 

maintenance, and administrative programs. 

Strategies 

■■ Districts will develop formal relationships with colleges and universities to access volunteers through 

internship opportunities. 

■■ Districts will develop formal relationships with 

secondary schools, individuals, and other organizations (such as Scouts and civic groups) to access 

volunteers with diverse experience. 

■■ Each station will hire an outdoor recreation planner, one of whose responsibilities will be volunteer 

coordination. 

Rationale 

The Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement 

Act (1998) amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to 

promote understanding and conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants and cultural and historical resources 

of the Refuge System. The purposes of the act are to 

(1) encourage the use of volunteers to assist in the 

management of refuges, (2) facilitate partnerships 

between the refuge and non-Federal entities, (3) pro

mote public awareness of refuge resources and public 

participation in the conservation of the resources, and 

(4) encourage donations and other contributions. The 

Improvement Act authorizes the use of volunteers 

­

on Service projects and appropriations to carry out a 

volunteer program. 

Those that volunteer for the Service generally do 

so in the area of visitor services. Visitor services require extensive Service staff time to coordinate, develop, and maintain. Volunteers ease some of those 

time requirements. Volunteers are also important for 

conducting biological surveys. 

Volunteers for the districts are: 

■■ individuals who want to give back to their communities; 

■■ parents who want to be good stewards of the land 

and set examples for their children; 

■■ retired people willing to share their wealth of 

knowledge; 

■■ concerned citizens of all ages who want to learn 

more about conservation; 

■■ passionate people who enjoy the outdoors and 

want to spread the word about America’s greatest 

natural treasures; 

■■ students who wish to gain experience to aid with 

future employment. 

A volunteer with the Friends of Maga-Ta-Hohpi staffs an 

interpretive station. 

Bridgette Flanders-Wanner / USFWS 

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND 

INTERPRETATION GOAL 

Provide quality educational opportunities for persons 

of all abilities to learn about, understand, and appreciate prairie landscapes and the role of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

Programs 

Programs Objective 

Throughout the life of the CCP, promote public awareness of and support for the Refuge System, an appreciation of district natural and cultural resources, 

and an understanding of management activities that 

conserve habitat and wildlife. 

Strategies 

■■ Within 2 years of CCP approval, the Madison WMD 

will install interpretive panels along the Madison 

WPA auto tour route. 

■■ Within 5 years of CCP approval, the Huron WMD 

will install interpretive panels and accessible observation platforms along the Maga-Ta-Hohpi 

WPA hiking trail. 

■■ Within 5 years, the Madison and Sand Lake WMDs 

will improve and install interpretive exhibits in 

their visitor contact stations (VCSs). 

■■ Within 3 years, the Huron WMD will design and 

install new interpretive exhibits in their new office–VCS at Maga-Ta-Hohpi WPA. 

■■ Within 3 years, the Huron WMD will design and 

install new interpretive exhibits at the Prairie 

Chicken Observation Area on the Harter WPA. 
106 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Wildlife biologist Laura Hubers introduces some new 

friends at Huron Prairie Fest. Sandy Uecker / USFWS 

■■ Within 3 years of CCP approval, the Huron WMD 

will develop a new general brochure. 

■■ Within 1 year of CCP approval, the Madison WMD 

will develop a new general brochure. 

■■ Develop district-oriented portable displays for staff 

use at events to educate the public. 

■■ Conduct programs such as teacher and student 

workshops, waterfowl identification workshops, 

water festivals, South Dakota outdoor expo, and 

annual noxious weed awareness workshops. 

■■ Within 5 years of CCP approval, identify the key 

WPAs in the districts that could support visitor 

use information such as signage and information 

kiosks. By 10 years after CCP approval, develop 

this visitor use infrastructure. 

■■ Keep data current to allow the State to incorporate 

district lands information in the appropriate State 

public use guides. 

■■ Work with the South Dakota tourism department 

to promote the WPAs and their resources. 

■■ The Sand Lake WMD will prepare a feasibility 

study for the establishment of an outdoor classroom on the Eureka Demo WPA within 2 years 

of CCP approval. If such an undertaking is considered feasible, develop an outdoor classroom on 

portions of the Eureka Demo WPA in McPherson 

County for use by area students (grades K–12). 

Establish a wide range of project partnerships and 

sponsors that will support and promote classroom 

use as well as foster an appreciation of the prairie 

pothole ecosystem and awareness of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (see Facilities Objective). 

■■ Update each district website on a quarterly basis. 

Upgrade to websites to Service standards and customize for each district. Explore the use of pod- and 

webcasting and social media. 

■■ Participate in updating the WPA Mapper initiative, 

which provides electronic information on location 

and features. 

■■ Conduct information sharing with the media (such 

as local newspapers), chambers of commerce, congressional contacts, and tourism outlets. 

■■ Disseminate educational materials (for example, 

wetland and prairie trunks) for use by teachers, 

Scout leaders, and others to help them educate 

their students and group members independently. 

■■ Promote programming that incorporates the 

“Connecting People with Nature” national and 

State initiatives in both structured and unstructured ways. Encourage family visits to and family 

awareness of the districts. 

■■ Seek out partnerships to encourage expansion of 

environmental education programs among local 

schools. Build on existing relationships with schools 

for both onsite and offsite programming. Promote 

education at an early age about natural resources 

and wetland management districts. 

■■ Develop programs and provide facilities for distance learning opportunities. 

■■ Continue to promote the junior Duck Stamp program. 

■■ Develop slides and DVDs to promote the districts 

for use in such venues as movie theater intermissions, tourism kiosks, and visitor centers. 

■■ Each station will hire an outdoor recreation planner, one of whose responsibilities will be volunteer 

coordination. 

Rationale 

Environmental education and interpretation are two 

of the six wildlife-dependent recreational (priority) 

uses listed in the Improvement Act. Parents, educators, and civic groups have been visiting WPAs for 

educational outdoor experiences for many years. 

Environmental education is usually conducted onsite 

with school, Scout, and civic groups when they are 

touring the districts’ headquarters. Offsite programs 

are conducted by district staff when time is available; 

these programs are very popular with various groups. 

Because the districts do not have outdoor recreation 

planners, they are not able to provide structured, 

curriculum-based environmental education and have 

to deny some requests for environmental education 

programs. 

The districts use self-guided exhibits, interpretive 

panels, and brochures as well as interpretative programming and special events to help foster appreciation, support, and understanding of district-specific 

topics and the Refuge System. Failure to understand 

the purpose and mission of the WPAs and the Service 

can lead to a lack of support and, ultimately, to indifference or opposition to management policies. The 

Service is often confused with SDGFP; through better educational efforts, the public would understand 

the Service’s mission and how it differs from that of 

SDGFP. With better understanding, the public can 
107 

be better informed about fish and wildlife issues in 

general and on-the-ground management activities in 

particular. 

As it increases in popularity and accessibility, the 

internet is an ever more valuable tool for keeping the 

public informed about district programs and resources. 

The three districts received more than 426,000 visitors during fiscal year 2008. Their proximity to urban 

areas such as Sioux Falls, Aberdeen, and Huron affords the districts excellent opportunities for outreach 

and education through establishment of new facilities 

and update of existing facilities. Expanding residential development challenges the districts’ habitat and 

wildlife goals; however, this increased population also 

presents an opportunity to offer wildlife-dependent 

recreation to more people, leading to a greater understanding of and appreciation for the natural world and 

wildlife conservation. 

Facilities 

The districts are near urban areas such as Sioux Falls, 

Aberdeen, and Huron. The districts have potential for 

outreach and education through establishment of new 

facilities and update of existing facilities. 

Few people know about wetland management 

districts or why they exist. Even fewer students or 

teachers take advantage of WPAs that may be located near rural schools. This objective would actively 

promote environmental education opportunities and 

develop new programs for use either in area schools 

or on WPAs near schools. Such efforts would provide 

new opportunities for many rural schools and increase 

exposure of students to today’s environmental challenges, as well as the benefits of protecting our natural resources. Interpretive signage and a birding trail 

would help reach a wider audience, increase tourism 

dollars, and build appreciation of Service programs. 

Photography, environmental education, and interpretation are allowed year-round during daylight hours. 

Outdoor learning facilities would provide teachers 

and students within the district with opportunities 

for hands-on learning about the biological processes 

of the prairie ecosystem. Teachers educate students 

who, in turn, pass on to their families what they have 

learned about prairie ecosystems and the Service’s 

role in protecting them. 

Facilities Objective 

Throughout the life of the CCP, enrich visitor experiences by maintaining and/or enhancing existing facilities, as well as identifying locations for additional 

amenities. 

Strategies 

■■ Ensure that all WPAs have the most recent version of boundary signage in accordance with current policy. 

■■ Work with South Dakota Department of Transportation 

(SDDOT) to install highway directional signage as 

appropriate. 

■■ Inventory all districts to determine what facilities 

are in place and where new or updated facilities 

are needed. 

■■ Design and construct all facilities with sustainable 

building standards and incorporating alternative 

energy sources. 

■■ Remove all artificial structures that are no longer 

functional and revegetate those sites as needed. 

■■ To address safety concerns, identify and plug all 

nonfunctional wells throughout the districts as 

appropriate. 

■■ Identify and site parking lots on WPAs to facilitate 

public use and safety. Construct additional parking lots as needed. 

Huron WMD 

■■ Secure funding to design and construct an administrative office and VCS on the Maga-Ta-Hohpi 

WPA. This facility would include an entrance road 

and parking facility, entrance sign, kiosk, additional 

storage building, volunteer trailer pad, interior 

exhibits, furniture, and audiovisual equipment. It 

would also house and support the Huron Wetland 

Acquisition Office. The new construction would take 

place on a site adjacent to U.S. Highway 14 after a 

thorough engineering review of potential locations. 

■■ Design and construct a hiking trail from the VCS 

to the existing interpretive trail. 

■■ Explore the feasibility of an accessible observation 

deck near the VCS. 

■■ Explore the feasibility of an accessible observation 

deck on the Maga-Ta-Hohpi WPA. 

■■ Design and construct an informational kiosk at the 

Harter WPA, incorporating accessible facilities. 

■■ Construct an accessible trail from the Friends Group 

shelter to the environmental classroom. 

■■ Install a potable water line to the Friends Group 

shelter and the environmental classroom. This 

project would include construction of an outdoor 

drinking fountain and hand washing station. 

Madison WMD 

■■ Within 2 years of CCP approval, work with SDDOT 

to install double yellow no passing zones by the office 

and rest stop entrances for visitor and staff safety. 

■■ Within 5 years of CCP approval, design and construct office–VCS expansion (including expanded 

parking lot, furniture, satellite dish, larger screen 

TV with projector, and interior exhibits). 

■■ Upgrade and maintain the existing headquarters 

entrance road, kiosk, and parking lot every 5 years 

through the duration of the CCP. 
108 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

■■ Upgrade and maintain the existing asphalt parking 

lot and entrance road, kiosk, restrooms, and facilities at the Karl Mundt Rest Stop every 5 years 

through the duration of the CCP. 

■■ Design and construct accessible hiking and biking 

trails and an observation tower in the Payne WPA 

in cooperation with the City of Madison within 5 

years of CCP approval. 

■■ Design and construct a bunkhouse and two volunteer 

trailer pads (with water, sewer, and electricity hookups) 

in the Payne WPA within 5 years of CCP approval. 

■■ Replace, repair, and update kiosks, monuments, 

and signs on WPAs throughout the district every 

5 years through the duration of the CCP. 

■■ Upgrade and maintain roads subject to high levels of public use (such as roads in the Long Lake, 

Brush Lake, Lake Henry, Madison, Island Lake, 

Lost Lake, Coteau Prairie, and Payne WPAs) every 2 years for the duration of the CCP. 

Sand Lake WMD 

■■ Locate, design, and construct a new district headquarters in western Edmunds County within 6 years 

of CCP approval to provide an office–VCS, maintenance shop, equipment storage, and housing for 

researchers, volunteers, and seasonal employees in 

western Edmunds County. The facility would also 

include entrance road and parking lot, entrance 

sign, kiosk, additional storage building(s), interior 

exhibits, furniture, and audiovisual equipment. 

■■ Design and construct an educational and interpretive outdoor classroom facility that would include a 

parking lot, restroom, contact station, informational 

kiosk, entrance sign, accessible interpretive and 

educational trail, boardwalk to the wetland, observation deck, and other educational features in the 

Eureka Demo WPA within 6 years of CCP approval. 

■■ Update and expand the VCS at the Sand Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge headquarters to incorporate interpretive exhibits and kiosk relating to the 

Sand Lake WMD within 5 years of CCP approval. 

■■ Expand operations and maintenance facilities at the 

Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge headquarters 

to support additional Sand Lake WMD personnel 

(including equipment storage, office space, and furniture). This strategy would be a contingency only 

if the new headquarters strategy is not adopted. 

Rationale 

The rationale for developing a new wetland management district office is presented in the discussion of 

the “Operations and Administration Goal—Potential 

New District Objective.” The strategies are reiterated here because of their importance to furthering 

the Service’s environmental education and interpretive priorities in the context of the Sand Lake WMD. 

Service staffer Harris Hoistad builds a shelter. 

Bridgette Flanders-Wanner / USFWS 

4.2 Monitoring and 

Evaluation 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to longterm management of biotic resources. The results of 

ongoing monitoring activities and other information 

are evaluated to guide adaptive management over 

time. Adaptive management is a process by which 

projects are carried out within a framework of scientifically driven experiments to test the predictions 

and assumptions outlined in the final CCP. To apply 

adaptive management, specific survey, inventory, 

and monitoring protocols will be adopted for each of 

the three wetland management districts. The habitat 

management strategies will be systematically evaluated to determine management effects on wildlife 

populations. This information will be used to refine 

approaches and determine how effectively the objectives are being accomplished. 

If monitoring and evaluation indicate undesirable 

effects, the management projects will be altered accordingly. Subsequently, the Service will revise the CCP. 

4.3 Plan Amendment and 

Revision 

The Service will review this CCP annually to determine the need for revision. A revision will occur when 

significant information is available that indicates revision is needed. The CCP will be supported by detailed 

stepdown management plans to address the completion 

of specific strategies in support of the wetland management districts’ goals and objectives. Revisions to 

the CCP and the stepdown management plans will be 

subject to public review and NEPA compliance. At a 

minimum, the Service will evaluate the CCP every 5 

years and revise it after 15 years. 
Glossary
 

abiotic—Pertaining to nonliving things. 

accessible—Pertaining to physical access to areas and 

activities for people of different abilities, especially 

those with physical impairments. 

adaptive management—Rigorous application of management, research, and monitoring to gain information and experience necessary to assess and 

modify management activities; a process that uses 

feedback from research, monitoring, and evaluation of management actions to support or modify 

objectives and strategies at all planning levels; a 

process in which policy decisions are implemented 

within a framework of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and assumptions inherent 

in a management plan. Analysis of results helps 

managers determine whether current management should continue as is or whether it should be 

modified to achieve desired conditions. 

Administration Act—National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966. 

alternatives—Different sets of objectives and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and 

goals, helping fulfill the Refuge System mission 

and resolving issues. 

amphibian—Class of cold-blooded vertebrates including frogs, toads or salamanders. 

annual—A plant that flowers and dies within 1 year 

of germination. 

baseline—Set of critical observations, data, or information used for comparison or a control. 

biological control—Reduction in numbers or elimination of unwanted species by the introduction of 

natural predators, parasites, or diseases. 

biological diversity, also biodiversity—Variety of life 

and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, 

and the communities and ecosystems in which they 

occur (“U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 052 

FW 1.12B). The National Wildlife Refuge System’s 

focus is on endemic species, biotic communities, 

and ecological processes. 

biological integrity—Composition, structure, and 

function at the genetic, organism, and community 

levels consistent with natural conditions and the 

biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, and communities. 

biomass—Total amount of living material, plants and 

animals, above and below the ground in a particular habitat or area. 

biota—Animals and plants of a given region. 

biotic—Pertaining to life or living organisms. 

breeding habitat—Habitat used by migratory birds or 

other animals during the breeding season. 

buffer zone or buffer strip—Protective land borders 

around critical habitats or water bodies that reduce runoff and nonpoint source pollution loading; 

areas created or sustained to lessen the negative 

effects of land development on animals and plants 

and their habitats. 

canopy—Layer of foliage, generally the uppermost 

layer, in a vegetative stand; midlevel or understory 

vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy closure 

(also canopy cover) is an estimate of the amount of 

overhead vegetative cover. 

CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan. 

CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations. 

cfs—Cubic feet per second. 

climax—Community that has reached a steady state 

under a particular set of environmental conditions; 

a relatively stable plant community; the final stage 

in ecological succession. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—Codification of the 

general and permanent rules published in the “Federal Register” by the executive departments and 

agencies of the Federal Government. Each volume 

of the CFR is updated once each calendar year. 

community—Area or locality in which a group of people 

resides and shares the same government. 

compatible use—Wildlife-dependent recreational 

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

professional judgment of the director of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the 

mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of 

the refuge (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual” 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility determination supports the selection of compatible uses and 

identified stipulations or limits necessary to ensure 

compatibility. 

complex—See refuge complex. 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)—A document 

that describes the desired future conditions of 

the refuge and provides long-range guidance and 

management direction for the refuge manager to 
110 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute 

to the mission of the Refuge System, and to meet 

other relevant mandates (“Draft U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

concern—See issue. 

conservation—Management of natural resources to 

prevent loss or waste. Management actions may 

include preservation, restoration, and enhancement. 

cool-season grass—Grass that begins growth earlier 

in the season and often become dormant in the 

summer; will germinate at lower temperatures 

(65–85°F). Examples are western wheatgrass, 

needle and thread, and green needlegrass. 

cooperative agreement—Legal instrument used when 

the principal purpose of the transaction is the 

transfer of money, property, services or anything 

of value to a recipient in order to accomplish a 

public purpose authorized by Federal statute and 

substantial involvement between the Service and 

the recipient is anticipated. 

coteau—A hilly upland including the divide between 

two valleys; a divide; the side of a valley. 

cover, also cover type, canopy cover—Present vegetation of an area. 

CRP—Conservation Reserve Program. 

cultivar—A plant variety that has been produced in 

cultivation by selective breeding. 

cultural resources—Remains of sites, structures, or 

objects used by people in the past. 

cultural resource inventory—Professionally conducted 

study designed to locate and evaluate evidence of 

cultural resources present within a defined area. 

Inventories may involve various levels including 

background literature search (class I), sample inventory of project site distribution and density 

over a larger area (class II), or comprehensive field 

examination to identify all exposed physical manifestation of cultural resources (class III). 

database—Collection of data arranged for ease and 

speed of analysis and retrieval, usually computerized. 

deciduous—Pertaining to any plant organ or group of 

organs that is shed annually; perennial plants that 

are leafless for sometime during the year. 

defoliation—Removing of vegetative parts; to strip 

vegetation of leaves; removal can be caused by 

weather, mechanical, animals, and fire. 

demography—Quantitative analysis of population 

structure and trend. 

dense nesting cover (DNC)—Composition of grasses 

and forbs that allows for a dense stand of vegetation that protects nesting birds from the view of 

predators, usually consisting of one to two species 

of wheatgrass, alfalfa, and sweetclover. 

disturbance—Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition. May be natural (for example, 

fire) or human-caused events (for example, timber 

harvest). 

DNC—See dense nesting cover. 

drawdown—Manipulating water levels in an impoundment to allow for the natural drying-out cycle of 

a wetland. 

EA—See environmental assessment. 

easement—Agreement by which a landowner gives 

up or sells one of the rights on his/her property. 

ecosystem—Dynamic and interrelating complex of 

plant and animal communities and their associated 

nonliving environment; a biological community, together with its environment, functioning as a unit. 

For administrative purposes, the Service has designated 53 ecosystems covering the United States 

and its possessions. These ecosystems generally 

correspond with watershed boundaries and their 

sizes and ecological complexity vary. 

emergent—Plant rooted in shallow water and having 

most of the vegetative growth above water such 

as cattail and hardstem bulrush. 

endangered species, Federal—Plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended, that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

endangered species, State—Plant or animal species 

in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in a 

particular State within the near future if factors 

contributing to its decline continue. Populations 

of these species are at critically low levels or their 

habitats have been degraded or depleted to a significant degree. 

endemic species—Plants or animals that occur naturally in a certain region and whose distribution is 

relatively limited to a particular locality. 

environmental assessment (EA)—Concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses 

the purpose and need for an action and alternatives 

to such action, and provides sufficient evidence and 

analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or finding 

of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

environmental education—Education aimed at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable concerning 

the biophysical environment and its associated 

problems, aware of how to help solve these problems, and motivated to work toward their solution. 

environmental health—Natural composition, structure, and functioning of the physical, chemical, and 

other abiotic elements, and the abiotic processes 

that shape the physical environment. 

EPA—Environmental Protection Agency. 

extinction—Complete disappearance of a species from 

the earth; no longer existing. 

extirpation—Extinction of a population; complete 

eradication of a species within a specified area. 

fauna—All the vertebrate and invertebrate animals 

of an area. 
GLOSSARY 111 

Federal land—Public land owned by the Federal Government, including lands such as national forests, 

national parks, and national wildlife refuges. 

federally listed species—Species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 

either as endangered, threatened, or species at risk 

(formerly candidate species). 

fee title—Acquisition of most or all of the rights to a 

tract of land. 

fire regime—Description of the frequency, severity, 

and extent of fire that typically occurs in an area 

or vegetative type. 

flora—All the plant species of an area. 

FMP—Fire management plan. 

forb—A broad-leaved, herbaceous plant; a seed-producing annual, biennial, or perennial plant that 

does not develop persistent woody tissue but dies 

down at the end of the growing season. 

forest—Group of trees with their crown overlapping 

(generally forming 60–100 percent cover). 

fragmentation—The alteration of a large block of 

habitat that creates isolated patches of the original habitat that are interspersed with a variety of 

other habitat types; the process of reducing the 

size and connectivity of habitat patches, making 

movement of individuals or genetic information 

between parcels difficult or impossible. 

FTE—Full-time equivalent. 

geographic information system (GIS)—Computer system 

capable of storing and manipulating spatial data; 

a set of computer hardware and software for analyzing and displaying spatially referenced features 

(points, lines and polygons) with nongeographic 

attributes such as species and age. 

GIS—See geographic information system. 

goal—Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys 

a purpose but does not define measurable units 

(“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 

620 FW 1.5). 

“go-back” prairie—Previously cultivated cropland that 

has been allowed to revert to herbaceous cover. 

GPS—See global positioning system. 

guild—A group of species that use a common resource 

base in a similar fashion within an ecological community. A guild can be generally defined (for example, grassland birds) or specifically defined (for 

example, seed-eating small mammals). 

habitat—Suite of existing environmental conditions 

required by an organism for survival and reproduction; the place where an organism typically 

lives and grows. 

habitat conservation—Protection of animal or plant 

habitat to ensure that the use of that habitat by 

the animal or plant is not altered or reduced. 

habitat disturbance—Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition; may be natural (for 

example, wildland fire) or human-caused events 

(for example, timber harvest and disking). 

habitat type, also vegetation type, cover type—Land 

classification system based on the concept of distinct plant associations. 

hemi-marsh—The emergent phase of a seasonal or 

semipermanent wetland where the ratio of open 

water area to emergent vegetation cover is about 

50:50, and vegetation and open water areas are 

highly interspersed. 

herbivore—Animal feeding on plants. 

herbivory—The eating of plants, especially ones that 

are still living. 

impoundment—A body of water created by collection 

and confinement within a series of levees or dikes, 

creating separate management units although not 

always independent of one another. 

Improvement Act—National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. 

integrated pest management—Methods of managing 

undesirable species such as invasive plants; education, prevention, physical or mechanical methods 

of control, biological control, responsible chemical 

use, and cultural methods. 

interseed—Mechanical seeding of one or several plant 

species into existing stands of established vegetation. 

introduced species—A nonnative plant or animal species that is intentionally or accidentally released into 

an ecosystem where it was not previously adapted. 

introduction—Intentional or unintentional escape, 

release, dissemination, or placement of a species 

into an ecosystem as a result of human activity. 

invasive plant, also noxious weed—Species that is nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration and 

whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, 

economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. 

inviolate sanctuary—Place of refuge or protection 

where animals and birds may not be hunted. 

issue—Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision; for example, a Service initiative, 

opportunity, resource management problem, a 

threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, 

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable 

resource condition (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

lacustrine—Relating to, formed in, living in, or growing in lakes. 

lek—A physical area where males of a certain animal 

species gather to demonstrate their prowess and 

compete for females before or during the mating 

season. 

local agencies—Municipal governments, regional 

planning commissions, or conservation groups. 

management alternatives—See alternatives. 
112 

management plan—Plan that guides future land management practices on a tract of land. See cooperative agreement. 

mean sea level—The sea level halfway between average levels of high and low water. 

mechanical control—Reduction in numbers or elimination of unwanted species through the use of mechanical equipment such as mowers and clippers. 

mesic—Characterized by, relating to, or requiring 

a moderate amount of moisture; having a moderate rainfall. 

microhabitat—Habitat features at a fine scale; often 

identifies a unique set of local habitat features. 

migration—Regular extensive, seasonal movements 

of birds between their breeding regions and their 

wintering regions; to pass usually periodically 

from one region or climate to another for feeding 

or breeding. 

migratory bird—Bird species that follow a seasonal 

movement from their breeding grounds to their 

wintering grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, 

and songbirds are all migratory birds. 

migratory game bird—Bird species, regulated under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and State laws (legally 

hunted, including ducks, geese, woodcock, and rails). 

mission—Succinct statement of purpose or reason 

for being. 

mitigation—Measure designed to counteract an environmental impact or to make an impact less severe. 

mixed-grass prairie—Transition zone between the tallgrass prairie and the short-grass prairie dominated 

by grasses of medium height that are approximately 

2–4 feet tall. Soils are not as rich as the tall-grass 

prairie and moisture levels are less. 

monitoring—Process of collecting information to track 

changes of selected parameters over time. 

monotypic—Having only one type or representative. 

moraine—Mass of earth and rock debris carried by 

an advancing glacier and left at its front and side 

edges as it retreats. 

national wildlife refuge (NWR)—Designated area of 

land, water, or an interest in land or water within 

the Refuge System, but does not include coordination areas; a complete listing of all units of the 

Refuge System is in the current “Annual Report 

of Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System)— 

Various categories of areas administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior for the conservation of 

fish and wildlife including species threatened with 

extinction, all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges, 

areas for the protection and conservation of fish 

and wildlife that are threatened with extinction, 

wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management 

areas, and waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 (Improvement Act)—Sets the mission and the 

administrative policy for all refuges in the Refuge 

System; defines a unifying mission for the Refuge 

System; establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation); establishes 

a formal process for determining appropriateness 

and compatibility; establish the responsibilities 

of the Secretary of the Interior for managing and 

protecting the Refuge System; requires a comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge by the 

year 2012. This Act amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966. 

native species—Species that, other than as a result of 

an introduction, historically occurred or currently 

occurs in that ecosystem. 

NAWMP—See North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 

neotropical migrant, also neotropical migratory bird 

—Bird species that breeds north of the United 

States–Mexico border and winters primarily south 

of this border. 

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act. 

nest success—Percentage of nests that successfully 

hatch one or more eggs of the total number of nests 

initiated in an area. 

nongovernmental organization—Any group that does 

not include Federal, State, tribal, county, city, town, 

local, or other governmental entities. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) 

—North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 

signed in 1986, recognizes that the recovery and 

perpetuation of waterfowl populations depends 

on restoring wetlands and associated ecosystems 

throughout the United States and Canada. It established cooperative international efforts and 

joint ventures composed of individuals; corporations; conservation organizations; and local, State, 

provincial, and Federal agencies drawn together 

by common conservation objectives. The Souris 

River basin refuges are included in the “Prairie 

Pothole Joint Venture.” 

notice of intent—Notice that an environmental impact statement will be prepared and considered 

(40 CFR 1508.22); published in the “Federal Register.” 

noxious weed, also invasive plant—Any living stage 

(including seeds and reproductive parts) of a parasitic or other plant of a kind that is of foreign origin (new to or not widely prevalent in the U.S.) 

and can directly or indirectly injure crops, other 

useful plants, livestock, poultry, other interests of 

agriculture, including irrigation, navigation, fish 

and wildlife resources, or public health. According 

to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a 
GLOSSARY 113 

noxious weed (invasive plant) is one that causes 

disease or has adverse effects on humans or the 

human environment and, therefore, is detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of the United 

States and to public health. 

NRCS—Natural Resources Conservation Service of 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

NWR—See national wildlife refuge. 

NWRS—See National Wildlife Refuge System. 

objective—Concise statement of what is to be achieved, 

when and where it is to be achieved, and who is 

responsible for the work. Objectives are derived 

from goals and provide the basis for determining 

management strategies. Objectives should be attainable, time-specific, and measurable. 

palustrine—Refers to a nontidal wetland dominated 

by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, and emergent mosses or lichens; or a wetland in tidal areas 

where salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 

0.5 parts per thousand. 

Partners in Flight—Western Hemisphere program designed to conserve neotropical migratory birds and 

officially endorsed by numerous Federal and State 

agencies and nongovernmental organizations; also 

known as the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Program. 

partnership—Contract or agreement entered into 

by two or more individuals, groups of individuals, 

organizations or agencies in which each agrees to 

furnish a part of the capital or some in-kind service, 

such as labor, for a mutually beneficial enterprise. 

patch—Area distinct from that around it; an area 

distinguished from its surroundings by environmental conditions. 

perennial—Lasting or active through the year or 

through many years; a plant species that has a life 

span of more than 2 years. 

phenology—The relationship between plant or animal 

development and climatic conditions. 

planning team—Team that prepares the comprehensive conservation plan. Planning teams are interdisciplinary in membership and function. A team 

generally consists of a planning team leader; refuge manager and staff biologist; staff specialists 

or other representatives of Service programs, 

ecosystems or regional offices; and State partner 

wildlife agencies as appropriate. 

planning team leader—Typically a professional planner or natural resource specialist knowledgeable 

of the requirements of National Environmental 

Policy Act and who has planning experience. The 

planning team leader manages the refuge planning 

process and ensures compliance with applicable 

regulatory and policy requirements. 

planning unit—Single refuge, an ecologically or administratively related refuge complex, or distinct 

unit of a refuge. The planning unit also may include 

lands currently outside refuge boundaries. 

plant association—Classification of plant communities 

based on the similarity in dominants of all layers of 

vascular species in a climax community. 

plant community—Assemblage of plant species unique 

in its composition; occurs in particular locations under particular influences; a reflection or integration 

of the environmental influences on the site such as 

soil, temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, 

aspect, and rainfall; denotes a general kind of climax 

plant community (ponderosa pine or bunchgrass). 

PPJV—Prairie Pothole Joint Venture. 

predation—Mode of life in which food is primarily 

obtained by the killing or consuming of animals. 

prescribed fire—Skillful application of fire to natural 

fuels under conditions such as weather, fuel moisture, and soil moisture that allow confinement of 

the fire to a predetermined area and produces the 

intensity of heat and rate of spread to accomplish 

planned benefits to one or more objectives of habitat management, wildlife management, or hazard 

reduction. 

priority public use—See wildlife-dependent recreational use. 

pristine—Typical of original conditions. 

private land—Land that is owned by a private individual, a group of individuals, or a nongovernmental organization. 

private landowner—Any individual, group of individuals, 

or nongovernmental organization that owns land. 

private organization—Any nongovernmental organization. 

proposed action—Alternative proposed to best achieve 

the purpose, vision, and goals of a refuge (contributes to the Refuge System mission, addresses the 

significant issues, and is consistent with principles 

of sound fish and wildlife management). The draft 

comprehensive conservation plan. 

public—Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials 

of Federal, State, and local government agencies; 

Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may include 

anyone outside the core planning team. It includes 

those who may or may not have indicated an interest in Service issues and those who do or do not 

realize that Service decisions may affect them. 

public involvement—Process that offers affected and 

interested individuals and organizations an opportunity to become informed about, and to express 

their opinions on, Service actions and policies. In 

the process, these views are studied thoroughly 

and thoughtful consideration of public views is 

given in shaping decisions for refuge management. 

public involvement plan—Broad long-term guidance 

for involving the public in the comprehensive planning process. 

public land—Land that is owned by the local, State, 

or Federal Government. 
114 

purpose of the refuge—Purpose specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, 

agreement, public land order, donation document, 

or administrative memorandum establishing authorization or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or 

refuge subunit (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

refuge complex—A grouping of two or more Service 

units (for example, national wildlife refuge, wetland management district) that is administered by 

staff at one of the units. 

refuge lands—Lands in which the Service holds full 

interest in fee title, or partial interest such as limited-interest refuges. 

refuge purpose—See purpose of the refuge. 

Refuge System—See National Wildlife Refuge System. 

region 6—“Mountain–Prairie Region” of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, which administers Service 

programs in Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Utah. 

rest—Free from biological, mechanical, or chemical 

manipulation, in reference to refuge lands. 

restoration—Artificial manipulation of a habitat to 

restore it to something close to its natural state. 

Involves taking a degraded grassland and reestablishing habitat for native plants and animals. 

Restoration usually involves the planting of native 

grasses and forbs, and may include shrub removal 

and prescribed burning. 

rhizomatous—A plant having rhizomes— A continuously growing, horizontal, underground stem that 

produces roots and sends shoots upward at intervals (for example, many iris species). 

riparian area or riparian zone—Area or habitat that is 

transitional from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems 

including streams, lakes, wet areas, and adjacent 

plant communities and their associated soils that 

have free water at or near the surface; an area 

whose components are directly or indirectly attributed to the influence of water; of or relating 

to a river; specifically applied to ecology, “riparian” describes the land immediately adjoining 

and directly influenced by streams. For example, 

riparian vegetation includes all plant life growing 

on the land adjoining a stream and directly influenced by the stream. 

runoff —Water from rain, melted snow, or agricultural 

or landscape irrigation that flows over the land 

surface into a water body. 

sandhills—Sand dunes created by wind and wave action following the melting of large glaciers about 

8,000–10,000 years ago. Soils are sand and silt. Local relief exceeds 80 feet in some places. 

scoping—Process of obtaining information from the 

public for input into the planning process. 

sediment—Material deposited by water, wind, and 

glaciers. 

Service—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

shelterbelt—Single to multiple rows of trees and shrubs 

planted around cropland or buildings to block or 

slow down the wind. 

shorebird—Any of a suborder of birds such as a plover or a snipe that frequent the seashore or mud 

flat areas. 

sound professional judgment—Finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with principles 

of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and resources, and 

adherence to the requirements of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act and 

other applicable laws. 

spatial—Relating to, occupying, or having the character of space. 

special status species—Plants or animals that have 

been identified through Federal law, State law, 

or agency policy as requiring special protection 

of monitoring. Examples include federally listed 

endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate 

species; State-listed endangered, threatened, candidate, or monitor species; the Service’s species of 

management concern; and species identified by the 

Partners in Flight program as being of extreme or 

moderately high conservation concern. 

special use permit—Permit for special authorization 

from the refuge manager required for any refuge 

service, facility, privilege, or product of the soil 

provided at refuge expense and not usually available to the general public through authorizations 

in Title 50 CFR or other public regulations (“National Wildlife Refuge System Manual” 5 RM 17.6). 

species of concern—Those plant and animal species, 

while not falling under the definition of special 

status species, that are of management interest 

by virtue of being Federal trust species such as 

migratory birds, important game species, or significant keystone species; species that have documented or apparent populations declines, small or 

restricted populations, or dependence on restricted 

or vulnerable habitats. Species that: (1) are documented or have apparent population declines; (2) 

are small or restricted populations; or (3) depend 

on restricted or vulnerable habitats. 

stand—Any homogenous area of vegetation with more 

or less uniform soils, landform, and vegetation. 

Typically used to refer to forested areas. 

stepdown management plan—Plan that provides the 

details necessary to carry out management strategies identified in the comprehensive conservation plan (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

strategy—Specific action, tool, or technique or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 
GLOSSARY 115 

submergent—Vascular or nonvascular hydrophyte, 

either rooted or nonrooted, that lies entirely be

neath the water surface, except for flowering parts 

in some species. 

succession—Orderly progression of an area through 

time from one vegetative community to another in 

the absence of disturbance. For example, an area 

may proceed from grass–forb through aspen for

est to mixed-conifer forest. 

surficial—Relating to or occurring on the surface. 

temporarily flooded—Surface water is present for brief 

periods during the growing season. 

trust resource—Resource that, through law or admin

istrative act, is held in trust for the people by the 

government. A Federal trust resource is one for 

which trust responsibility is given in part to the 

Federal Government through Federal legislation 

or administrative act. Generally, Federal trust re

sources are those considered to be of national or 

international importance no matter where they oc

cur, such as endangered species and species such as 

migratory birds and fish that regularly move across 

statelines. In addition to species, trust resources 

include cultural resources protected through Fed

eral historic preservation laws, nationally impor

tant and threatened habitats, notably wetlands, 

navigable waters, and public lands such as State 

parks and national wildlife refuges. 

trust species—See trust resource. 

understory—Any vegetation whose canopy (foliage) 

is below, or closer to the ground than canopies of 

other plants. 

upland—Dry ground; other than wetlands. 

USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, USFWS)—Principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, 

protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 

people. The Service manages the 93-million-acre 

National Wildlife Refuge System composed of more 

than 530 national wildlife refuges and thousands 

of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 

national fish hatcheries and 78 ecological service 

field stations, the agency enforces Federal wildlife 

laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores 

national significant fisheries, conserves and restores 

wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the 

Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign gov

ernments with their conservation efforts. It also 

oversees the Federal aid program that distributes 

millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and 

hunting equipment to State wildlife agencies. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mission—The mission 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working 

with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the con

tinuing benefit of the American people. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

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

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—Federal agency whose 

mission is to provide reliable scientific information 

to describe and understand the earth; minimize loss 

of life and property from natural disasters; manage 

water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; 

and enhance and protect our quality of life. 

USGS—See U.S. Geological Survey. 

vision statement—Concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what the Service hopes to 

do, based primarily on the Refuge System mission, 

specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. In 

addition, the vision statement is tied to the maintenance and restoration of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of each refuge 

and the Refuge System. 

visual obstruction—Pertaining to the density of a plant 

community; the height of vegetation that blocks 

the view of predators and conspecifics to a nest. 

visual obstruction reading (VOR)—Measurement of the 

density of a plant community; the height of vegetation that blocks the view of predators to a nest. 

VOR—See visual obstruction reading. 

wading birds—Birds having long legs that enable 

them to wade in shallow water. Includes egrets, 

great blue herons, black-crowned night-herons, 

and bitterns. 

warm-season grass—Grass that begins growth later in 

the season (early June); require warmer soil temperatures to germinate and actively grow when 

temperatures are warmer (85–95°F). Examples 

are Indiangrass, switchgrass, and big bluestem. 

waterfowl—Category of birds that includes ducks, 

geese, and swans. 

watershed—Geographic area within which water drains 

into a particular river, stream or body of water. A 

watershed includes both the land and the body of 

water into which the land drains. 

wetland—Land transitional between terrestrial and 

aquatic systems where the water table is usually 

at or near the surface or the land is covered by 

shallow water. 

wetland easement—Perpetual agreement entered 

into by a landowner and the Service. The easement 

covers only the wetlands specified in the agreement. In return for a single lump-sum payment, 

the landowner agrees not to drain, burn, level, or 

fill wetlands covered by the easement. 

wetland management district (WMD)—Land that the 

Refuge System acquires with Federal Duck Stamp 

funds for restoration and management primarily 

as prairie wetland habitat critical to waterfowl and 

other wetland birds. 

wilderness—“A wilderness, in contrast with those 

areas where man and his own works dominate the 

landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where 

the earth and its community of life are untrammeled 
116 

by man, where man himself is a visitor who does 

not remain” (Wilderness Act of 1964 Section 2c 

[P.L. 88-577)]). This legal definition places wilderness in the “untrammeled” or “primeval” end of the 

environmental modification spectrum. Wilderness 

is roadless lands, legally classified as component 

areas of the National Wilderness Preservation 

System, and managed to protect its qualities of 

naturalness, solitude, and opportunity for primitive types of recreation. 5,000 contiguous roadless 

acres or is sufficient in size as to make practicable 

its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 

610 FW 1.5). 

wildfire—Free-burning fire requiring a suppression 

response; all fire other than prescribed fire that occurs in wildlands (“U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual” 621 FW 1.7). 

wildland fire—Every wildland fire is either a wildfire 

or a prescribed fire (“U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual” 621 FW 1.3). 

wildlife-dependent recreational use—Use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, or environmental education and interpretation. These are the six priority public uses of 

the Refuge System as established in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as 

amended. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, 

other than the six priority public uses, are those 

that depend on the presence of wildlife. 

wildlife management—Practice of manipulating wildlife populations either directly through regulating 

the numbers, ages, and sex ratios harvested, or indirectly by providing favorable habitat conditions 

and alleviating limiting factors. 

WMD—See wetland management district. 

woodland—Open stands of trees with crowns not usually touching, generally forming 25–60 percent cover. 

xerophytic—Pertaining to a plant that needs very 

little water (adapted to growing in dry habitat). 
Appendix A 

Compatibility Determinations 

A.1 Compatibility 

Determination for Wildlife 

Observation and Wildlife 

Photography 

USES 

Wildlife observation and wildlife photography. 

DISTRICT NAMES 

■■ Huron WMD 

■■ Madison WMD 

■■ Sand Lake WMD 

COUNTIES 

Beadle, Brookings, Brown, Buffalo, Campbell, Corson, Deuel, Dewey, Edmunds, Faulk, Hamlin, Hand, 

Hughes, Hyde, Jerauld, Kingsbury, Lake, Miner, McCook, McPherson, Minnehaha, Moody, Potter, Sanborn, 

Spink, and Sully, South Dakota 

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES 

■■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

■■ Executive Order 5782 

WETLAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PURPOSES 

The districts were created to administer the Small 

Wetlands Acquisition Program to save wetlands from 

various threats—particularly drainage. The main authorities in establishment of the program are briefly 

discussed below: 

■■ Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

Act (16 U.S.C. 718d[c])—“as waterfowl production 

areas subject to all provisions of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions.” The Duck Stamp Act provides 

for the conservation, protection, and propagation 

of native species of fish and wildlife, including migratory birds that are threatened with extinction. 

■■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 

715d[2])—“for any other management purposes, 

for migratory birds.” This act addresses the obligations of the United States under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act through the following mechanisms: 

➤■ lessening the dangers threatening migratory 

game birds from drainage and other causes 

➤■the acquisition of areas of land and water to 

furnish in perpetuity reservations for the adequate protection of such birds 

➤■ authorizing appropriations for the establishment 

of such areas, their maintenance and improvement, and for other purposes 

The purpose of the districts is “to assure the long-term 

viability of the breeding waterfowl population and 

production through the acquisition and management 

of waterfowl production areas, while considering the 

needs of other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife” (memorandum 

from Region 6 Assistant Regional Director Richard 

A. Coleman, December 2006). This purpose statement 

was developed for all Region 6 wetland management 

districts. Because the purposes and management 

capabilities and challenges are similar for the three 

districts, the Service has elected to address them collectively in this draft CCP and EA. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION 

The mission of the System is to administer 

a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within 

the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

DESCRIPTION OF USES 

This use would provide opportunities that support 

wildlife-dependent recreation. Wildlife observation 

and wildlife photography would be allowed year-round. 

This CCP proposes to continue the above uses and 

add the following to improve wildlife observation and 

wildlife photography: update and improve district 

signs and update existing brochures to the Service’s 

graphic standards. 

The districts would be open for wildlife observation 

and wildlife photography. Their supporting use (access) would be controlled and regulated through the 

publication of refuge tear sheets and brochures and 

through information posted at the kiosks. 

Wildlife observation and wildlife photography are 

two of the six wildlife-dependent, priority public uses 
118 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

 

 

 Date 

specified in the Improvement Act. These uses and 

their supporting access-related uses can be allowed 

at the districts without interfering with the migratory bird resource. 

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES 

Currently, the programs for wildlife observation and 

wildlife photography are administered using available 

resources. Implementation of new programs, activities, and facilities outlined in this CCP is tied to funding requests in the form of Refuge Operating Needs 

System and Service Asset Maintenance Management 

System projects. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USES 

Short-Term Impacts. Temporary disturbance may exist to wildlife near the activity. Direct, short-term impacts may include minor damage from traffic to district 

roads and trails when wet and muddy, minor damage 

to vegetation, littering, increased maintenance activity, and potential conflicts with other visitors. These 

activities would have only minor impacts on wildlife 

and would not detract from the primary purposes of 

the districts. 

Long-Term Impacts. None. 

Cumulative Impacts. There would be no direct or indirect cumulative impacts anticipated with these uses. 

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT 

This compatibility determination was prepared concurrently with the draft CCP and EA for the districts. 

Public review and comment will be achieved concurrently with the public review and comment period for 

the draft CCP and EA. 

DETERMINATION 

Wildlife observation and wildlife photography, along 

with their supporting uses, are compatible uses at 

Huron WMD, Madison WMD, and Sand Lake WMD. 

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE 

COMPATIBILITY 

Stipulations regarding the public use program would 

be made available in published district brochures. 

Dates, closed areas, and other information would be 

specified. Each district would restrict vehicles to designated roads and trails, monitor vehicle use for wildlife disturbance and law enforcement violations, and 

so forth. It would also monitor use, regulate access, 

and maintain necessary facilities to prevent habitat 

degradation and minimize wildlife disturbance. 

JUSTIFICATION 

Based on the anticipated biological impacts above and 

in the EA, wildlife observation and wildlife photography on the Huron WMD, Madison WMD, and Sand 

Lake WMD would not interfere with the habitat goals 

and objectives or purposes for which these wetland 

management districts were established. 

Wildlife observation and wildlife photography are 

priority wildlife-dependent public uses acknowledged 

in the Improvement Act. These uses promote an appreciation for the natural resources at the refuge. Increased public stewardship will support and complement the Service’s actions in achieving the purposes 

of the wetland management districts and the mission 

of the Refuge System. 

Submitted 

January 25, 2012 

Harris Hoistad 

Project Leader, Sand Lake NWR Complex 

USFWS, Region 6 

Date

January 25, 2012 

Clarke Dirks 

Project Leader, Huron WMD 

USFWS, Region 6 

Date 

Date
 

January 25, 2012 

Natoma Buskness 

Project Leader, Madison WMD
 

USFWS, Region 6
 

Review 

Bernie Petersen

Refuge Supervisor 

USFWS, Region 6 

Approval 

Matt Hogan 

Assistant Regional Director 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

USFWS, Region 6 

Date 

MANDATORY 15-YEAR REEVALUATION DATE: 2027 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 119 

A.2 Compatibility 

Determination for GlyphosateTolerant Soybeans and Corn 

for Habitat Restoration and 

Management on National 

Wildlife Refuge System 

Owned or Managed Lands 

in Region 6 

USE 

Use of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans and corn for habitat restoration and management on National Wildlife 

Refuge System (System) owned or managed lands in 

Region 6. 

REFUGE NAME 

■■ Arrowwood Complex 

■■ Audubon Complex 

■■ Devils Lake Complex 

■■ Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge 

■■ Huron Wetland Management District 

■■ Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge 

■■ Kulm Wetland Management District 

■■ Lake Andes Complex 

■■ Long Lake Complex 

■■ Madison Wetland Management District 

■■ Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge 

■■ Quivira National Wildlife Refuge 

■■ Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

■■ Souris River Basin Complex 

■■ Sand Lake Complex 

■■ Tewaukon Complex 

■■ Waubay Complex 

COUNTIES 

All counties within national wildlife refuges and wetland management districts listed above in Region 6. 

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES 

System lands are managed consistent with a number 

of federal statutes, regulations, policies, and other 

guidance. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 United States 

Code [U.S.C.] 668dd–668ee) (Administration Act) is 

the core statute guiding management of the System. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law [P.L.] 105-57) made 

important amendments to the Administration Act, 

one of which was the mandate that a comprehensive 

conservation plan be completed for every unit of the 

System. Among other things, comprehensive conservation planning has required field stations to assess 

their current farming program and establish objectives for the future. 

The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of March 

16, 1934, as amended by section 3 of the Act of August 

1, 1958 (72 Stat. 486, 16 U.S.C. sec. 716 d[c]), authorized 

the Secretary of Interior to acquire small wetland or 

pothole areas suitable as Waterfowl Production Areas. 

Additional Authorities include the following: Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, Migratory Bird Conservation Act, North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and the Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act. 

REFUGE PURPOSES 

■■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife, for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose for 

migratory birds.” Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

■■ As “Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “[...] 

all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act] [...] except the inviolate sanctuary provisions.” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

■■ For “any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. sec. 715d Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act 

■■ For “conservation purposes [...]” 7 U.S.C. sec. 2002 

Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 

Establishing Authorities and Refuge Purposes for 

individual Units may be obtained online at www 

.fws.gov/refuges/policiesandbudget/purposes/ 

Purposes_Search.cfm. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION 

The mission of the System is to administer 

a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within 

the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

DESCRIPTION OF USE 

What is the use? Is the use a wildlife-dependent public 

use? The use is as follows: use of glyphosate-tolerant 

corn and soybeans for habitat restoration and management purposes on lands owned in fee title or managed 

through agreement by the National Wildlife Refuge 
120 

System in Region 6. The primary use will be to prepare 

a seedbed on previously or currently cropped sites for 

prairie reconstruction purposes. An additional use 

would include incorporation into a station’s integrated 

pest management program for the control of invasive 

and noxious plant species. An example would be use 

on System-managed lands behind flood control dams 

where prairie restoration would not be warranted due 

to the likelihood of future flooding. 

The use is not a wildlife-dependent public use. 

Where would the use be conducted? The use would 

be conducted on lands owned in fee title or managed 

through agreement by the System in Region 6, in 

Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, that are currently 

farmed or have previously been farmed and contain 

soils and receive average precipitation to support 

growth of agricultural soybeans and corn. 

When would the use be conducted? Use would be 

ongoing. The use of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans and 

corn would be allowed as part of an integrated pest 

management program used to prepare a seedbed for 

habitat restoration and management and/or to control 

noxious and invasive vegetation. 

How would the use be conducted? Use would be conducted by cooperative farmers through a cooperative 

farming agreement or by SUP. 

Why is this use being proposed? Refuge managers’ 

experience combined with published literature indicates that use of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans and 

corn—which allows for the application of an herbicide 

containing the active ingredient glyphosate during the 

growing season—is very effective at killing invasive 

cool season grasses and other noxious and invasive 

species. This results in a weed-free seedbed used for 

habitat restoration purposes, which increases the possibility of successful habitat reconstruction efforts on 

System-managed and -owned lands. 

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: 

■■ No additional management or administrative costs 

will be associated with this activity. 

■■ Special equipment, facilities, or improvements 

necessary to support the use: none 

■■ Maintenance costs: none 

■■ Monitoring costs: none 

■■ Offsetting revenues: none 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE 

Short-Term Impacts. The use of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans and corn will increase the likelihood 

that conservation tillage can be successfully conducted, reducing soil erosion. 

Long-Term Impacts. The effective reconstruction 

of degraded and weed-infested habitats on System 

lands to native mixed-grass and tallgrass prairie 

which can be managed through the historical ecological processes of prescribed fire and prescribed 

grazing, will cumulatively reduce needed expenditures of labor and funds for weed control efforts on 

System lands in Region 6 over the long term. 

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE 

COMPATIBILITY 

1. Refuge managers will comply with all existing 

and current policies regarding the use of genetically modified crops (glyphosate-tolerant soybeans 

and corn). 

2. Activity will occur only on currently farmed or previously farmed System-owned or -managed lands. 

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT 

The period of public review and comment was held 

from February 2, 2011 through March 4, 2011. A total 

of eleven written comments were received. Responses 

to substantive comments can be found in appendix D. 

Why was this level of public review and comment 

selected? It is appropriate to provide opportunity to 

comment on this compatibility determination at the 

same time as the draft environmental assessment. The 

proposed activity has a national as well as local level 

of interest, and it was felt that a full month with wide 

distribution should be given to review. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signature: Refuge Manager 

Kim Hanson, Arrowwood Complex (Signature) (Date) 

Lloyd Jones, Audubon Complex (Signature) (Date) 

Roger Hollevoet, Devils Lake Complex (Signature) (Date) 

Mike Rich, Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge (Signature) (Date) 

Clarke Dirks, Huron Wetland Management District (Signature) (Date) 

Craig Mowry, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge (Signature) (Date) 

Mick Erickson, Kulm Wetland Management District (Signature) (Date) 

Brian DeVries, Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge (Signature) (Date) 

Mike Bryant, Lake Andes Complex (Signature) (Date) 

Paul VanNingen, Long Lake Complex (Signature) (Date) 

Tom Turnow, Madison Wetland Management District (Signature) (Date) 

Patrick Martin, Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge (Signature) (Date) 

Dan Severson, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge (Signature) (Date) 

Gene Mack, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District (Signature) (Date) 

Harris Hoistad, Sand Lake Complex (Signature) (Date) 

Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 121
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

122 

Kelly Hogan, Souris River Basin Complex (Signature) (Date) 

Rob Bundy, Tewaukon Complex (Signature) (Date) 

Larry Martin, Waubay Complex (Signature) (Date) 

Review: Regional 

Compatibility Coordinator 

Lloyd Jones (Date) 

Review: Zone Supervisor 

Paul Cornes (Date) 

Concurrence: Regional Chief 

Rick Coleman (Date) 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2021 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 123 

A.3 Compatibility Determination for Buried Waterlines on 

Grassland Easements to Provide Livestock Watering 
124 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 125 
126 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 127 
128 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 129 
130 

A.4 Compatibility Determination for Authorized Curtilage
 Exhibit XII-4a

Expansion or Structural Additions on Grassland Easements
 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 131 
132 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 133

-4-

any other activity evaluated by the left side of the flowchart (Public Service, Government or Corporate), so impacts which may result from this category of request will not be

evaluated under this CD. In order for this Compatibility Determination to be used, the use must: (1) be an action

necessary to avert a threat to human health and safety or a major threat to public or private property not related to a public service or government-type request, and (2) result

in an impact which is at or below the established threshold levels for protected wetlands habitats (see discussion in “Anticipated Impacts” and “Justification” sections below). Availability of Resources: Financial and staff resources are sufficient at each field station to administer these

requests. Staff time will be needed to evaluate the proposed use, to prepare the site- specific permits, and to insure compliance with the permit authorization and stipulations, as well as checking for satisfactory restoration of any disturbed sites as necessary. No specialized equipment will be necessary, as the work requirement associated with

these projects is monitoring and compliance checking only. Actual work, including

restoration needs if applicable, will be completed by the applicant. Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Most of the impacts will result from filling or partially draining parts of protected wetlands, the right to “fill” wetland areas protected by the easement being one of the

acquired rights. Partial drainage, another acquired right, may also be authorized to

resolve certain health and safety issues, it they cannot be resolved by temporary means. If the only way to resolve the Health and Safety issue is to permit a portion of the wetland to be either filled or by lowering the wetland elevation by establishing an

overflow sill, then there will be a long term impact to the wetland. However, the impact would be determined to be below a “material” impact or interference with the purposes of

the unit or the mission of the NWRS as described in the Justification. These impacts are

considered minor with respect to the entire scope of the small wetlands program within

the Prairie Pothole Region of Region 6. Within this Compatibility Determination, there are no secondary impacts, or at least none which cannot be resolved with stipulations. No complete wetlands are drained or filled

(the 25 percent condition), so although potentially reduced in size by 25 percent, or by up

to 0.4 acres, the wetland still exists as the same type wetland that originally existed. If

the potentially affected wetland contains a colonial bird nesting site or some unique

feature, the use may not be allowed, or it may be allowed with stipulations that would

eliminate the secondary or indirect impact. 
134 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 135 
136 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 137 
138 

A.5 Compatibility Determination for Allowing Dogs 

on Fish and Wildlife Service Fee-Owned WPAs 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 139 
140 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 141 
142 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 143 
144 

A.6 Compatibility Determination for Public and Private 

Buried Utility Lines Occurring on FWS Easement Properties 

or Fee-Owned WPAs 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 145 
146 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 147 
148 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 149 
150 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 151 
152 

A.7 Compatibility Determination for Authorized Health and 

Safety Needs Associated with FWS Wetland Easements 

Resulting in No Permanent Impacts 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 153 
154 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 155 
156 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 157 
158 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 159 

A.8 Compatibility Determination for Authorized Early Haying 

of Grassland Easements for Management Purposes 
160 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 161 
162 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 163 
164 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 165 
166 

A.9 Compatibility Determination for the Cooperative 

Farming Program on National Wildlife Refuges and 

Waterfowl Production Areas for Management Purposes 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 167 
168 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 169 
170 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 171 
172 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 173 

A.10 Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Haying of 

Grasslands on National Wildlife Refuges and Waterfowl 

Production Areas for Management Purposes 
174 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 175 
176 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 177 
178 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 179 
180 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 181 

A.11 Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Grazing 

on National Wildlife Refuges and Waterfowl Production 

Areas for Management Purposes 
182 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 183 
184 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 185 
186 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 187 
188 
Appendix B 

Key Legislation and Policies 

This appendix briefly describes the guidance for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and other policies 

and key legislation that guide the management of the 

Huron, Madison, and Sand Lake Wetland Management Districts. 

B.1 National Wildlife Refuge 

System 

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within 

the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

(National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997) 

GOALS 

■■ Fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge purpose(s) 

and further the Refuge System mission. 

■■ Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance 

all species of fish, wildlife, and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 

■■ Perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, 

and marine mammal populations. 

■■ Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants. 

■■ Conserve and restore, where appropriate, representative ecosystems of the United States, including the ecological processes characteristic of those 

ecosystems. 

■■ Foster understanding and instill appreciation of 

fish, wildlife, and plants, and their conservation, 

by providing the public with safe, high-quality, and 

compatible wildlife-dependent public use. Such use 

includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 

GUIDING PRINCIPLES 

There are four guiding principles for management and 

general public use of the Refuge System established 

by Executive Order 12996 (1996): 

■■ Public Use—The Refuge System provides important opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities involving hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

■■ Habitat—Fish and wildlife will not prosper without 

high-quality habitat, and without fish and wildlife, 

traditional uses of refuges cannot be sustained. The 

Refuge System will continue to conserve and enhance the quality and diversity of fish and wildlife 

habitat within refuges. 

■■ Partnerships—America’s sportsmen and women 

were the first partners who insisted on protecting 

valuable wildlife habitat within wildlife refuges. 

Conservation partnerships with other Federal 

agencies, State agencies, tribes, organizations, industry, and the general public can make significant 

contributions to the growth and management of 

the Refuge System. 

■■ Public Involvement—The public should be given 

a full and open opportunity to participate in decisions regarding acquisition and management of our 

national wildlife refuges. 

B.2 Legal and Policy 

Guidance 

Management actions on national wildlife refuges and 

wetland management districts are circumscribed by 

many mandates including laws and executive orders, 

the latest of which is the Volunteer and Community 

Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998. Regulations that 

affect refuge management the most are listed below. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)—Directs agencies to consult with native traditional religious leaders to determine appropriate policy changes 

necessary to protect and preserve Native American 

religious cultural rights and practices. 

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992)—Prohibits 

discrimination in public accommodations and services. 

Antiquities Act (1906)—Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on Federal land and provides 

penalties for unauthorized removal of objects taken 

or collected without a permit. 
190 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974)— 

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological 

data in Federal construction projects. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), 

as amended—Protects materials of archaeological 

interest from unauthorized removal or destruction 

and requires Federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968)—Requires federally 

owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to be 

accessible to persons with disabilities. 

Clean Water Act (1977)—Requires consultation with 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for 

major wetland modifications. 

Endangered Species Act (1973)—Requires all Federal 

agencies to carry out programs for the conservation 

of endangered and threatened species. 

Executive Order 11988 (1977)—Requires Federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to reduce 

the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on 

human safety, and preserve the natural and beneficial 

values served by the floodplains. 

Executive Order 12996, Management and General 

Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(1996)—Defines the mission, purpose, and priority 

public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

It also presents four principles to guide management 

of the Refuge System. 

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996)— 

Directs Federal land management agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial uses of Indian sacred 

sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid adversely 

affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, 

and where appropriate, maintain the confidentiality 

of sacred sites. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990)—Requires the use 

of integrated management systems to control or contain undesirable plant species and an interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of other Federal 

and State agencies. 

Federal Records Act (1950)—Requires the preservation of evidence of the government’s organization, 

functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic historical and other information. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958)—Allows 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into agreements with private landowners for wildlife management purposes. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929)—Establishes 

procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gifts 

of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act 

(1934)—Authorizes the opening of part of a refuge to 

waterfowl hunting. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)—Designates the protection of migratory birds as a Federal responsibility; 

and enables the setting of seasons and other regulations, including the closing of areas, Federal or nonFederal, to the hunting of migratory birds. 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)—Requires 

all agencies, including the Service, to examine the 

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. 

Federal agencies must integrate this Act with other 

planning requirements, and prepare appropriate 

documents to facilitate better environmental decision making. [From the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), 40 CFR 1500] 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as amended— 

Establishes as policy that the Federal Government is 

to provide leadership in the preservation of the Nation’s prehistoric and historical resources. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

(1966)—Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit 

any use of a refuge, provided such use is compatible 

with the major purposes for which the refuge was 

established. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997—Sets the mission and administrative policy for 

all refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

mandates comprehensive conservation planning for 

all units of the Refuge System. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act (1990)—Requires Federal agencies and museums 

to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession. 

Refuge Recreation Act (1962)—Allows the use of refuges for recreation when such uses are compatible 

with the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient 

funds are available to manage the uses. 

Rehabilitation Act (1973)—Requires programmatic 

accessibility in addition to physical accessibility for all 

facilities and programs funded by the Federal Government to ensure that any person can participate in 

any program. 

Rivers and Harbors Act (1899)—Section 10 of this 

Act requires the authorization of U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers prior to any work in, on, over, or under 

navigable waters of the United States. 
Appendix B—Key Legislation and Policies 191 

Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement 

Act (1998)—Encourages the use of volunteers to assist in the management of refuges within the Refuge 

System; facilitates partnerships between the Refuge 

System and non-Federal entities to promote public 

awareness of the resources of the Refuge System and 

public participation in the conservation of the resources; 

and encourages donations and other contributions. 

Appendix C 

Preparers and Contributors 

This document is the result of the extensive, collaborative, and enthusiastic efforts by the members of the South 

Dakota Wetland Management District planning team below. Many others contributed insight and support. 

CORE PLANNING TEAM 

Team member Position Work unit 

Todd Boonstra Wildlife biologist (former) Huron Wetland Management District 

Clarke Dirks Project Leader Huron Wetland Management District 

Mark Ely Chief, GIS Division USFWS Regional Office, Denver, Colorado 

Bridgette Flanders Wildlife Biologist (former) Huron Wetland Management District 

Bernardo Garza Planning Team Leader USFWS Regional Office, Denver, Colorado 

Harris Hoistad Project Leader Huron Wetland Management District 

John Jave Deputy Project Leader (retired) Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Kyle Kelsey Wildlife Biologist Madison Wetland Management District 

Jay Peterson Wetland Management District Manager Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Bryan Schultz Deputy Project Leader Madison Wetland Management District 

William Schultze Wildlife Biologist Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Thomas Tornow Project Leader Madison Wetland Management District 

Sandra Uecker Deputy Project Leader Huron Wetland Management District 

Gene Williams Project Leader (retired) Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

ADDITIONAL PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS
 

Team member Position Work unit 

Cindy Souders Outdoor Recreational Program Specialist USFWS Regional Office, Denver, Colorado 

Mike Artmann Wildlife Biologist / GIS USFWS Regional Office, Denver, Colorado 

Edward Meendering Wetland Management District Manager Valley City Wetland Management District 

The Service would like to acknowledge the efforts of the following individuals and organizations toward the 

completion of this CCP. The diversity, talents, and knowledge they contributed dramatically improved the vision and completeness of this document. 

CONTRIBUTORS 

Team member Position Work unit 

Richard Coleman Assistant Regional Director, Refuge System USFWS Regional Office, Denver, Colorado 

Manuel Oliveira Deputy Assistant Regional Director, Refuge System USFWS Regional Office, Denver, Colorado 

David C. Lucas Chief, Division of Refuge Planning USFWS Regional Office, Denver, Colorado 

Paul Cornes Refuge Supervisor (North Dakota/South Dakota) USFWS Regional Office, Denver, Colorado 

Natoma Buskness Deputy Refuge Supervisor (North Dakota/South Dakota) USFWS Regional Office, Denver, Colorado 

Meg VanNess Regional Archaeologist USFWS Regional Office, Denver, Colorado 

Sheri Fetherman Chief, Division of Education and Visitor Services USFWS Regional Office, Denver, Colorado 
194 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Team member Position Work unit 

Megan Estep Chief Hydrologist USFWS Regional Office, Denver, Colorado 

Wayne King Refuge Biologist USFWS Regional Office, Denver, Colorado 

Deb Parker Writer-Editor, Division of Refuge Planning USFWS Regional Office, Denver, Colorado 

Richard Sterry Regional Fire Planner USFWS Regional Office, Denver, Colorado 
Appendix D 

Public Involvement 

Public scoping was initiated for the Huron, Madison, and 

Sand Lake Wetland Management Districts in a notice 

of intent published in July 2008. The notice announced 

intent to prepare a comprehensive conservation plan 

(CCP) and environmental assessment (EA) for the 

districts and to obtain suggestions and information 

on the scope of issues to be considered in the planning 

process. 

Eleven public meetings were held in various 

locations throughout eastern South Dakota between 

September 8 and 11, 2008. Numerous written, verbal, 

and emailed comments were received during the 

open comment period. Comments received identified 

biological, social, and economic concerns regarding the 

different aspects of management of these districts. 

The mailing list for the CCP and EA includes, but is 

not limited to, the following. 

D.1 Federal Officials 

U.S. Senator John Thune, Washington, DC 

Senator Thune’s Area Director, Pierre, South Dakota 

U.S. Senator Tim Johnson, Washington, DC 

Senator Johnson’s Area Director, Pierre, South Dakota 

U.S. Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, 

Washington, DC 

Representative Herseth Sandlin’s Area Director, 

Pierre, South Dakota 

D.2 Federal Agencies 

Bureau of Reclamation, Pierre, South Dakota 

USDA–Farm Service Agency, Clear Lake, South 

Dakota; Faulkton, South Dakota; Brookings, South 

Dakota 

USDA–Farm Service Agency and NRCS, McIntosh, 

South Dakota; Pierre, South Dakota; Timber 

Lake, South Dakota; Mound City, South Dakota; 

Selby, South Dakota; Gettysburg, South Dakota; 

Onida, South Dakota; Chamberlain, South Dakota; 

Wessington Springs, South Dakota; Highmore, 

South Dakota; Ipswich, South Dakota; Leola, South 

Dakota; Aberdeen, South Dakota; Redfield, South 

Dakota; Huron, South Dakota; Miller, South Dakota; 

DeSmet, South Dakota; Madison, South Dakota; 

Howard, South Dakota; Woonsocket, South Dakota 

USDA–NRCS, Mitchell, South Dakota 

USDA–APHIS, Pierre, South Dakota 

National Park Service, Omaha, Nebraska 

USFWS, Ecological Services, Pierre, South Dakota 

USFWS, National Wildlife Refuge System, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico; Anchorage, Alaska; Arlington, Virginia; 

Atlanta, Georgia; Fort Snelling, Minnesota; Hadley, 

Massachusetts; Portland, Oregon; Rawlins, Wyoming; 

Sacramento, California; Shepherdstown, West 

Virginia; Washington, DC 

USGS–Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, 

Colorado 

D.3 Tribal Officials 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse 

Reservation, Agency Village, South Dakota 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Eagle Butte, South 

Dakota 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Council, Fort Thompson, 

South Dakota 

Flandreau Santee Sioux Executive Committee, 

Flandreau, South Dakota 

Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes Tribal Executive 

Board, Poplar, Montana 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribal Council, Lower Brule, 

South Dakota 

Lower Sioux Indian Community Council, Morton, 

Minnesota 

Oglala Sioux Tribal Council, Pine Ridge, South Dakota 

Prairie Island Indian Community, Welch, Minnesota 

Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council, Rosebud, South Dakota 

Santee Sioux Tribal Council, Niobrara, Nebraska 

Spirit Lake Tribal Council, Fort Totten, North Dakota 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council, Fort Yates, 

North Dakota 

Upper Sioux Community of Minnesota, Granite Falls, 

Minnesota 

D.4 State Officials 

Governor M. Michael Rounds, Pierre, South Dakota 
196 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

D.5 State Agencies 

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department, 

Pierre, South Dakota 

South Dakota State University Extension Service, 

Brookings, South Dakota 

D.6 Local Government 

County Commissioners (33) 

Resource Conservation Districts (8) 

Weed Board Office (19) 

D.7 Organizations 

American Bird Conservancy, Plains, Virginia 

American Rivers, Washington, DC 

Animal Protection Institute, Sacramento, California 

Beyond Pesticides, Washington, DC 

Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC 

Duck Unlimited, Great Plains Office, Bismarck, North 

Dakota 

Fund for Animals, Silver Springs, Maryland 

Izaak Walton League, Gaithersburg, Maryland 

Murie Audubon Society, Casper, Wyoming 

National Audubon Society, Fargo, North Dakota 

National Audubon Society; Washington, DC; New 

York, New York 

National Trappers Association, New Martinsville, 

West Virginia 

National Wildlife Federation, Reston, Virginia 

National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington, DC 

National Wild Turkey Federation, Bismarck, North 

Dakota 

Sierra Club, San Francisco, California; Sheridan, 

Wyoming 

The Nature Conservancy, Minneapolis, Minnesota 

The U.S. Humane Society, Washington, DC 

The Wilderness Society, Washington, DC 

Union Pacific Railroad, Omaha, Nebraska 

Wildlife Management Institute, Fort Collins, Colorado; 

Corvallis, Oregon; Washington, DC 

D.8 Universities, Colleges, 

and Schools 

South Dakota State University 

D.9 Media 

Newspaper outlets (29) 

Radio outlets (4) 

D.10 Individuals 

Individuals (600+) 

D.11 Summary of and 

Responses to Public 

Comments 

COMMENT 1 

The Federal wetlands managed by these districts 

are badly infested with noxious weeds. While your 

plan states that you need to do a better job controlling these weeds you only say that you will prioritize 

the areas and control the weeds only in the highest 

priority areas. I feel that each tract carries the same 

priority. At the minimum each tract needs to be inspected yearly and any weed problems documented 

and some type of control plan developed. The control 

plan needs to be enacted within 1 year. I feel that you 

need to take care of the property you already own 

before you purchase more. There are many options 

out there to get the job done. If you are short of employees to take care of the necessary spraying there 

are local weed boards in every county that can do the 

spraying for you. There are also private companies 

that will contract with you to do your spraying. We 

need to be good neighbors to each other. 

Response 1: Several portions of the CCP specifically discuss invasive plants and noxious weeds 

(chapter 6 of the draft CCP and EA and chapter 4 

of this CCP). The issue of invasive plants and their 

effects on wildlife and habitats is important to the 

Service in general and the districts specifically; accordingly, three full management objectives in this 

CCP are devoted to this issue. Although the Service believes spraying and other control methods 

are necessary and yield more immediate results, 

restoring native habitats within district boundaries 

will address the invasive plant issue more comprehensively over the long term. As more information 

has been obtained through the years, management 

and objectives regarding invasive plant control have 

changed. In recent years, the adaptive resource 

management approach has enabled the Service to 

evaluate and make adjustments on a timely basis. 
Appendix D—Public Involvement 197 

Finally, the Service prioritizes management needs 

and makes the best possible use of the resources 

that Congress allocates to the agency. 

COMMENT 2 

The CCP should consider the effects of climate change 

and how these districts can help adapt to mitigate wildlife impacts. The anticipated effects of climate change 

and prudent management responses should be carefully 

considered and described during the CCP process. 

Response 2: The CCP does discuss some possible 

effects of climate change on district lands and the 

wildlife that depends on them, and the Service did 

consider climate change in making management 

decisions. Furthermore, this CCP discusses the 

ongoing efforts led by the Service, the Department of Interior, and other agencies and private 

organizations to ascertain possible climatic changes 

on our planet, their likely effects on wildlife and 

habitats, and possible actions to ameliorate adverse effects on these trust resources. Climate 

change will be further considered in the stepdown 

management plans, which can be readily adjusted 

to address changing conditions. Also, addressing 

climate change in these documents is evolving as 

more information is gathered. The CCP recognizes 

that the climate change believed to be underway 

would affect the districts’ habitats, including the 

possibility of more frequent droughts that could 

reduce wetland habitats. Through the conservation 

easement program, the Service can maintain key 

corridors for wildlife migration and allow wildlife 

to adjust to habitat changes that could be the result 

of climatic changes. Furthermore, “Chapter 5— 

Environmental Consequences” in the draft CCP 

and EA discussed the likely impacts that the three 

proposed management alternatives would have on 

the environment, and specifically in the context of 

possible climate change. 

COMMENT 3 

Hiking is a valid and widely popular form of outdoor 

recreation enjoyed by a vast number of Americans. 

Why isn’t this activity mentioned prominently in the 

CCP and the hiking community more involved in the 

planning process? Why does the hunting community 

have a higher prominence than the hiking community 

in this and other planning processes and National 

Wildlife Refuge System activities? 

Response 3: Because Duck Stamps are the funding 

source for acquisition of most lands administered 

by the districts, the districts’ waterfowl production 

areas are open to all compatible, wildlife-dependent 

public uses including hunting, fishing, hiking for 

wildlife observation, photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

The Service agrees, in words and actions, with 

the commentator that hiking is a great and widely 

popular outdoor recreation activity enjoyed by millions of Americans. The Service welcomes visitors 

to practice this outdoor recreation activity in a 

wildlife-compatible manner on lands administered 

by our agency, and the Service welcomes the participation and comments from all outdoor activity 

enthusiasts without making distinctions or granting preferential treatment to any of them. 

COMMENT 4 

All grazing in the lands administered by these districts 

should be banned. The U.S. public does not save land 

so ranchers can get cheap land to destroy, as their 

cattle do. The funds paid by ranchers to use national 

land paid for by national taxpayers is so cheap and 

so low, it doesn’t cover the first 10 days of the use of 

that land. This is a cheap, political will to rip off the 

general taxpayers of this Nation. 

Response 4: Grazing by domestic cattle is allowed 

by the Service within many units of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System as a viable wildlife habitat 

management tool, in lieu of previously unregulated 

grazing by natural populations of native large ungulates (e.g., American bison herds). This management tool is used, as needed, to achieve the stated 

habitat and wildlife objectives of the units of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and thus fulfill 

the purposes for which these units were set aside. 

COMMENT 5 

Prescribed fire is a killer of American citizens. The fine 

particulate matter enters the body at every orifice. It 

causes lung cancer, heart attacks, pneumonia, strokes, 

allergies and asthma, causing huge health and death 

bills to America. How unwise to do this to air quality. 

Prescribed fire also releases mercury, which nobody 

wants to breathe. 

Response 5: Native habitats in North America 

evolved under the pressure and influence of wildland fire, to the point that these habitats require 

a measure of “pressure” under fire to retain their 

health and vitality. Prolonged periods without fire 

cause some native habitats to become unproductive and often make them more prone to infestation 

by invasive and noxious plants. The Service takes 

very seriously and prudently the use of prescribed 

fire, as well as the safe handling and containment 

of wildfires, within and adjacent to the lands of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. To that effect, 

the Service coordinates all of its prescribed fire and 

wildfire containment efforts with local fire, law enforcement, and emergency response authorities to 

ensure that all State and Federal air quality laws 

and regulations are strictly followed. 
198 

 

 

COMMENT 6 

Stop letting hunters go in and blast the birds to death. 

This is venal, vicious agency policy. The U.S. public 

wants a change in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

That is why the public is so outraged. Agencies such 

as yours work for money and greed and not for the 

welfare of America at all. The public does not want 

fake restoration costing millions. Restoring birds and 

mammals so the gun wacko wildlife murdering hunters can come in and kill more - no way do we want to 

fund that debacle. The public wants to call attention 

to the fact that this agency has become an ugly, venal, wildlife murdering agency working only to kill 

wildlife. The gun money is a blot on American policy. 

Response 6: Some citizens are concerned with hunting on units of the Refuge System. The Refuge System is guided by laws enacted by Congress and the 

president, as well as policy derived from those laws. 

The Improvement Act identifies hunting as one of 

six priority, wildlife-dependent, recreational uses 

to be facilitated when compatible with the mission 

of the Refuge System and the purposes of any of 

its units. Hunting is consistent with the purposes 

of the district. The district manages lands acquired 

with Federal Duck Stamp and other funds as waterfowl production areas. 

Because Duck Stamps are the source of funding for land acquisition, the districts’ waterfowl 

production areas are open to public use, which 

includes hunting. While the units of the Refuge 

System are managed first and foremost for wildlife, 

the focus is on perpetuating populations, not individuals. Hunting does adversely affect individual 

animals, but it is allowed when it will not threaten 

perpetuation of the population being hunted. The 

district has engaged in intra-Service, section 7 (of 

the Endangered Species Act) consultation with the 

Service’s ecological services office in Pierre, South 

Dakota, to ensure that the actions delineated in the 

CCP do not adversely affect any federally listed 

species. The conclusion made by the ecological services office is that the implementation of the CCP 

will not adversely affect federally listed species in 

any of these three wetland management districts. 

The Service agrees, in words and actions, with 

the commentator that “fish and wildlife come first” 

on all units of the Refuge System. But the Improvement Act goes even further by recognizing that 

wildlife-dependent recreation activities—including 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation—are legitimate public uses. Therefore, refuge 

and district staffs throughout the Refuge System 

devote significant amounts of time ensuring that 

public uses do not conflict with wildlife and habitat 

preservation goals. 

COMMENT 7 

Why did the Service decide to prepare an Environmental Assessment instead of an Environmental Impact 

Statement as the NEPA environmental compliance 

document with this CCP? 

Response 7: The preferred alternative developed 

by the staffs of these three districts (i.e., the CCP) 

was not a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment 

within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of NEPA. 

Accordingly, the preparation of an environmental 

impact statement was not deemed to be required, 

and the Service opted to prepare an environmental 

assessment instead. 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E 

Section 7 Biological Evaluation 

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM 

Originating Persons: Kyle Kelsey, William Schultze, Brent Jamison
 

Telephone Number: (605) 256-2974
 

Date Submitted: January 5, 2011
 

I. Service Program and Geographic Area or Station Name: National Wildlife Refuge Program. 

The Huron, Madison, and Sand Lake WMDs are located within the Service’s Region 6, MountainPrairie Region, and specifically in the Plains and Prairie Potholes Geographic Area 

II. Flexible Funding Program: (e.g., Joint Venture, etc) if applicable: 

III. Location: 

Location of the project including County, State and TSR (township, section & range): Beadle, Brookings, Brown, Buffalo, Campbell, Corson, Deuel, Dewey, Edmunds, Faulk, Hamlin, Hand, Hughes, 

Hyde, Jerauld, Kingsbury, Lake, McCook, McPherson, Miner, Minnehaha, Moody, Potter, Sanborn, 

Spink, Sully, and Walworth Counties, South Dakota 

IV. Species/Critical Habitat: 

List federally endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species or designated or proposed 

critical habitat that may occur within the action area. To obtain species lists by state and county: 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/endspp/name_county_search.htm 

A. Federally Listed Species and/or their critical habitat within or downstream from action area: 

Topeka shiner, Notropis topeka (federally listed as endangered)
 

Whooping crane, Grus americana (federally listed as endangered)
 

Piping plover, Charadrius melodus (federally listed as threatened)
 

Least tern, Sterna antillarum (federally listed as endangered)
 

Black-footed ferret, Mustela nigripes (federally listed as endangered)
 

Gray wolf, Canis lupus (federally listed as endangered)
 

Western prairie fringed orchid, Platanthera praeclara (federally listed as threatened)
 

B. Proposed species and/or proposed critical habitat within the action area: 

Piping plover critical habitat has been designated in the action area along the Missouri River, 

within the congressionally designated boundaries of the Huron and Sand Lake Wetland 

Management Districts. 

C. Candidate species within or downstream from the action area: 

Dakota skipper, Hesperia dacotae, candidate species within the boundary of the districts 

Sprague’s pipit, Antus spragueii, candidate species within the boundary of the districts 

Poweshiek skipperling, Oarisma poweshiek, candidate species within the boundary of the districts 
200 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

V.	 Project Description: Describe proposed project or action or, if referencing other documents, prepare 

an executive summary (attach additional pages as needed): 

See attached CCP Summary. 

VI.	 Determination of Effects: 

A.	 Description of Effects: Describe the action(s) that may affect the species and critical habitats 

listed in item IV. Your rationale for the Section 7 determinations made below (B) should be fully 

described here. 

Topeka shiner:	 Implementing the CCP “May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect” this fish species. It is expected that the proposed wetland 

and upland management activities of the districts will benefit 

the water quality of perennial and intermittent streams within 

the planning area, thus enhancing the habitat required and preferred by this fish. 

Whooping crane:	 Implementing the CCP “May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect” this migrant crane. In fact, the continued preservation 

and management of Service lands managed by the districts for 

the benefit of wildlife species should enhance feeding, loafing 

and resting sites for crane use during migration. 

Piping plover:	 Implementing the CCP “May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect” this plover species and their designated critical habitat. 

In fact, the continued preservation and management of complex lands, especially predator management and noxious weed 

control on public lands, for the benefit of this and other wildlife 

species should enhance nesting success as well as provide adequate feeding, loafing and resting sites for plover use during 

the nesting period and migration. 

Interior least tern:	 Implementing the CCP “May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect” on habitats frequented by this species. Continued preservation and management of district-managed lands for the 

benefit of wildlife species should enhance sites for use by this 

tern species. 

Black footed ferret:	 Implementing the CCP “May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect” on this species. Continued preservation and management of district-managed lands for the benefit of wildlife species 

should enhance sites for use by this mustelid species. 

Grey wolf:	 Implementing the CCP “May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect” on habitats frequented by this species. Continued preservation and management of district-managed lands for the 

benefit of wildlife species should enhance sites for use by this 

canid species. 

Western prairie fringed orchid: Implementing the CCP “May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect” this plant species. The greatest threat to the prairie 

fringed orchid is habitat loss, mostly through conversion to 

cropland, competition with introduced alien plants, filling of wetlands, intensive hay mowing, fire suppression, and overgrazing. 

Continued preservation and management of district-managed 

lands should benefit this orchid. 
 

 

Appendix E—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 201 

Dakota skipper:	 Implementing the CCP “May affect but Not Likely to Jeopardize candidate or proposed species/critical habitat” on this 

species. The continued preservation and management of these 

lands for the benefit of wildlife species (e.g., restoration of native vegetation) should enhance uplands for this insect. However, management practices (grazing, fire, and haying) utilized 

to restore and maintain health grassland ecosystems may result 

in incidental take or short-term habitat loss. With the proper 

planning and implementation strategies, these negative impacts 

can be minimized. 

Sprague’s pipit:	 Implementing the CCP “May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect” on habitats frequented by this species. Continued preservation and management of district-managed lands for the 

benefit of wildlife species should enhance sites for use by this 

passerine species. 

Poweshiek skipperling:	 Implementing the CCP “May affect but Not Likely to Jeopardize candidate or proposed species/critical habitat” on this 

species. The continued preservation and management of these 

lands for the benefit of wildlife species (e.g., restoration of native vegetation) should enhance uplands for this insect. However, management practices (grazing, fire, and haying) utilized 

to restore and maintain health grassland ecosystems may result 

in incidental take or short-term habitat loss. With the proper 

planning and implementation strategies, these negative impacts 

can be minimized. 

B.	 Determination: Determine the anticipated effects of the proposed project on species and critical 

habitats listed in item IV. Check all applicable boxes and list the species (or attach a list) associated with each determination. 

Determination 

No Effect: 	 _____________ 

This determination is appropriate when the proposed project will not directly 


or indirectly affect (neither negatively nor beneficially) individuals of listed/proposed/candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat of such species. 


No concurrence from ESFO required.
 

May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely Affect: ______X______
 

This determination is appropriate when the proposed project is likely to cause 


insignificant, discountable, or wholly beneficial effects to individuals of listed species and/or designated critical habitat. Concurrence from ESFO required.
 

1.) Topeka shiner
 

2.) Whooping crane
 

3.) Piping plover
 

4.) Piping plover critical habitat
 

5.) Interior least tern
 

6.) Black-footed ferret
 

7.) Grey wolf
 

8.) Western prairie fringed orchid
 

May Affect and Likely to Adversely Affect: 	 _____________ 

This determination is appropriate when the proposed project is likely to adversely 

impact individuals of listed species and/or designated critical habitat. Formal consultation with ESFO required. 
202 

May affect but Not Likely to Jeopardize candidate or proposed species/critical habitat: ______X______ 

This determination is appropriate when the proposed project may affect, but is 

not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or a candidate species, or adversely modify an area proposed for designation 

as critical habitat. Concurrence from ESFO optional. 

1.) Dakota skipper 

2.) Sprague’s pipit 

3.) Poweshiek skipperling 

Likely to Jeopardize candidate or proposed species/critical habitat: _____________ 

This determination is appropriate when the proposed project is reasonably expected to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or a 

candidate species, or adversely modify an area proposed for designation as critical habitat. Conferencing with ESFO required. 

Clark Dirks, Project Leader Date 

Huron Wetland Management District 

Brian Schultz, Acting Project Leader 

Madison Wetland Management District 

Date 

Harris Hoistad, Project Leader 

Sand Lake NWR Complex 

Date 
Appendix E—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 203 

Reviewing Ecological Services Office Evaluation 

(check all that apply): 

A.	 Concurrence _____________ X
 Nonconcurrence _____________ 

Explanation for nonconcurrence:
 

B.	 Formal consultation required _____ 

List species or critical habitat unit 

C.	 Conference required _____ 

List species or critical habitat unit 

Name of Reviewing ES Office: South Dakota Field Office, Pierre SD 

Scott Larson Date 

South Dakota Field Supervisor 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Revised 3/2010 

Appendix F 

Environmental Compliance 

Environmental Action Statement 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

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

the National Environmental Policy Act and other 

statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and 

wildlife resources, I have established the following 

administrative record. 

I have determined that the action of implementing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the 

Huron Wetland Management District, the Madison 

Wetland Management District, and the Sand Lake 

Wetland Management District is found not to have 

significant environmental effects, as determined by 

the attached “Finding of No Significant Impact” and 

the environmental assessment as found with the draft 

comprehensive conservation plan. 

Stephen D. Guertin 

Regional Director 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. 

Assistant Regional Director 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Paul Cornes 

Refuge Program Supervisor (ND, SD) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Date

Natoma Buskness 

Project Leader 

Madison Wetland Management District 

Madison, South Dakota 

Date Date

Date Date 

Clarke Dirks 

Project Leader 

Huron Wetland Management District 

Huron, South Dakota 

Date 

Harris Hoistad 

Project Leader 

Sand Lake Wetland Management District 

Columbia, South Dakota 
206 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Finding of No Significant Impact 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Fulfill the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Huron Wetland Management District, Madison Wetland 

Management District, and Sand Lake Wetland Management District 

Three management alternatives for the Huron, Madison, and Sand Lake Wetland Management Districts 

were assessed as to their effectiveness in achieving 

the districts’ purposes and their impact on the human 

environment. Alternative A, the “no-action” alternative, would continue current management. 

Alternative B, “Increased Efficiency” (the proposed 

action) would emphasize managing the habitats of the 

three districts in a holistic manner by developing and 

implementing an improved, science-based priority system to restore native prairie habitats for the of waterfowl, State- and federally listed species, migratory 

birds, and other native wildlife. The districts would 

also continue to rely on adaptive management—as 

more information is known, management would adjust 

to improve effects on the environment for the benefit 

of migratory birds in the Central Flyway. Based on 

this assessment and comments received, I have selected alternative B as the preferred alternative for 

implementation. 

The preferred alternative was selected because it 

best meets the purposes for which the Huron, Madison, and Sand Lake Wetland Management Districts 

were established and is preferable to the “no-action” 

alternative in light of physical, biological, economic, and 

social factors. The preferred alternative will continue 

to provide public access for wildlife-dependent recreation, environmental education, and interpretation. 

I find that the preferred alternative is not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment within the meaning 

of Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, the preparation of 

an environmental impact statement on the proposed 

action is not required. 

The following is a summary of anticipated environmental effects from implementation of the preferred 

alternative: 

■■ The preferred alternative will not adversely impact 

endangered or threatened species or their habitat. 

■■ The preferred alternative will not adversely impact 

archaeological or historical resources. 

■■ The preferred alternative will not adversely impact 

wetlands nor does the plan call for structures that 

could be damaged by or that would significantly 

influence the movement of floodwater. 

■■ The preferred alternative will not have a disproportionately high or adverse human health or 

environmental effect on minority or low-income 

populations. 

■■ The State of South Dakota has been notified and 

given the opportunity to review the comprehensive 

conservation plan and associated environmental 

assessment. 

Stephen D. Guertin 

Regional Director 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Date 
Appendix G 

Location Notices 

HURON WETLAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LOCATION NOTICES 

Location Priority Structure Storage Additional 

notice no. County Area date type Use acre-feet (af) information 

31427 Beadle Wipf WPA 09/10/1964 Dam Stock 1.8 — 

16348 Beadle Wipf WPA 10/07/1959 Dam Stock 1.88 — 

28661 Beadle South Weaver WPA 11/07/1963 Dam Stock 1.7 — 

43605 Beadle Maga-Ta-Hohpi WPA 05/06/1968 Dam Stock 1.1 — 

56366 Beadle Maga-Ta-Hohpi WPA 06/28/1973 Dam Stock 1.3 — 

72898 Beadle Kohnen WPA 03/20/1992 Dam Stock 4 — 

18074 Beadle Huron WMD 06/17/1960 Dam Stock 1 — 

71278 Beadle Huron WMD 07/18/1988 Dugout Storage 1 — 

75113 Beadle Huron WMD 08/01/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 24 — 

75155 Beadle Huron WMD 09/01/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 4.8 — 

75176 Beadle Huron WMD 09/01/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 18 — 

75178 Beadle Huron WMD 09/24/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 2.4 — 

75180 Beadle Huron WMD 09/24/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 8 #1 5.6 af 

#2 2.4 af 

75294 Beadle Huron WMD 12/09/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 1 — 

75295 Beadle Huron WMD 12/07/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 8.8 — 

75303 Beadle Huron WMD 09/08/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 6 — 

75304 Beadle Huron WMD 09/08/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 17 — 

72898 Beadle Huron WMD 03/20/1992 Dam Wildlife 4 — 

719-3 Hand Slunecka WPA 12/30/1949 Dam Irrigation and 2.8 — 

stock 

17096 Hand VenJohn WPA 10/29/1959 Dam Stock 1.2 — 

2106-3 Hand VenJohn WPA 06/30/1951 Dam Stock 1.2 — 

70978 Hand VenJohn WPA 07/06/1987 Dam Stock 1.2 — 

12476 Hand Boomsma WPA 03/19/1959 Dam Stock 1.3 — 

75115 Hand Huron WMD 08/20/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 5.6 — 

75116 Hand Huron WMD 08/20/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 11.2	 #1 4.2 af 

#2 4.2 af 

#3 2.8 af 

75119 Hand Huron WMD 08/20/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 5 — 

75120 Hand Huron WMD 08/20/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 2 — 

75296 Hand Huron WMD 12/07/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 12.32 — 

75567 Hand Huron WMD 11/14/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 1 — 

4177-3 Hyde Harter WPA 08/25/1952 Dam Stock 3 — 

6470-3 Hyde Cowan WPA 11/15/1954 Dam Stock 6 — 

9771 Hyde Cowan WPA 07/26/1958 Dam Stock 3 — 

75299 Hyde Huron WMD 12/08/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 4.48 — 

75300 Hyde Huron WMD 11/15/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 16 — 
208 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Location Priority Structure Storage Additional 

notice no. County Area date type Use acre-feet (af) information 

75568 Hyde Huron WMD 11/14/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 16.64 — 

75111 Jerauld Huron WMD 08/20/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 3 — 

75566 Jerauld Huron WMD 11/14/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 4.64 — 

75297 Jerauld Huron WMD 12/09/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 6.75 — 

75569 Jerauld Huron WMD 11/14/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 15.36 — 

75565 Jerauld Huron WMD 08/09/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 24 — 

75114 Jerauld Huron WMD 08/09/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 2 — 

75298 Jerauld Huron WMD 12/09/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 6.47 — 

72850 Sanborn Huron WMD 12/18/1991 Ditch plug Fish and wildlife 20.7 — 

75112 Sanborn Huron WMD 08/20/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 24 — 

75117 Sanborn Huron WMD 08/25/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 2 — 

75301 Sanborn Huron WMD 12/20/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 6.4 — 

75302 Sanborn Huron WMD 12/20/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 17.6 — 

75177 Sanborn Huron WMD 09/22/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 3.5 — 

75182 Sanborn Huron WMD 08/26/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 10.88 — 

75305 Sanborn Huron WMD 10/25/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 2 — 

75179 Sanborn Huron WMD 09/22/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 1.5 — 

75181 Sanborn Huron WMD 09/22/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 3.5 — 

75118 Sanborn Huron WMD 09/20/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 41	 #1 9 af 

#2 12 af 

#3 12 af 

#4 8 af 

72689 Sanborn Huron WMD 03/15/1991 Ditch plug Stock, fish and 3.5 — 

wildlife 

72452 Sanborn Huron WMD 10/15/1990 Ditch plug Stock, fish and 22.3 — 

wildlife 

72453 Sanborn Huron WMD 10/15/1990 Ditch plug Stock, fish and 10.1 — 

wildlife 

72454 Sanborn Huron WMD 10/15/1990 Ditch plug Stock, fish and 19 — 

wildlife 

MADISON WETLAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LOCATION NOTICES
 

Location Priority Structure Storage Additional 

notice no. County Area date type Use acre-feet (af) information 

73222 Brookings Madison WMD 09/08/1992 Dugout Stock 20.3 — 

75148 Brookings Madison WMD 08/24/1999 Ditch Wildlife 4.2 — 

74809 Brookings Madison WMD 09/09/1998 Ditch Wildlife 6.2 #1 1.8 af 

#2 4.4 af 

76327 Brookings Madison WMD 08/24/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 3 #1 1.5 af 

#2 1.5 af 

74810 Brookings Madison WMD 09/09/1998 Ditch Wildlife 6.6 #1 5.6 af 

#2 1 af 

75150 Brookings Madison WMD 08/26/1999 Ditch Wildlife 15.2	 #1 2.6 af 

#2 2.4 af 

#3 3.8 af 

#4 6.4 af 
Appendix G—Location Notices 209 

Location 

notice no. County Area 

Priority 

date 

Structure 

type Use 

Storage 

acre-feet (af) 

Additional 

information 

76011 Brookings Madison WMD 12/06/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 8.3 #1 0.3 af 

#2 2.6 af 

#3 0.8 af 

#4 1.4 af 

#5 2 af 

#6 1.2 af 

76010 Brookings Madison WMD 12/06/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 17.4 #1 2.6 af 

#2 14 af 

#3 0.8 af 

76009 Brookings Madison WMD 12/06/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 14 #1 1 af 

#2 0.5 af 

#3 3.7 af 

#4 1.1 af 

#5 2.4 af 

#6 1.3 af 

#7 1.1 af 

#8 1 af 

#9 1.9 af 

76624 Brookings Madison WMD 09/08/2006 Dam Fish and wildlife 23.4 #1 9 af 

#2 2.4 af 

#3 12 af 

76007 Brookings Madison WMD 12/06/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 15 — 

76625 Brookings Madison WMD 09/08/2006 Dam Fish and wildlife 8.4 #1 4.8 af 

#2 3.6 af 

73388 Brookings Madison WMD 04/26/1993 Dugout Stock 10.4 #1 4.6 af 

#2 5.8 af 

75794 Brookings Madison WMD 10/15/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 8 — 

17-36 Brookings Madison WMD 09/26/1955 Dugout Stock 1.5 — 

76487 Brookings Madison WMD 10/06/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 2.1 — 

73013 Brookings Madison WMD 07/08/1992 Dugout Stock 22 — 

75799 Brookings Madison WMD 08/21/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 21 #1 12.5 af 

#2 2.5 af 

#3 6 af 

75798 Brookings Madison WMD 09/13/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 3.6 — 

75803 Brookings Madison WMD 08/21/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 20.1 #1 2.1 af 

#2 13.6 af 

#3 4.4 af 

75797 Brookings Madison WMD 09/13/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 18.1 #1 7.7 af 

#2 9.9 af 

#3 0.5 af 

75802 Brookings Madison WMD 08/07/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 18.6 #1 13 af 

#2 5.6 af 

75801 Brookings Madison WMD 08/21/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 4.4 #1 3 af 

#2 1.4 af 

76008 Brookings Madison WMD 12/06/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 6.6 #1 3.1 af 

#2 2.7 af 

#3 0.8 af 

74949 Brookings Madison WMD 11/02/1998 Ditch Wildlife 5.2 — 

74807 Brookings Madison WMD 08/24/1998 Ditch Wildlife 2.3 — 

72815 Brookings Madison WMD 06/15/1991 Dugout Stock 22.5 — 

74819 Brookings Madison WMD 08/24/1998 Ditch Wildlife 1.5 — 

74805 Brookings Madison WMD 08/20/1998 Ditch Wildlife 10 — 
210 

Location Priority Structure Storage Additional 

notice no. County Area date type Use acre-feet (af) information 

74782 Brookings Madison WMD 07/18/1998 Ditch Wildlife 8.5	 #1 2 af 

#2 1 af 

#3 2 af 

#4 1 af 

#5 0.5 af 

#6 0.5 af 

#7 1 af 

#8 0.5 af 

76486 Brookings Madison WMD 04/21/2005 Ditch plug Fish and wildlife 14.3	 #1 1.5 af 

#2 9.8 af 

#3 3 af 

75064 Brookings Madison WMD 07/02/1999 Ditch Wildlife 10 — 

74820 Brookings Madison WMD 09/02/1998 Ditch Wildlife 14.5	 #1 3 af 

#2 11 af 

#3 0.5 af 

74818 Brookings Madison WMD 08/20/1998 Ditch Wildlife 3 #1 2 af 

#2 1 af 

74806 Brookings Madison WMD 08/20/1998 Ditch Wildlife 3.5 #1 3 af 

#2 0.5 af 

75061 Brookings Madison WMD 07/02/1999 Ditch Wildlife 11 — 

75151 Brookings Madison WMD 08/26/1999 Ditch Wildlife 8.8 — 

74947 Brookings Madison WMD 01/20/1999 Ditch Wildlife 10 #1 5.9 af 

#2 4.1 af 

73387 Brookings Madison WMD 04/23/1993 Dugout Stock 2 — 

15939 Brookings Madison WMD 09/17/1955 Dugout Stock 1.3 — 

75800 Brookings Madison WMD 08/21/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 20.2	 #1 15.6 af 

#2 0.6 af 

#3 4 af 

75149 Brookings Madison WMD 08/24/1999 Ditch Wildlife 7.5 — 

75141 Brookings Madison WMD 08/24/1999 Ditch Wildlife 9.5	 #1 2.5 af 

#2 2.9 af 

#3 4.1 af 

76738 Brookings Madison WMD 07/11/2007 Ditch plug Fish and wildlife 6.8 — 

75060 Brookings Madison WMD 07/02/1999 Ditch Wildlife 11 — 

76925 Brookings Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 5.9 — 

76926 Brookings Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 14.9 — 

76929 Brookings Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 24.8 

74113 Brookings Madison WMD 10/15/1994 Ditch & tile Wildlife 1.2 — 

plug 

72436 Brookings Madison WMD 08/09/1990 Ditch plug Wildlife 3.1 — 

74115 Brookings Madison WMD 05/21/1994 Tile closer Wildlife 11 — 

72605 Brookings Madison WMD 08/05/1991 Dugout Stock, fish and 8.3 — 

wildlife 

74761 Brookings Madison WMD 07/27/1998 Ditch plug Wildlife 4 #1 3.6 af 

#2 0.4 af 

74530 Brookings Madison WMD 11/07/1996 Ditch plug Wildlife 16 #1 8 af 

#2 8 af 

74500 Brookings Madison WMD 10/17/1996 Ditch plug Wildlife 1 — 

74462 Brookings Madison WMD 09/09/1996 Ditch plug Wildlife 12 — 

74421 Brookings Madison WMD 08/29/1996 Dam Wildlife 3.2 — 
Appendix G—Location Notices 211 

Location 

notice no. County Area 

Priority 

date 

Structure 

type Use 

Storage 

acre-feet (af) 

Additional 

information 

74373 Brookings Madison WMD 07/31/1996 Dam/ditch plug Wildlife 3 — 

74360 Brookings Madison WMD 07/17/1996 Ditch plug Wildlife 9.5 — 

76694 Brookings Madison WMD 08/10/2006 Dugout Wildlife 1.8 — 

76750 Brookings Madison WMD 09/21/2007 Dam Fish and wildlife 0.6 — 

76749 Brookings Madison WMD 09/21/2007 Dam Fish and wildlife 1.7 — 

76026 Deuel Madison WMD 11/20/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 6 #1 1.4 af 

#2 4.6 af 

75140 Deuel Madison WMD 09/08/1999 Ditch Wildlife 13.5 #1 1.8 af 

#2 3.1 af 

#3 2.2 af 

#4 1.3 af 

#5 5.1 af 

76062 Deuel Madison WMD 11/26/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 11.6 — 

76005 Deuel Madison WMD 11/26/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 0.7 — 

76027 Deuel Madison WMD 11/20/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 14 #1 2.9 af 

#2 7.5 af 

#3 3.6 af 

76012 Deuel Madison WMD 10/15/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 12 — 

76020 Deuel Madison WMD 07/12/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 18.9 #1 2.2 af 

#2 1 af 

#3 7.8 af 

#4 1.3 af 

#5 6.6 af 

75153 Deuel Madison WMD 08/26/1999 Ditch Wildlife 5.8 #1 3.3 af 

#2 2.5 af 

75146 Deuel Madison WMD 08/26/1999 Ditch Wildlife 11.7 #1 1.5 af 

#2 1.2 af 

#3 4.1 af 

#4 4.9 af 

75136 Deuel Madison WMD 08/26/1999 Ditch Wildlife 4 #1 1.5 af 

#2 2.5 af 

75133 Deuel Madison WMD 08/26/1999 Ditch Wildlife 10.1 #1 2.6 af 

#2 1.7 af 

#3 1.5 af 

#4 4.3 af 

75131 Deuel Madison WMD 08/26/1999 Ditch Wildlife 9.2 #1 1.2 af 

#2 1.5 af 

#3 5.2 af 

#4 1.3 af 

75132 Deuel Madison WMD 08/26/1999 Ditch Wildlife 2.6 #1 1.4 af 

#2 1.2 af 

75137 Deuel Madison WMD 08/26/1999 Ditch Wildlife 19 #1 1.6 af 

#2 6.8 af 

#3 3.2 af 

#4 1.1 af 

#5 4.2 af 

#6 2.1 af 

75134 Deuel Madison WMD 08/26/1999 Ditch Wildlife 12.7 #1 5.4 af 

#2 2.8 af 

#3 1.6 af 

#4 2.9 af 

75147 Deuel Madison WMD 08/26/1999 Ditch Wildlife 5.1 — 
212 

Location Priority Structure Storage Additional 

notice no. County Area date type Use acre-feet (af) information 

75135 Deuel Madison WMD 08/26/1999 Ditch Wildlife 4.8 #1 2.5 af 

#2 2.3 af 

75139 Deuel Madison WMD 08/26/1999 Ditch Wildlife 20.6	 #1 4.1 af 

#2 10.5 af 

#3 1.2 af 

#4 4.8 af 

75820 Deuel Madison WMD 07/24/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 12.1	 #1 2.5 af 

#2 3.2 af 

#3 6.4 af 

76742 Deuel Madison WMD 07/01/2007 Ditch plug Fish and wildlife 9.7	 #1 1.4 af 

#2 0.8 af 

#3 7.5 af 

75152 Deuel Madison WMD 08/26/1999 Ditch Wildlife 4.1 — 

75154 Deuel Madison WMD 08/26/1999 Ditch Wildlife 21.7	 #1 3.6 af 

#2 6.8 af 

#3 8.6 af 

#4 2.7 af 

75142 Deuel Madison WMD 08/26/1999 Ditch Wildlife 11.8 #1 1.4 af 

#2 10.4 af 

76150 Deuel Madison WMD 06/05/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 8.9 — 

75815 Deuel Madison WMD 07/24/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 14.4	 #1 10.5 af 

#2 1.8 af 

#3 2.1 af 

75810 Deuel Madison WMD 10/01/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 12 — 

75795 Deuel Madison WMD 10/01/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 9	 #1 3 af 

#2 2 af 

#3 2 af 

#4 2 af 

75792 Deuel Madison WMD 10/01/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 20 — 

75793 Deuel Madison WMD 10/01/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 5 #1 3 af 

#2 2 af 

75138 Deuel Madison WMD 08/26/1999 Ditch Wildlife 10.4	 #1 1.2 af 

#2 5.9 af 

#3 1.7 af 

#4 1.6 af 

76149 Deuel Madison WMD 06/03/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 24.8	 #1 14.4 af 

#2 5.6 af 

#3 4.8 af 

76145 Deuel Madison WMD 06/03/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 1.4 — 

76144 Deuel Madison WMD 06/05/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 2.5 — 

76143 Deuel Madison WMD 06/03/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 13.9	 #1 4.7 af 

#2 0.6 af 

#3 8.6 af 

76739 Deuel Madison WMD 07/10/2007 Ditch plug Fish and wildlife 21 — 

76147 Deuel Madison WMD 06/03/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 9.6 #1 5.6 af 

#2 4 af 

76148 Deuel Madison WMD 06/03/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 18.5 #1 15.8 af 

#2 2.7 af 

76930 Deuel Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 24.9 — 

76931 Deuel Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 16.4 — 

76932 Deuel Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 16.7 — 
Appendix G—Location Notices 213 

Location Priority Structure Storage Additional 

notice no. County Area date type Use acre-feet (af) information 

76146 Deuel Madison WMD 06/03/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 19.8 #1 8.1 af 

#2 1.2 af 

#3 2.4 af 

#4 3.8 af 

#5 1.2 af 

#6 2.1 af 

#7 1 af 

76310 Deuel Madison WMD 10/23/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 23 — 

76623 Deuel Schaeffer WPA 09/08/2006 Dam Fish and wildlife 3.9 #1 0.8 af 

#2 1.7 af 

#3 1.4 af 

76321 Deuel Madison WMD 08/11/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 8.4 #1 3.3 af 

#2 0.6 af 

#3 0.8 af 

#4 2.3 af 

#5 0.9 af 

#6 0.5 af 

76128 Deuel Madison WMD 02/13/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 10 — 

76741 Deuel Madison WMD 07/10/2007 Ditch plug Fish and wildlife 15.8 — 

76740 Deuel Madison WMD 07/10/2007 Ditch plug Fish and wildlife 14.9 — 

76928 Deuel Madison WMD 05/26/2010 Dam Fish and wildlife 12.1 #1 0.9 af 

#2 2 af 

#3 4.2 af 

#4 1.1 af 

#5 1.8 af 

#6 0.3 af 

#7 1.8 af 

76933 Deuel Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 19.8 — 

76934 Deuel Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 17.7 — 

76935 Deuel Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 11.1 — 

76936 Deuel Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 23.4 — 

76937 Deuel Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 23.4 — 

76938 Deuel Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 16.9 — 

76939 Deuel Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 21.1 — 

76940 Deuel Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 13.3 — 

74917 Deuel Madison WMD 11/18/1998 Ditch plug Wildlife 0.5 — 

75355 Deuel Madison WMD 05/15/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 21.9 #1 5.3 af 

#2 3 af 

#3 4.8 af 

#4 2.5 af 

#5 3.5 af 

#6 2.8 af 

74919 Deuel Madison WMD 11/18/1998 Ditch plug Wildlife 13.5 — 

74918 Deuel Madison WMD 11/18/1998 Ditch plug Wildlife 9 #1 8 af 

#2 0.5 af 

#3 0.5 af 

75353 Deuel Madison WMD 05/12/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 2.2 — 

75354 Deuel Madison WMD 05/12/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 10.3 #1 3.5 af 

#2 6.8 af 

74706 Deuel Madison WMD 10/15/1997 Dam/ditch plug Wildlife 11.4 #1 4.6 af 

#2 6.8 af 
214 

Location Priority Structure Storage Additional 

notice no. County Area date type Use acre-feet (af) information 

74705 Deuel Madison WMD 10/15/1997 Dam/ditch plug Wildlife 24.2	 #1 2.2 af 

#2 4 af 

#3 5 af 

#4 13 af 

74704 Deuel Madison WMD 10/15/1997 Dam/ditch plug Wildlife 13.8	 #1 4.4 af 

#2 1.2 af 

#3 3.4 af 

#4 4.8 af 

74703 Deuel Madison WMD 10/15/1997 Dam/ditch plug Wildlife 24.8 #1 14.2 af 

#2 10.6 af 

74685 Deuel Madison WMD 10/15/1997 Dam/ditch plug Wildlife 4.4 — 

74684 Deuel Madison WMD 10/15/1997 Dam/ditch plug Wildlife 8.8 — 

74683 Deuel Madison WMD 10/15/1997 Dam/ditch plug Wildlife 19.2 #1 6.4 af 

#2 12.8 af 

74709 Deuel Madison WMD 10/15/1997 Dam/ditch plug Wildlife 24.8 — 

74708 Deuel Madison WMD 10/15/1997 Dam/ditch plug Wildlife 14.4 — 

74681 Deuel Madison WMD 10/15/1997 Dam/ditch plug Wildlife 3 — 

75496 Deuel Madison WMD 09/19/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 12.8 #1 2.4 af

 #2 1.6 af

 #3 3 af

 #4 5.8 af 

75495 Deuel Madison WMD 09/19/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 15.6 #1 2.4 af

 #2 3.2 af

 #3 1 af

 #4 0.8 af

 #5 1 af

 #6 0.8 af

 #7 6.4 af 

75471 Deuel Madison WMD 09/18/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 20.4 — 

75466 Deuel Madison WMD 09/13/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 21.6 — 

75491 Deuel Madison WMD 09/19/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 18.4 #1 4.2 af

 #2 7.4 af

 #3 1.4 af

 #4 1.6 af

 #5 3.8 af 

72802 Deuel Madison WMD 10/15/1991 Ditch plug Wildlife 11.5 #1 9 af

 #2 2.5 af 

74501 Deuel Madison WMD 10/16/1996 Ditch plug Wildlife 1 — 

74499 Deuel Madison WMD 10/16/1996 Ditch plug Wildlife 18 — 

74341 Deuel Madison WMD 06/03/1996 Dam/ditch plug Wildlife 6 — 

74682 Deuel Madison WMD 10/15/1997 Dam/ditch plug Wildlife 12 #1 8.4 af

 #2 3.6 af 

74707 Deuel Madison WMD 10/15/1997 Dam/ditch plug Wildlife 23.6 #1 1 af

 #2 1 af

 #3 21.6 af 

74680 Deuel Madison WMD 10/15/1997 Dam/ditch plug Wildlife 20.6 #1 7.6 af

 #2 2.4 af

 #3 10.6 af 

22406 Deuel Madison WMD 08/18/1961 Dry draw dam Stock 1.2 — 

75286 Deuel Madison WMD 12/19/1999 Dam Wildlife 18.3 — 

75483 Deuel Madison WMD 09/27/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 1.8 — 
Appendix G—Location Notices 215 

Location 

notice no. County Area 

Priority 

date 

Structure 

type Use 

Storage 

acre-feet (af) 

Additional 

information 

76760 Deuel Madison WMD 09/04/2007 Dugout Stock 1 — 

75255 Deuel Madison WMD 11/19/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 14.2 #1 3.2 af

 #2 1.4 af

 #3 0.9 af

 #4 1.1 af

 #5 2.7 af

 #6 3.1 af

 #7 1.8 af 

74920 Deuel Madison WMD 11/18/1998 Ditch plug Wildlife 3.5 #1 1.5 af

 #2 2 af 

73567 Deuel Madison WMD 07/15/1993 Dam/ditch plug Wildlife 5.6 — 

75513 Hamlin Madison WMD 10/24/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 16.6 #1 6.1 af

 #2 5.8 af

 #34.7 af 

75512 Hamlin Madison WMD 10/24/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 1 — 

75514 Hamlin Madison WMD 10/24/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 24.5 #1 10.5 af

 #2 14 af 

74519 Hamlin Madison WMD 10/31/1996 Ditch plug Wildlife 5 #1 2 af

 #2 3 af 

74518 Hamlin Madison WMD 10/31/1996 Dam Wildlife 10 — 

73223 Hamlin Madison WMD 090/8/1992 Dugout Stock 12.8 — 

75805 Hamlin Madison WMD 07/24/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 6.3 #1 2.1 af 

#2 4.2 af 

74829 Hamlin Madison WMD 09/28/1998 Ditch Wildlife 6.1 #1 3.8 af 

#2 2.3 af 

76332 Hamlin Madison WMD 08/25/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 18 — 

74993 Hamlin Madison WMD 05/05/1999 Ditch Wildlife 1.8 — 

16803 Hamlin Madison WMD 10/16/1959 Dam Stock 1.2 — 

48932 Hamlin Madison WMD 05/12/1970 Dry Draw Stock — — 

76323 Hamlin Madison WMD 07/27/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 18 — 

73167 Hamlin Madison WMD 08/21/1992 Ditch plug Wildlife 11 — 

76019 Kingsbury Madison WMD 02/21/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 8 — 

66260 Kingsbury Madison WMD 06/23/1978 Dry draw Stock 1.1 — 

76479 Kingsbury Madison WMD 10/12/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 15.8 #1 1.5 af 

#2 0.6 af 

#3 1.1 af 

#4 0.6 af 

#5 6.8 af 

#6 0.8 af 

#7 2.1 af 

#8 0.6 af 

#9 1.7 af 

73219 Kingsbury Madison WMD 09/09/1992 Dam/ditch Stock 17.3 — 

76478 Kingsbury Madison WMD 10/12/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 9.9 #1 0.5 af 

#2 1.4 af 

#3 1.5 af 

#4 0.8 af 

#5 0.9 af 

#6 1.7 af 

#7 1.4 af 

#8 0.8 af 

#9 0.9 af 
216 

Location Priority Structure Storage Additional 

notice no. County Area date type Use acre-feet (af) information 

73220 Kingsbury Madison WMD 09/09/1992 Dam/ditch Stock 5.5 — 

76320 Kingsbury Madison WMD 08/11/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 14.2	 #1 3.3 af 

#2 0.6 af 

#3 1.5 af 

#4 7.4 af 

#5 1.4 af 

03099 Kingsbury Madison WMD 08/02/1971 Dugout Stock 1.3 — 

76329 Kingsbury Madison WMD 08/11/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 13.1	 #1 3.5 af 

#2 5.7 af 

#3 3 af 

16673 Kingsbury Madison WMD 10/28/1959 Dugout Stock 1.5 — 

76319 Kingsbury Madison WMD 08/11/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 13.6	 #1 1.1 af 

#2 1.9 af 

#3 1.5 af 

#4 1.2 af 

#5 2.1 af 

#6 1.8 af 

#7 0.8 af 

#8 0.9 af 

#9 2.3 af 

75816 Kingsbury Ratfield WPA 07/24/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 5.5 — 

76318 Kingsbury Madison WMD 08/11/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 15 — 

76340 Kingsbury Madison WMD 09/15/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 14.4	 #1 1.7 af 

#2 3.2 af 

#3 3.6 af 

#4 2.1 af 

#5 2.1 af 

#6 1 af 

76013 Kingsbury Madison WMD 09/09/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 2 — 

76341 Kingsbury Madison WMD 09/15/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 11.4	 #1 0.6 af 

#2 2 af 

#3 1.5 af 

#4 2.3 af 

#5 1.2 af 

#6 3.8 af 

72814 Kingsbury Madison WMD 06/01/1991 Dugout Stock 22.5 — 

76924 Kingsbury Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 4.4 — 

74517 Kingsbury Madison WMD 11/01/1996 Ditch plug Wildlife 22	 #1 1 af 

#2 1 af 

#3 1 af 

#4 2 af 

#5 17 af 

73017 Kingsbury Madison WMD 06/22/1992 Tile riser plug Wildlife 24 — 

74114 Kingsbury Madison WMD 10/15/1994 Ditch plug Wildlife 1.8 — 

74118 Kingsbury Madison WMD 07/01/1994 Dam Wildlife 0.8 — 

72722 Kingsbury Madison WMD 09/30/1991 Dam/ditch plug Wildlife 5 — 

74811 Lake Madison WMD 09/09/1998 Ditch Wildlife 3.4 #1 1.2 af 

#2 2.2 af 

15936 Lake Madison WMD 09/17/1959 Dry draw Stock 1 — 

12303 Lake Madison WMD 02/11/1959 Dry draw Stock 1 — 

53381 Lake Madison WMD 11/24/1971 Dry draw Stock 1 — 

40540 Lake Madison WMD 07/26/1967 Dry draw Stock 1 — 
Appendix G—Location Notices 217 

Location 

notice no. County Area 

Priority 

date 

Structure 

type Use 

Storage 

acre-feet (af) 

Additional 

information 

17459 Lake Madison WMD 12/31/1959 Dry draw Stock 1 — 

51626 Lake Madison WMD 06/28/1971 Dry draw Stock 0.9 — 

75808 Lake Madison WMD 07/23/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 21.7 #1 4 af 

#2 3 af 

#3 3.2 af 

#4 8 af 

#5 3.5 af 

Lake Madison WMD 04/04/1972 Well Domestic — — 

47766 Lake Madison WMD 10/15/1969 Dry draw Stock 1 — 

76137 Lake Madison WMD 04/08/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 22 — 

75809 Lake Madison WMD 07/23/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 10 — 

76142 Lake Madison WMD 04/29/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 5 #1 3 af 

#2 2 af 

76141 Lake Madison WMD 04/29/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 5 — 

76014 Lake Madison WMD 07/11/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 2.5 — 

76140 Lake Madison WMD 04/29/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 10.8 #1 3.2 af 

#2 7.6 af 

76006 Lake Madison WMD 11/04/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 20.8 #1 6.5 af 

#2 13 af 

#3 1.3 af 

76138 Lake Madison WMD 04/28/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 22.5 — 

76025 Lake Madison WMD 05/21/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 9.9 #1 1.2 af 

#2 6.6 af 

#3 2.1 af 

76136 Lake Madison WMD 04/08/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 11 — 

76135 Lake Madison WMD 04/07/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 19.2 #1 3.4 af 

#2 5.2 af 

#3 10.6 af 

76134 Lake Madison WMD 04/08/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 13 — 

76133 Lake Madison WMD 04/07/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 12.2 #1 9 af 

#2 3.2 af 

76132 Lake Madison WMD 04/07/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 11.2 #1 7 af 

#2 3.3 af 

#3 0.9 af 

76131 Lake Madison WMD 04/07/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 17 — 

76139 Lake Madison WMD 04/29/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 8.6 #1 1.7 af 

#2 1.5 af 

#3 4.5 af 

#4 0.9 af 

75812 Lake Madison WMD 11/01/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 20 — 

75814 Lake Madison WMD 08/14/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 2.5 — 

75804 Lake Madison WMD 07/23/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 18.2 #1 8.5 af 

#2 6.2 af 

#3 3.5 af 

75811 Lake Madison WMD 11/01/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 21.1 #1 10 af 

#2 2.3 af 

#3 5.2 af 

#4 1 af 

#5 1.2 af 

#6 1.4 af 
218 

Location Priority Structure Storage Additional 

notice no. County Area date type Use acre-feet (af) information 

75818 Lake Madison WMD 01/29/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 15.5 — 

75817 Lake Madison WMD 01/29/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 11 — 

75813 Lake Madison WMD 10/24/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 7.6	 #1 4.5 af 

#2 1.3 af 

#3 1.8 af 

75167 Lake Madison WMD 09/28/1999 Ditch Wildlife 5.2 #1 1.5 af 

#2 3.7 af 

74116 Lake Madison WMD 07/01/1994 Dam Wildlife 6.22	 #1 0.5 af 

#2 10.5 af 

#3 1.4 af 

74119 Lake Madison WMD 09/25/1994 Tile riser Wildlife 8 — 

75486 Lake Madison WMD 09/29/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 18.6 #1 8.1 af

 #2 9.1 af

 #3 1.4 af 

75515 Lake Madison WMD 10/24/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 20.5 — 

74735 McCook Madison WMD 05/27/1998 Ditch plug Wildlife 10 — 

75585 McCook Madison WMD 12/20/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 11.4 #1 4.2 af 

#2 7.2 af 

75583 McCook Madison WMD 12/20/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 20.5 

75588 McCook Madison WMD 12/20/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 8.6	 #1 2.9 af 

#2 3.2 af 

#3 2.5 af 

75821 McCook Madison WMD 07/11/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 14.2	 #1 1 af 

#2 2.1 af 

#3 1 af 

#4 2.5 af 

#5 4.5 af 

#6 3.1 af 

74803 McCook Madison WMD 05/27/1998 Ditch Wildlife 10 — 

938 McCook Madison WMD 09/05/1968 Dugout Stock 0.8 — 

75819 McCook Madison WMD 01/16/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 5 #1 2.6 af 

#2 2.4 af 

149 McCook Madison WMD 11/13/1956 Dugout Stock 1 — 

73218 McCook Madison WMD 09/14/1992 Dam/Ditch Stock 4.3 — 

23645 McCook Madison WMD 10/27/1961 Dry Draw Stock 1.1 — 

76480 Miner Madison WMD 11/16/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 6.7	 #1 2.1 af 

#2 3.2 af 

#3 1.4 af 

72813 Miner Madison WMD 06/01/1991 Dugout Stock 22 — 

72812 Miner Madison WMD 06/01/1991 Dugout Stock 20.2 — 

75003 Miner Madison WMD 06/15/1999 Ditch Wildlife 14	 #1 8.5 af 

#2 1.7 af 

#3 3.8 af 

76485 Miner Madison WMD 10/06/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 11.7	 #1 4.1 af 

#2 1.2 af 

#3 1.7 af 

#4 3 af 

#5 1.7 af 

76484 Miner Madison WMD 12/21/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 2.3 #1 1.5 af 

#2 0.8 af 
Appendix G—Location Notices 219 

Location 

notice no. County Area 

Priority 

date 

Structure 

type Use 

Storage 

acre-feet (af) 

Additional 

information 

75063 Miner Madison WMD 07/13/1999 Ditch Wildlife 3.1 #1 1.3 af 

#2 1.8 af 

76482 Miner Madison WMD 11/16/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 10.3 #1 4.8 af 

#2 1.4 af 

#3 0.9 af 

#4 3.2 af 

75002 Miner Madison WMD 06/15/1999 Ditch Wildlife 14.2 #1 2.4 af 

#2 2 af 

#3 9.8 af 

76481 Miner Madison WMD 11/16/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 23.1 #1 20.1 af 

#2 3 af 

76483 Miner Madison WMD 11/16/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 1.1 — 

75059 Miner Madison WMD 07/13/1999 Ditch Wildlife 8.3 #1 1.7 af 

#2 1.8 af 

#3 1.7 af 

#4 1.7 af 

#5 0.6 af 

#6 0.8 af 

76335 Miner Hein WPA 05/03/2004 Ditch plug Wildlife 14.5 #1 2.3 af 

#2 12.2 af 

76017 Miner Madison WMD 04/01/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 2.6 #1 0.8 af 

#2 0.4 af 

#3 1.4 af 

76016 Miner Madison WMD 05/09/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 18.7 #1 1.2 af 

#2 3 af 

#3 0.6 af 

#4 1.6 af 

#5 12.3 af 

76324 Miner Madison WMD 08/24/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 2.6 #1 2.3 af 

#2 0.3 af 

76316 Miner Madison WMD 08/02/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 8.5 #1 7.5 af 

#2 1 af 

75807 Miner Madison WMD 07/11/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 1.5 — 

76314 Miner Madison WMD 08/02/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 23.2 #1 2.6 af 

#2 13.5 af 

#3 1.4 af 

#4 1.8 af 

#5 3.9 af 

76313 Miner Madison WMD 08/02/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 20.9 — 

76018 Miner Madison WMD 04/04/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 23.5 #1 5.2 af 

#2 3.2 af 

#3 2.2 af 

#4 1.4 af 

#5 1.4 af 

#6 3 af 

#7 3.8 af 

#8 2.7 af 

#9 0.6 af 

76336 Miner Madison WMD 04/21/2004 Ditch plug Wildlife 13.9 #1 2.7 af 

#2 2.9 af 

#3 8.3 af 

76311 Miner Madison WMD 08/02/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 1.2 — 
220 

Location Priority Structure Storage Additional 

notice no. County Area date type Use acre-feet (af) information 

76334 Miner Madison WMD 05/03/2004 Ditch plug Wildlife 8	 #1 2.3 af 

#2 3.5 af 

#3 1 af 

#4 1.2 af 

76333 Miner Madison WMD 04/05/2004 Ditch plug Wildlife 9.2 #1 5.3 af 

#2 3.9 af 

76326 Miner Madison WMD 08/24/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 6.5 — 

76325 Miner Madison WMD 08/24/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 15.5 #1 8.7 af 

#2 6.8 af 

76322 Miner Madison WMD 08/24/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 2.3 — 

76317 Miner Madison WMD 08/02/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 15.4	 #1 3.6 af 

#2 10.8 af 

#3 1 af 

76312 Miner Madison WMD 08/02/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 10.9	 #1 1 af 

#2 4.5 af 

#3 1.8 af 

#4 2.4 af 

#5 1.2 af 

76328 Miner Madison WMD 08/11/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 12 — 

75144 Miner Madison WMD 08/11/1999 Ditch Wildlife 6.9	 #1 4.1 af 

#2 1.5 af 

#3 1.3 af 

74804 Miner Madison WMD 05/27/1998 Ditch Wildlife 8 — 

75062 Miner Madison WMD 08/02/1999 Ditch Wildlife 5.1	 #1 1.2 af 

#2 1.4 af 

#3 1.4 af 

#4 1.1 af 

76315 Miner Madison WMD 08/02/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 2 — 

75143 Miner Madison WMD 08/11/1999 Ditch Wildlife 16.5	 #1 4.5 af 

#2 9.8 af 

#3 1 af 

#4 1.2 af 

76015 Miner Madison WMD 05/09/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 8.4	 #1 0.8 af 

#2 0.8 af 

#3 2 af 

#4 2.8 af 

#5 0.8 af 

#6 1.2 af 

75145 Miner Madison WMD 08/11/1999 Ditch Wildlife 8.1 #1 3.5 af 

#2 4.6 af 

75065 Miner Madison WMD 08/11/1999 Ditch Wildlife 4.5 — 

75806 Miner Madison WMD 07/11/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 12.6	 #1 3.5 af 

#2 1.5 af 

#3 1.8 af 

#4 1.2 af 

#5 4.6 af 

76021 Miner Madison WMD 04/01/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 7 — 

76024 Miner Madison WMD 04/01/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 14.4	 #1 2 af 

#2 0.8 af 

#3 1 af 

#4 2 af 

#5 3.6 af 

#6 5 af 
Appendix G—Location Notices 221 

Location 

notice no. County Area 

Priority 

date 

Structure 

type Use 

Storage 

acre-feet (af) 

Additional 

information 

76022 Miner Madison WMD 04/01/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 4.8 #1 1.2 af 

#2 1.7 af 

#3 1.9 af 

76023 Miner Madison WMD 04/01/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 11 #1 1.6 af 

#2 3 af 

#3 2.6 af 

#4 1 af 

#5 2.8 af 

75066 Miner Madison WMD 08/11/1999 Ditch Wildlife 14.7 #1 3.2 af 

#2 2.2 af 

#3 3.5 af 

#4 1.2 af 

#5 4.6 af 

76922 Miner Madison WMD 05/26/2010 Dam Fish and wildlife 24 — 

75379 Miner Madison WMD 06/19/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 15.8 #1 5.2 af 

#2 2.5 af 

#3 5.8 af 

#4 2.3 af 

74327 Miner Madison WMD 04/26/1996 Ditch plug Wildlife 7 — 

74326 Miner Madison WMD 04/26/1996 Ditch plug Wildlife 5 — 

74573 Miner Madison WMD 05/27/1997 Ditch plug Wildlife 2 — 

74180 Miner Madison WMD 08/23/1995 Ditch plug Wildlife 6.5 — 

75582 Miner Madison WMD 12/21/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 14.6 #1 1 af 

#2 7.4 af 

#3 1.4 af 

#4 0.8 af 

#5 1.2 af 

#6 2.8 af 

75190 Miner Madison WMD 10/13/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 5.9 #1 1.8 af 

#2 4.1 af 

74736 Miner Madison WMD 5/27/1998 Ditch plug Wildlife 5 — 

75228 Miner Madison WMD 10/19/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 12.9 #1 1.9 af 

#2 1.2 af 

#3 4.2 af 

#4 1.8 af 

#5 2.1 af 

#6 1.7 af 

75291 Miner Madison WMD 07/29/1999 Ditch plug Wildlife 24.4 #1 3.8 af 

#2 8.5 af 

#3 5.4 af 

#4 6.7 af 

74181 Miner Madison WMD 08/21/1995 Ditch plug Wildlife 17.3 #1 10 af 

#2 5.3 af 

#3 2 af 

76923 Miner Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 6.2 — 

73221 Minnehaha Madison WMD 09/14/1992 Dugout Stock 7.5 — 

75015 Minnehaha Madison WMD 05/07/1999 Ditch Wildlife 14.5 — 

74808 Minnehaha Madison WMD 08/28/1998 Ditch Wildlife 4.3 #1 1.8 af 

#2 1 af 

#3 1.5 af 

72816 Minnehaha Madison WMD 12/24/1991 Dugout Stock 1.5 — 

72817 Minnehaha Madison WMD 12/24/1991 Dam Fish and wildlife 20.25 — 
222 

Location Priority Structure Storage Additional 

notice no. County Area date type Use acre-feet (af) information 

75796 Minnehaha Madison WMD 10/15/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 8	 #1 4 af 

#2 2 af 

#3 2 af 

76505 Minnehaha Kindt/Munce WPA 08/15/2005 Dam Fish and wildlife 10 — 

59109 Moody Madison WMD 09/18/1974 Dry draw Stock 2 — 

76330 Moody Madison WMD 08/08/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 3.8 #1 2.8 af 

#2 1 af 

74516 Moody Madison WMD 10/31/1996 Dam/ditch Wildlife 9.9 — 

74476 Moody Fannie Anderson WPA 09/28/1996 Dam Wildlife 4.5 — 

774 Moody Madison WMD 09/08/1975 Dugout Stock 2 — 

34284 Moody Madison WMD 07/14/1965 Dry draw Stock 1 — 

57878 Moody Madison WMD 07/19/1974 Dry draw Stock 2 — 

74477 Moody Fannie Anderson WPA 09/22/1996 Dam Wildlife 18.7 — 

76331 Moody Madison WMD 08/25/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 7.6	 #1 4.2 af 

#2 2.3 af 

#3 0.5 af 

#4 0.6 af 

73016 Moody Madison WMD 07/07/1992 Ditch plug Fish and wildlife 24 — 

717 Moody Madison WMD 11/12/1974 Dugout Stock 2 — 

136 Moody Madison WMD 10/31/1958 Dugout Stock 2.5 — 

389 Moody Madison WMD 08/29/1966 Dugout Stock 2 — 

76126 Moody Madison WMD 04/7/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 22.2	 #1 12 af 

#2 1.5 af 

#3 6.3 af 

#4 2.4 af 

76127 Moody Madison WMD 04/7/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 18.4	 #1 3.5 af 

#2 6.6 af 

#3 2.8 af 

#4 3 af 

#5 2.5 af 

76129 Moody Madison WMD 04/7/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 22.2	 #1 15.7 af 

#2 1.9 af 

#3 4.6 af 

490 Moody Madison WMD 6/6/1968 Dugout Stock 2 — 

76130 Moody Madison WMD 4/7/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 22.2	 #1 2.2 af 

#2 1.8 af 

#3 3.6 af 

#4 3.3 af 

#5 1.9 af 

#6 1.9 af 

#7 1.8 af 

#8 2.5 af 

#9 3.2 af 

74763 Moody Madison WMD 07/27/1998 Ditch plug Wildlife 5.6	 #1 4.2 af 

#2 0.4 af 

#3 1 af 

74762 Moody Madison WMD 07/27/1998 Ditch plug Wildlife 16.1	 #1 13 af 

#2 1.5 af 

#3 0.9 af 

#4 0.7 af 

74468 Moody Madison WMD 09/29/1996 Ditch plug Wildlife 3 — 
Appendix G—Location Notices 223 

Location 

notice no. County Area 

Priority 

date 

Structure 

type Use 

Storage 

acre-feet (af) 

Additional 

information 

74117 Moody Madison WMD 07/01/1994 Dam Wildlife 1.8 #1 1.2 af 

#2 0.6 af 

76743 Moody Madison WMD 10/18/2006 Dam Wildlife 3.4 — 

74475 Moody Madison WMD 09/21/1996 Ditch plug Wildlife 20 #1 0.25 af 

#2 0.50 af 

#3 0.25 af 

#4 1.5 af 

#5 0.25 af 

#6 16 af 

#7 0.25 af 

#8 0.25 af 

#9 0.75 af 

SAND LAKE WETLAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LOCATION NOTICES
 

Location Priority Structure Storage Additional 

notice no. County Area date type Use acre-feet (af) information 

5922-3 Brown Sand Lake WMD 07/15/1954 Dugout Stock 1.1 — 

69151 Brown Sand Lake WMD 11/06/1981 Dugout Stock 1.3 — 

3065 Brown Sand Lake WMD 06/06/1956 Dugout Stock 1.16 — 

312-1664 Brown Sand Lake WMD 07/22/1974 Dugout Stock 0.8 — 

15559 Brown Sand Lake WMD 09/01/1959 Dugout Stock 1.5 — 

52813 Brown Sand Lake WMD 10/08/1971 Dugout Stock 1.1 — 

36845 Brown Sand Lake WMD 06/27/1966 Dam Stock 1.5 — 

47469 Brown Sand Lake WMD 09/02/1969 Dugout Stock 1.1 — 

74285 Brown Sand Lake WMD 04/20/1995 Dam Wildlife 8 — 

73088 Brown Sand Lake WMD 08/04/1992 Dugout Stock and wildlife 1 — 

73089 Brown Sand Lake WMD 08/04/1992 Dugout Wildlife 1 — 

73180 Brown Sand Lake WMD 08/4/1992 Dugout Stock and wildlife 1 — 

73185 Brown Sand Lake WMD 08/04/1992 Dugout Wildlife 1 — 

76-456 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 12/06/1976 Dugout Stock 1.8 — 

74-397 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 09/11/1974 Dugout Stock 1.25 — 

67-485 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 11/10/1967 Dugout Stock 0.9 — 

70-443 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 09/02/1970 Dugout Stock 1.25 — 

80-430 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 09/24/1980 Dugout Stock 1.4 — 

42628 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 10/23/1957 Dugout Stock 0.8 — 

25250 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 09/10/1962 Dugout Stock 1.8 — 

39764 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 07/27/1956 Dugout Stock 1.2 — 

45199 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 10/13/1958 Dugout Stock 1.2 — 

42683 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 10/31/1957 Dugout Stock 0.6 — 

39806 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 08/08/1956 Dugout Stock 1.2 — 

28713 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 11/19/1951 Dam Stock 0.3 — 

59146 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 08/22/1966 Dugout Stock 1.5 — 

71-183 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 04/21/1971 Dugout Stock 1.3 — 

67-458 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 11/06/1967 Dugout Stock 1.2 — 

52455 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 07/16/1962 Dugout Stock 1.53 — 

55520 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 09/14/1964 Dugout Stock 1.5 — 
224 

Location 

notice no. County Area 

Priority 

date 

Structure 

type Use 

Storage 

acre-feet (af) 

Additional 

information 

34113 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 03/27/1954 Dugout Stock 1.7 — 

70-442 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 09/02/1970 Dugout Stock 1.25 — 

41819 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 07/31/1957 Dugout Stock 1.5 — 

71-723 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 12/21/1971 Dugout Stock 1.2 — 

29726 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 08/29/1952 Dam Stock 1.9 — 

75-429 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 10/27/1975 Dugout Stock 1.25 — 

80-376 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 09/02/1980 Dugout Stock 1.8 — 

59207 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 09/13/1966 Dugout Stock 1.4 — 

28009 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 10/22/1951 Dugout Stock 1.9 — 

56721 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 07/02/1965 Dugout Stock 1.5 — 

73-551 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 11/08/1973 Dugout Stock 1.3 — 

56954 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 09/07/1965 Dugout Stock 1.8 — 

74-189 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 05/06/1974 Dugout Stock 1.25 — 

69-471 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 10/03/1969 Dugout Stock 1.3 — 

40424 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 11/20/1956 Dugout Stock 1.2 — 

74384 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 08/05/1996 Dam Wildlife 10 — 

74383 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 08/05/1996 Dam Wildlife 10 — 

73401 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 09/23/1992 Dugout Stock and wildlife 0.15 — 

73400 Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 09/23/1992 Dugout Stock 0.9 — 

B-2345 Faulk Sand Lake WMD 07/08/1958 Dugout Stock 0.6 — 

73492 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 06/01/1993 Dam Wildlife 15 — 

73491 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 06/02/1993 Dam Wildlife 13.5 — 

70272 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 09/10/1984 Dry draw dam Storage 1 — 

70063 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 11/02/1983 Dry draw dam Storage 1.1 — 

69995 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 09/29/1983 Dry draw dam Storage 1 — 

112 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 08/09/1967 Dugout Stock 1.1 — 

105266 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 12/16/1959 Dugout Stock 1.2 — 

107665 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 11/27/1961 Dugout Stock 1.3 — 

285 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 10/09/1967 Dugout Stock 1.2 — 

2566 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 12/30/1971 Dugout Stock 1.1 — 

112333 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 12/28/1965 Dugout Stock 1.5 — 

105959 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 08/11/1960 Dugout Stock 1.8 — 

1079 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 09/17/1968 Dugout Stock 1.5 — 

109311 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 05/21/1963 Dugout Stock 1.3 — 

4801 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 07/27/1977 Dam Stock 1.1 — 

4392 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 06/04/1976 Dam Stock 1.1 — 

4857 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 09/12/1977 Dugout Stock 1.1 — 

105978 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 08/19/1960 Dugout Stock 1.2 — 

110951 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 11/02/1964 Dugout Stock 1.8 — 

104681 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 07/08/1959 Dugout Stock 1.2 — 

1608 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 10/31/1969 Dugout Stock 1 — 

63792 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 08/05/1976 Dam Stock 1 — 

101611 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 09/22/1957 Dugout Stock 1.5 — 

9889 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 09/03/1958 Dugout Stock 1.2 — 

8294 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 01/17/1986 Dugout Stock 0.75 — 
Appendix G—Location Notices 225 

Location Priority Structure Storage Additional 

notice no. County Area date type Use acre-feet (af) information 

104699 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 07/16/1959 Dugout Stock 1.2 — 

6010 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 06/02/1980 Dugout Stock 0.9 — 

3485 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 10/05/1973 Dugout Stock 0.9 — 

101701 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 10/14/1957 Dugout Stock 1.25 — 

108781 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 12/05/1962 Dugout Stock 1.28 — 

101161 McPherson Sand Lake WMD 07/08/1957 Dugout Stock 1.25 — 

106716 Potter Sand Lake WMD 06/24/1976 Dugout Stock 1.8 — 

1669 Spink Sand Lake WMD 12/15/1972 Dugout Stock 1.1 — 

57003 Spink Sand Lake WMD 09/14/1981 Dugout Stock 2.9 — 

54068 Spink Sand Lake WMD 07/22/1966 Dugout Stock 1.5 — 

56726 Spink Sand Lake WMD 07/06/1976 Dam Stock 1.5 — 

Appendix H 

South Dakota Species 

BIRDS

Common name Scientific name 

Common Loon Gavia immer 

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps 

Loons 

Grebes 

Horned Grebe2 Podiceps auritus 

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena 

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis 

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis 

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 

American Bittern2 Botaurus lentiginosus 

Pelicans 

Cormorants 

Herons and Bitterns 

Least Bittern2 Ixobrychus exilis 

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias 

Great Egret Ardea alba 

Snowy Egret Egretta thula 

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis 

Green Heron Butorides virescens 

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax 

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi 

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons 

Ibises 

Vultures 

Swans, Geese, and Ducks 

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens 

Ross’ Goose Chen rossii 

Canada Goose Branta canadensis 

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus 

Wood Duck Aix sponsa 

Gadwall Anas strepera 

American Wigeon Anas americana 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors 

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata 

Northern Pintail Anas acuta 

1
228 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Common name Scientific name 

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria 

Redhead Aythya americana 

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris 

Greater Scaup Aythya marila 

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 

Common Merganser Mergus merganser 

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator 

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis 

Kites, Eagles, and Hawks 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

Bald Eagle2 Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 

Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii 

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis 

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus 

Swainson’s Hawk2 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 Falcon2 Falco peregrinus 

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus 

Partridge, Pheasant, Grouse, Turkey, and Quail 

Gray Partridge (Introduced) Perdix perdix 

Ring-necked Pheasant (Introduced) Phasianus colchicus 

Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus 

Greater Prairie-Chicken Tympanuchus cupido 

Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo 

Rails, Gallinules, and Coots 

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola 

Sora Porzana carolina 

American Coot Fulica americana 

Cranes 

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis 

Whooping Crane Grus americana 

Plovers 

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola 

American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica 
Appendix H—South Dakota Species 229 

Common name Scientific name 

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus 

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus 

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 

Stilts and Avocets 

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana 

Sandpipers and Phalaropes 

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria 

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus 

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia 

Upland Sandpiper2 Bartramia longicauda 

Long-billed Curlew2 Numenius americanus 

Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica 

Marbled Godwit2 Limosa fedoa 

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres 

Sanderling Calidris alba 

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla 

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla 

White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis 

Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii 

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos 

Dunlin Calidris alpina 

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus 

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus 

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus 

Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago delicata 

American Woodcock Scolopax minor 

Wilson’s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor 

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 

Jaegers, Gulls, and Terns 

Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan 

Bonaparte’s Gull Larus philadelphia 

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis 

Herring Gull Larus argentatus 

Common Tern Sterna hirundo 

Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri 

Least Tern Sterna antillarum 

Black Tern2 Chlidonias niger 

Pigeons and Doves 

Rock Pigeon (Introduced) Columba livia 

Eurasian Collared-dove (Introduced) Streptopelia decaocto 

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura 

Cuckoos and Anis 

Black-billed Cuckoo2 Coccyzus erythropthalmus 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus 
230 

Common name Scientific name 

Eastern Screech-Owl 

Typical Owls 

Otus asio 

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus 

Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca 

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia 

Long-eared Owl Asio otus 

Short-eared Owl2 

Common Nighthawk 

Goatsuckers 

Asio flammeus 

Chordeiles minor 

Whip-poor-will 

Chimney Swift 

Ruby-throated Hummingbird 

Belted Kingfisher 

Red-headed Woodpecker2 

Swifts 

Hummingbirds 

Kingfishers 

Woodpeckers 

Caprimulgus vociferus 

Chaetura pelagica 

Archilochus colubris 

Ceryle alcyon 

Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus 

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius 

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens 

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus 

Northern Flicker 

Eastern Wood-Pewee 

Tyrant Flycatchers 

Colaptes auratus 

Contopus virens 

Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum 

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii 

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus 

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe 

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus 

Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis 

Eastern Kingbird 

Loggerhead Shrike 

Shrikes 

Tyrannus tyrannus 

Lanius ludovicianus 

Northern Shrike 

Yellow-throated Vireo 

Vireos 

Lanius excubitor 

Vireo flavifrons 

Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius 

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus 

Red-eyed Vireo 

Blue Jay 

Vireo olivaceus 

Jays, Magpies, and Crows 

Cyanocitta cristata 

Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia 

American Crow 

Horned Lark 

Larks 

Corvus brachyrhynchos 

Eremophila alpestris 
Appendix H—South Dakota Species 231 

Common name Scientific name 

Swallows 

Purple Martin Progne subis 

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor 

Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia 

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 

Titmice 

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapilla 

Nuthatches 

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis 

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 

Creepers 

Brown Creeper Certhia americana 

Wrens 

House Wren Troglodytes aedon 

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis 

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris 

Kinglets 

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa 

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula 

Thrushes 

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis 

Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus 

Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus 

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus 

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina 

American Robin Turdus migratorius 

Mockingbirds and Thrashers 

Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis 

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum 

Starlings 

European Starling (Introduced) Sturnus vulgaris 

Pipits 

American Pipit Anthus rubescens 

Sprague’s Pipit2 Anthus spragueii 

Waxwings 

Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus 

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 

Wood-Warblers 

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina 

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata 

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla 

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia 

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica 

Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia 
232 

Common name Scientific name 

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata 

Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens 

Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca 

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 aurocapillus 

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis 

Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia 

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 

Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla 

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis 

Tanagers 

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea 

Towhees, Sparrows, Juncos, and Longspurs 

Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus 

Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea 

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina 

Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida 

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla 

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 

Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus 

Lark Bunting Calamospiza melanocorys 

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 

Grasshopper Sparrow2 Ammodramus savannarum 

Baird’s Sparrow2 Ammodramus bairdii 

Le Conte’s Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii 

Fox Sparrow Passerelia iliaca 

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia 

Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii 

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana 

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis 

Harris’ Sparrow Zonotrichia querula 

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys 

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis 

Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus 

Chestnut-collared Longspur2 Calcarius ornatus 

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis 

Cardinals, Grosbeaks, and Buntings 

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus 

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea 

Dickcissel2 Spiza americana 
Appendix H—South Dakota Species 233 

Common name Scientific name 

Meadowlarks, Blackbirds, and Orioles 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 

Western Meadowlark Surnella neglecta 

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus 

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus 

Brewer’s Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus 

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula 

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater 

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius 

Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula 

Finches 

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus 

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus 

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra 

White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera 

Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea 

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus 

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis 

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus 

Old World Sparrows 

House Sparrow (Introduced) Passer domesticus 

1

 This list based on “The Birds of South Dakota” (Tallman et al. 2002) and “Checklist of North American Birds” (AOU 1998) and 

limited to species classified as Common (>25 individuals a day could be seen by a single observer in appropriate habitat) and 

Uncommon (<25 individuals a day could be seen by a single observer in appropriate habitat). Species classified as Rare (average 

fewer than 6 observations state or region-wide per season), Casual (out of normal range [3–10 records statewide in past 10 years]), or 

Accidental (far from normal range [0–2 records statewide in past 10 years]) are not listed. 

2

 Birds of Conservation Concern (breeding) in the Prairie Potholes Bird Conservation Region (USFWS 2008a). 

MAMMALS1

Common name Scientific name 

Opossums 

Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana 

Insectivores 

Shrews 

Cinereus or Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus 

Northern Short-tailed Shrew Blarina brevicauda 

Arctic Shrew Sorex arcticus 

Hayden’s Shrew Sorex haydeni 

Dwarf Shrew Sorex nanus 

Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi 

Moles 

Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus 

Bats 

Vespertilionid Bats 

Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus 

Northern Myotis Myotis septentrionalis 
234 

Common name Scientific name 

Eastern Red Bat Lasiurus borealis 

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus 

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus 

Lagomorphs 

Hares and Rabbits 

Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus 

White-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus townsendii 

Rodents 

Squirrels 

Woodchuck Marmota monax 

Franklin’s Ground Squirrel Spermophilus franklinii 

Richardson’s Ground Squirrel Spermophilus richardsonii 

Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel Spermophilus tridecemlineatus 

Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Cynomys ludovicianus 

Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis 

Eastern Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger 

Pocket Gophers 

Northern Pocket Gopher Thomomys talpoides 

Plains Pocket Gopher Geomys bursarius 

Heteromyids 

Plains Pocket Mouse Perognathus flavescens 

Olive-Backed Pocket Mouse Perognathus fasciatus 

Hispid Pocket Mouse Chaetodipus hispidus 

Beavers 

American Beaver Castor canadensis 

Mice, Rats, and Voles 

Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis 

White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus 

Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus 

Northern Grasshopper Mouse Onychomys leucogaster 

Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus 

House Mouse Mus musculus 

Southern Red-backed Vole Clethrionomys gapperi 

Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster 

Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus 

Common Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

Jumping Mice 

Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius 

New World Porcupines 

Common Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum 

Carnivores 

Canids 

Coyote Canis latrans 

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes 

Common Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus 
Appendix H—South Dakota Species 235 

Common name Scientific name 

Procyonids 

Common Raccoon Procyon lotor 

Mustelids 

Ermine Mustela erminea 

Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata 

Least Weasel Mustela nivalis 

American Mink Mustela vison 

American Badger Taxidea taxus 

Mephitids 

Eastern Spotted Skunk Spilogale putorius 

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis 

Cats 

Bobcat Felis rufus 

Ungulates 

Cervids 

Mule or Black-tailed Deer Odocoileus hemionus 

White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus 

Antelope Caprids 

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana 

Bovids 

Domestic cattle Bos taurus 

1 This list is based on the reference “Wild Mammals of South Dakota” (Higgins et al. 2000) along with staff observations 

AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES1

Common name Scientific name 

Salamanders 

Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum 

Frogs and Toads 

Plains Spadefoot Spea bombifrons 

Boreal Chorus Frog Pseudacris maculata 

Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens 

Woodhouse’s Toad Bufo woodhousei 

American Toad Bufo americanus 

Canadian Toad Bufo hemiophrys 

Great Plains Toad Bufo cognatus 

Turtles 

Western Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta bellii 

Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina 

Spiny Soft Shelled Turtle Trionyx spiniferus 

Skinks 

Prairie Skink Eumeces septentrionalis 

Snakes 

Racer Coluber constrictor 

Gophersnake Pituophis catenifer 

Eastern Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis 
236 

Common name Scientific name 

Plains Garter Snake Thamnophis radix 

Smooth Green Snake Opheodrys vernalis 

Western Hognose Snake Heterodon nasicus 

Bullsnake Pituophis melanoleucus 

Redbelly Snake Storeria occipitomaculata 

Common Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis 

Prairie Rattlesnake Crotalus viridis 

1 This list is based on the reference “Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of South Dakota” (Kiesow 2006) along with staff 

observations. 

FISH1

Common name Scientific name 

Logperch Percina caprodes 

Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 

Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush 

Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas 

Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis 

Stonecat Noturus flavus 

Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 

Common Carp Cyprinus carpio 

White Sucker Catostomus commersoni 

Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 

River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio 

Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum 

Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens 

Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas 

Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 

Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus 

Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 

Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus 

Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans 

Logperch Percina caprodes 

Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum 

White Bass Morone chrysops 

Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 

Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu 

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 

Bluegill Lepornis macrochirus 

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 

Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 

Orange-spotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis 

Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

White Crappie Pomoxis annularis 

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens 

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum 
Appendix H—South Dakota Species 237 

Common name Scientific name 

Saugeye Stizostedion spp. 

Northern Pike Esox lucius 

Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 

Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 

Mooneyes Hiodon alosoides 

1 This list is based on the reference “Guide to the Common Fishes of South Dakota” (Neumann and Willis 1994) along with staff 

observations. 

BUTTERFLIES1

Common name Scientific name 

Parnassians and Swallowtails 

Giant Swallowtail Papilio cresphontes 

Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Papilio glaucus 

Black Swallowtail Papilio polyxenes asterius 

Whites and Sulphurs 

Checkered White Pontia protodice 

Western White Pontia ocidentalis 

Cabbage White Pieris rapae 

Olympia Marble Euchloe olympia 

Clouded Sulphur Colias philodice 

Orange Sulphur Colias eurytheme 

Dog Face Zerene cesonia 

Little Yellow Eurema lisa 

Dainty Sulphur Nathalis iole 

Harvesters, Coppers, Hairstreaks, and Blues 

Gray Copper Lycaena dione 

Bronze Copper Lycaena hyllus 

Purplish Copper Lycaena helloides 

Coral Hairstreak Satyrium titus 

Acadian Hairstreak Satyrium acadicum 

Striped Hairstreak Satyrium liparops aliparops 

Juniper Hairstreak Callophrys gryneus siva 

Gray Hairstreak Strymon melinus franki 

Marine Blue Leptotes marina 

Reakirt’s Blue Hemiargus isola 

Eastern Tailed-Blue Everes comyntas 

Summer Azure Celastrina neglecta 

Silvery Blue Glaucopsyche lygdamus oro 

Melissa Blue Lycaeides melissa 

Skippers 

Silver-spotted Skipper Epargyreus clarus 

Common Checkered Skipper Pyrgus communis 

Common Sootywing Pholisora catullus 

Least Skipper Ancyloxypha numitor 

Poweshiek Skipperling Oarisma poweshiek 
238 

Common name Scientific name 

Uncas Skipper Hesperia uncas 

Ottoe Skipper Hesperia ottoe 

Leonard’s Skipper Herperia leonardus pawnee 

Dakota Skipper Hesperia dacotae 

Sachem Atalopedes campestris 

Peck’s Skipper Polites peckius 

Tawny-edged Skipper Polites themistocles 

Crossline Skipper Polites origenes rhena 

Long Dash Polites mystic dacotah 

Arogos Skipper Atrytone arogos iowa 

Delaware Skipper Anatrytone logan lagus 

Hobomok Skipper Poanes hobomok 

Kiowa Skipper Euphyes vestries kiowah 

Common Roadside Skipper Amblyscirtes vialis 

Brushfoots 

American Snout Libytheana carinenta bachmanii 

Variegated Fritillary Euptoieta claudia 

Great Spangled Fritillary Speyeria cybele 

Manitoba Fritillary Speyeria aphrodite manitoba 

Regal Fritillary Speyeria idalia 

Edwards’ Fritillary Speyeria edwardsii 

Callippe Fritillary Speyeria callippe calgariana 

Myrina Fritillary Boloria selene myrina 

Meadow Fritillary Boloria bellona 

Gorgone Checkerspot Chlosyne gorgone carlota 

Silvery Checkerspot Chlosyne nycteis 

Pearl Crescent Phyciodes tharos 

Northern Crescent Phyciodes cocyta 

Question Mark Polygonia interrogationis 

Eastern Comma Polygonia comma 

Gray Comma Polygonia progne 

Mourning Cloak Nymphalis antiopa 

Milbert’s Tortoiseshell Nymphalis milberti 

Red Admiral Vanessa atalanta rubria 

American Lady Vanessa virginiensis 

Painted Lady Vanessa cardui 

Common Buckeye Junonia coenia 

White Admiral Limenitis arthemis arthemis 

Red-spotted Purple Limenitis arthemis astyanax 

Viceroy Limenitis archippus 

Mountain Emperor Asterocampa celtis antonia 

Tawny Emperor Asterocampa clyton 

Northern Pearly-Eye Enodia anthedon 

Eyed Brown Satyrodes Eurydice 

Little Wood-Satyr Megisto cymela 

Prairie Ringlet Coenonympha tulllia benjamini 
Appendix H—South Dakota Species 239 

Common name Scientific name 

Common Wood-Nymph Cercyonis pegala nephele 

Monarch Danaus plexippus 

Uhler’s Arctic Oeneis uhleri varuna 

1 This list is based on the reference “Field Guide to Butterflies of South Dakota” (Marrone 2002) along with staff observations. 

PLANTS1 

Common name Scientific name 

Absinth wormwood Artemisia absinthium 

Alfalfa Medicago spp. 

American elm Ulmus americana 

American sloughgrass Beckmannia syzigachne 

Annual sunflower Helianthus annus 

Baltic rush Juncus balticus 

Barley Hordeum spp. 

Barnyardgrass Echinochloa muricata 

Big bluestem Andropogon gerardii 

Blanket flower Gaillardia aristata 

Bracted spiderwort Tradescantia bracteata 

Breadroot scurfpea Pediomelum esculentum 

Buffalo grass Buchloe dactyloides 

Bur oak Quercus macrocarpa 

Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis 

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense 

Canada wildrye Elymus canadensis 

Cattail Typha spp. 

Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium 

Common dandelion Taraxacum officinale 

Common reed Phragmites australis 

Corn Zea mays 

Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum 

Cudweed sagewort Artemisia ludoviciana 

Curlycup gumweed Grindelia squarrosa 

Daisy fleabane Erigeron strigosus 

Downy brome Bromus tectorum 

False boneset Kuhnia eupatorioides 

Fescue sedge Carex brevior 

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis 

Field pussytoes Antennaria neglecta 

Foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum 

Goat’s beard Tragopogon dubius 

Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 

Green foxtail Setaria viridis 

Green muhly Muhlenbergia racemosa 

Green needlegrass Nassella viridula 

Green sagewort Artemisia campestris 
240 

Common name Scientific name 

Hardstem bulrush Schoenoplectus acutus 

Heath aster Aster ericoides 

Indian breadroot Psoralea esculenta 

Indiangrass Sorghastrum spp. 

Intermediate wheatgrass Agropyron intermedium 

Japanese brome Bromus japonicus 

Junegrass Koeleria macrantha 

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis 

Kochia Kochia scoparia 

Leadplant Amorpha canescens 

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula 

Little bluestem Schizachyrium spp. 

Maximilian sunflower Helianthus maximilian 

Needle and thread Hesperostipa comata 

Pink wild onion Allium stellatum 

Plains cottonwood Populus deltoides 

Plains muhly Muhlenbergia cuspidate 

Porcupine grass Stipa spartea 

Prairie chickweed Cerastium arvense 

Prairie coneflower Ratibida columnifera 

Prairie cordgrass Spartina pectinata 

Prairie dropseed Sporobolus heterolepis 

Prairie junegrass Koeleria pyramidata 

Prairie wild rose Rosa arkansana 

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria 

Purple meadowrue Thalictrum dasycarpum 

Purple prairie clover Dalea purpurea 

Quackgrass Elymus repens 

Redtop Agrostis stolonifera 

Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea 

Rush Juncus spp. 

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia 

Sandbur Cenchrus longispinus 

Sand dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus 

Scarlet globemallow Sphaeralcea coccinea 

Sedge Carex spp. 

Sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula 

Silverleaf scurfpea Pediomelum argophyllum 

Slender wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus 

Smooth brome Bromus inermis 

Stiff goldenrod Solidago rigida 

Stiff sunflower Helianthus pauciflorus 

Soybean Glycine spp. 

Spotted knapweed Centaurea biebersteinii 

Spring wheat Triticum spp. 

Sweetclover Melilotus officinalis 
Appendix H—South Dakota Species 241 

Common name Scientific name 

Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 

Timothy Phleum pretense 

Torch flower Geum triflorum 

Water hemlock Cicuta maculata 

Western ragweed Ambrosia psilostachya 

Western snowberry Symphoricarpos occidentalis 

Western wheatgrass Agropyron smithii 

White beardtongue Penstemon albidus 

White prairie clover Dalea candida 

Willow Salix spp. 

Witchgrass Panicum capillare 

Wormwood sage Artemisia absinthium 

Yellow foxtail Setaria glauca 

1 This list is based on the reference Grassland Plants of South Dakota and the Northern Great Plains (Johnson and Larson 2007) and 

Selected North Dakota and Minnesota Range Plants (Sedivec and Barker) along with staff observations. 

Appendix I 

South Dakota Upland Plant Associations 

■■ Updated July 27, 2009.
 

■■ Record 1 of below types.
 

■■ Based on Daubenmire dominant canopy cover.
 

■■ These categories are designed for monitoring plant 


community composition of native sod, planted natives, and DNC. 

■■ Revised from Grant et al. 2004, Hegstad 1973. 

■■ Document robust patches of native forbs >50 percent with category 25 (i.e., leadplant, goldenrod, 

etc.). Alternatively, category 75 (other weeds) can 

be used to document weed patches that typically 

dominate disturbed sites. 

■■ Litter is not a category in itself, therefore assign 

litter to category it applies to (e.g., Kentucky bluegrass litter = 31). 

■■ In the event of an apparent equal mix of Kentucky 

bluegrass and smooth brome—consider as code 41. 

■■ Prairie rose and leadplant are considered native 

forbs with respect to these categories. 

F.1 Shrub And Tree Types 

LOW SHRUB 

(generally 1.5–4.5 feet tall, e.g., western snowberry) 

11 dense low shrub, other plants few or none 

12 low shrub, remainder native grass and forb 

13 low shrub, remainder Kentucky bluegrass 

14 low shrub, remainder brome or quackgrass 

19 low shrub, remainder crested 

TALL SHRUB 

(generally 4.5–15 feet tall) 

15 tall shrub, native 

16 tall shrub, exotic 

TREES 

17 native trees (e.g., cottonwood, green ash, bur oak) 

18 nonnative trees (e.g., Japanese elm, Russian olive) 

F.2 Native Grass-Forb Typesa

21 cool-season grasses and forbs: (A) green needle, 

(B) western wheatgrass, (C) porcupine grass 

22 warm-season grasses and forbs: (A) big bluestem, 

(B) switch, (C) Indian, (D) little bluestem 

23 meadow (sedges, Baltic rush, dock, smartweed, 

cordgrass, reedgrass, horsetail, foxtail barley, etc.) 

24 wetland; robust emergent vegetation or open water (cattail, river bulrush, bur-reed, Phragmites, 

manna grass) 

25 forb 

F.3 Introduced, Invasive, 

or Plants of Management 

Concern 

31 Kentucky bluegrass dominant 

41 smooth brome dominant 

51 crested wheatgrass dominant 

52 quackgrass 

53 reed canarygrass 

61 tall, intermediate, or pubescent wheatgrass 

62 other nonnative grass—user defined (downy/Japanese brome, etc.) 

F.4 Noxious and Other Weed 

Types 

71 leafy spurge 

72 Canada thistle 

73 sow thistle 

74 wormwoods 

75 other weeds (kochia, ragweed, cocklebur, etc.) 

76 other noxious weed (user-defined) 

F.5 Other 

81 tall introduced legume (sweet clover or alfalfa)
 

83 cactus
 

84 clubmoss/lichen
 

91 barren, unvegetated (bare soil, gopher mound)
 

92 other (rock, manure, hole, ant hill)
 

a Optional Species Modifier: Document dominant native grass 

species using the respective letter 

Appendix J 

Compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

and Guidance 

Appendix K 

Approved Organization Charts 
248 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix K—Approved Organization Charts 249 

Bibliography
 

Ahler, S.A.; Thiessen, T.D.; Trimble, M.K. 1991. People 

of the willows: the prehistory and early history of 

the Hidatsa Indians. Grand Forks, ND: University 

of North Dakota Press. 

[AOU] American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. The 

AOU checklist of North American birds. 7th edition with supplements. 

Anderson, G.L.; Delfosse, E.S.; Spencer, N.R.; Prosser, 

C.W.; Richard, R.D. 2003. Lessons in developing 

successful invasive weed control programs. Journal of Range Management 56:2–12. 

Anderson, K.L.; Smith, E.F.; Owensby, C.E. 1970. 

Burning bluestem range. Journal of Range Management 23:81–92. 

Anderson, R.C. 1990. The historic role of fire in the 

North American grassland. In: Collins, S.L.; Wallace, L.L.; editors. Fire in North American tallgrass prairies. Norman, Oklahoma: University of 

Oklahoma Press. 8–18. 

Austin, J.E. 1998. Highlight box: waterfowl in the 

Prairie Pothole Region. In: Mac, M.J.; Opler, P.A.; 

Puckett Haecker, C.E.; Doran, P.D.; editors. Status 

and trends of the nation’s biological resources, vol. 

2. [Internet]. Version 21JAN2000. Jamestown, ND: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center online. 

<www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/ grlands/ 

grlands.htm> 456–57. 

Austin, J.E.; Richert, A.L. 2001. A comprehensive 

review of observational and site evaluation data 

of migrant whooping cranes in the United States, 

1943–1999. Jamestown, ND: U.S. Geological Survey, 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 157 p. 

Axelrod, D.I. 1985. Rise of the grassland biome, Central North America. Botanical Review 51:163–201. 

Babbitt, Bruce, Secretary of Interior. 2001. Secretarial Order 3226. 5 U.S.C. App.; 5 U.S.C. 301; 43 

U.S.C. 1451; and 43 U.S.C. 1453, approved January 19, 2001. 

Baer, N.W. 1989. Shelterbelts and windbreaks in the 

Great Plains. Journal of Forestry 87:32–36. 

Bakker, K.K. 2003. A synthesis of the effect of woody 

vegetation on grassland-nesting birds. In: Proceedings, South Dakota Academy of Science; [Date 

of conference unknown]; [Location of conference 

unknown]. [Location of publisher unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 119–41. 

———. 2005. South Dakota all bird conservation 

plan. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish 

and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota. Wildlife Division 

Report 2005–09. 131 p. 

Bakker, K.K.; Higgins, K.F. 2009. Planted grasslands 

and native sod prairie: equivalent habitat for grassland birds? Western North American Naturalist 

69:235–42. 

Bakker, K.K.; Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F. 2002. Incorporating landscape attributes into models for 

migratory grassland bird conservation. Conservation Biology 16:1638–46. 

Barker, W.T.; Sedivec, K.K.; Messmer, T.A.; Higgins, 

K.F.; Hertel, D.R. 1990. Effects of specialized grazing systems on waterfowl production in south central North Dakota. Transactions of the 55th North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 55:462–74. 

Batt, B.D.; Anderson, M.G.; Anderson, C.D.; Caswell, 

F.D. 1989. The use of prairie potholes by North 

American ducks. In: van der Valk, A.; editor. 

Northern prairie wetlands. Ames, IA: Iowa State 

University Press. 204–27. 

Bedunah, D.J. 1992. The complex ecology of weeds, 

grazing, and wildlife. Western Wildlands 18:6–11. 

Biondini, M. 2007. Plant diversity, production, stability, and susceptibility to invasion in restored northern tall grass prairies (United States). Restoration 

Ecology 15:77–87. 

Blankespoor, G.W. 1987. The effects of prescribed 

burning on a tall-grass prairie remnant in eastern 

South Dakota. Prairie Naturalist 19:177–188. 

Blumenthal, D.M.; Jordan, N.R.; Svenson, E.L. 2003. 

Weed control as a rationale for restoration: the example of tallgrass prairie. Conservation Ecology 7(1):6. 

Bonnichsen, R.; Stanford, D., Fastook, J.L. 1987. Environmental change and developmental history of 

human adaptive patterns: the paleoindian case. 

In: Ruddiman, W.F.; Wright, H.E., Jr.; editors. 

North America and adjacent oceans during the 

last deglaciation. The Geology of North America, 

Vol. K-3:403–424. Geological Society of America, 

Boulder, CO. 

Bragg, T.B. 1982. Seasonal variations in fuel and fuel 

consumption by fires in a bluestem prairie. Ecology 63(10):7–11. 

———. 1995. The physical environment of Great Plains 

grasslands. In: Keeler, K.; Joern, A.; editors. The 

changing prairie. New York: Oxford University 

Press. 49–81. 
252 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Bragg, T.B.; Steuter, A.A. 1996. Prairie ecology—the 

mixed prairie. In: Samson, F.B.; Knopf, F.L.; editors. Prairie conservation. Washington, DC: Island 

Press. 53–65. 

Briggs J.M.; Gibson, D.J. 1992. Effect of fire on tree 

spatial patterns in a tallgrass prairie landscape. 

Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 119:300–07. 

Brown, M.; Dinsmore, J.J. 1986. Implications of marsh 

size and isolation for marsh bird management. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:392–97. 

Bryce, S.A.; Omernik, J.M.; Pater, D.A. [et al.]. 1996. 

Ecoregions of North Dakota and South Dakota 

[color poster with map, descriptive text, summary 

tables, and photographs]. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. [Map scale 1:1,500,000]. 

Burger, L.D.; Burger, L.W., Jr.; Faaborg, J. 1994. Effects 

of prairie fragmentation on predation on artificial 

nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:249–54. 

Carpinelli, M.F. 2001. Designing weed-resistant plant 

communities by maximizing niche occupation and 

resource capture. [Ph.D. dissertation]. Bozeman, 

MT: Montana State University. 

Carver, Erin; Caudill, James. 2007. Banking on nature 

2006: the economic benefits to local communities of 

National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. Washington, 

DC: Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Case, T.J. 1990. Invasion resistance arises in strongly 

interacting species-rich model competition communities. Proceedings, National Academy of Science 87:9610–14. 

Caudill, James; Carver, Erin. 2007. Banking on nature 

2006: the economic benefits to local communities 

of national wildlife refuge visitation. [Location of 

publisher unknown]: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, division of economics. 372 p. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2003. 

Epidemic/epizootic West Nile virus in the United 

States: guidelines for surveillance, prevention, 

and control. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services Public Health Service 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Infectious Diseases Division of 

Vector-Borne Infectious Diseases. 3rd Revision. 

Christian, J.M.; Wilson, S.D. 1999. Long-term ecosystem impacts of an introduced grass in the northern 

great plains. Ecology 80:2397–407. 

Clark, R.G.; Nudds, T.D. 1991. Habitat patch size 

and duck nesting success: the crucial experiments 

have not been performed. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:534–43. 

Cochrane, J.F.; Delphey, P. 2002. Status assessment 

and conservation guidelines. Bloomington, Minnesota: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 80 p. 

Collins, S.L. 1987. Interaction of disturbances in tallgrass prairie: a field experiment. Ecology 68:1243–50. 

Collins, S.L.; Barber, S.C. 1985. Effects of disturbance 

on diversity in mixed-grass prairie. Vegetation 

64:87–94. 

Collins, S.L.; Uno, G.E. 1983. The effect of early spring 

burning on vegetation in buffalo wallows. Bulletin 

of the Torrey Botanical Club 110:474–81. 

Collins, S.L.; Wallace, L.L.; editors. 1990. Fire in 

North American tallgrass prairies. Norman OK: 

University of Oklahoma Press. 

Cook, H.H.; Powers, C.F. 1958. Early biochemical 

changes in the soils and waters of artificially created marshes in New York. New York Game and 

Fish Journal 5:9–65. 

Cowardin, L.M.; Carter, V.; Golet, F.C.; LaRoe, E.T. 

1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, DC: GPO. 

Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the 

conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 82 p. 

Dai, X.; Boutton, T.W.; Hailemichael, M. [et al.]. 2006. 

Soil carbon and nitrogen storage in response to 

fire in a temperate mixed-grass savanna. Journal 

of Environmental Quality 35:1620–28. 

Davis, M.A.; Pelsor, M. 2001. Experimental support 

for a resource based mechanistic model of invisibility. Ecology Letters 4:421–28. 

Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, L.D.; 

Goldade, C.M.; Nenneman, M.P.; Euliss, B. R. 1999 

(revised 2002). Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Wilson’s Phalarope. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 15 p. 

Diboll, N. 1997. Designing seed mixes. In: Packard, 

S.; Mutel, C.F.; editors. The tallgrass restoration 

handbook. Washington, DC: Island Press. 135–50. 

Dill, T.O.; Waller, S.S.; Vogel K.P.; Gates, R.N.; Stroup, 

W.W. 1986. Renovation of seeded warm-season 

pastures with atrazine. Journal of Range Management 39:72–75. 

Doak, D.; Pollock, J.; Rose, A.; Knowlton, J.; Booth, 

M.; Parker, I. 2009. Statistical/modeling tools for 

design and analysis of conservation monitoring 

data. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA. 13 

March 2009. <http://bio.research.ucsc.edu/people/ 

doaklab/natconserv/>. 

Domek, Tom. 1998. Last call for tallgrass in North 

Dakota. [Internet]. Version October 02, 998. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center online. <www.npwrc.usgs. gov/resource/ 

plants/tallgrass/lastcall.htm> North Dakota Outdoors 60(10):14–19. 

Dornfeld, R. 1988. Wetland restoration: a mid-continent waterfowl management project final activity 

report. Twin Cities, MN: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 36 p. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 253

Duebbert, H.F.; Frank, A.M. 1984. Value of prairie 

wetlands to duck broods. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:27–34. 

Duebbert, H.F.; Jacobson, E.T.; Higgins, K.F.; Podoll, 

E.B. 1981. Establishment of seeded grasslands for 

wildlife habitat in the prairie pothole region. Special Scientific Report—Wildlife No. 234. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown]. 

Dukes, J. 2001. Biodiversity and invisibility in grassland microcosms. Oecologia 126:563–68. 

Estey, Mike. 2007. [Title of unpublished report unknown]. [Location where on file unknown]. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Habitat and Population Evaluation Team. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Euliss, N.H. Jr.; LaBaugh, J.W.; Fredrickson, L.H. 

[et al.]. 2004. The wetland continuum: a conceptual framework for interpreting biological studies. 

Wetlands 24:448–58. 

Fairbairn, S.E.; Dinsmore, J.J. 2001. Local and landscape level influences on wetland bird communities of the prairie pothole region of Iowa, USA. 

Wetlands 21: 41–47. 

Federal Register, March 11, 1967. vol 32. no. 48. http:// 

ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr18.pdf 

Fredrickson, L.H. 1991. Strategies for water level 

manipulations in moist-soil systems. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Waterfowl Management Handbook, Fish and Wildlife Leaf et. 13.4.6. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Friend M.; Franson, J.C. 1999. Field manual of wildlife 

diseases, general field procedures and diseases of 

birds. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological 

Survey, Information and Technology Report 1999­

001. [Pages unknown]. 

Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Engle, D.M. 2004. Application of the 

fire-grazing interaction to restore a shifting mosaic 

on tallgrass prairie. Ecology 41:604–14. 

Gazda, R.J.; Meidinger, R.R.; Ball, I.J.; Connelly, J.W. 

2002. Relationships between Russian olive and 

duck nest success in southeastern Idaho. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 30:337–44. 

Gibson, D.J.; Hulbert, L.C. 1987. Effects of fire, topography and year-to-year climatic variation on 

species composition in tall grass prairie. Vegetation 72:175–85. 

Gillen, R.L.; Rollins, D.; Strizke, J.F. 1987. Atrazine, 

spring burning, and nitrogen for improvement of 

tallgrass prairie. Journal of Range Management 

40:444–47. 

Gleason, R.A.; Laubhan, M.K.; Euliss, N.H. 2008. Ecosystem services derived from wetland conservation practices in the United States Prairie Pothole 

Region with an emphasis on the US Department of 

Agriculture Conservation Reserve and Wetlands 

Reserve Programs. US Geological Survey. Professional Paper 1745. 

Grant, T.A.; Flanders-Wanner, B.L.; Shaffer, T.L.; 

Murphy, R.K.; Knutsen, G.A. 2009. An emerging 

crisis across northern prairie refuges: prevalence 

of invasive plants and a plan for adaptive management. Ecological Restoration 27(1):58–65. 

Grant, T.A.; Madden, E.M.; Murphy, R.K.; Nenneman, 

M.P.; Smith, K.A. 2004a. Monitoring native prairie 

vegetation: the belt transect method. Ecological 

Restoration 22:106–11. 

Grant, T.A.; Madden, E.; Berkey, G.B. 2004b. Tree and 

shrub invasion in northern mixed-grass prairie: 

implications for breeding grassland birds. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 32:807–18. 

Grant, W.E.; Birney, E.C.; French, N.R.; Swift, D.M. 

1982. Structure and productivity of grassland small 

mammal communities related to grazing-induced 

changes in vegetative cover. Journal of Mammology 63:248–60. 

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

Cowardin, L.M.; Shaffer, T.L. 1995. Factors associated with duck nest success in the Prairie Pothole 

Region of Canada. Wildlife Monographs 128:1–57. 

Greer, M.J. 2009. An evaluation of habitat use and requirements for grassland bird species of greatest 

conservation need in central and western South 

Dakota. [master’s thesis]. Brookings, SD: South 

Dakota State University. 176 p. 

Gregg, M.L.; Meyer, D.; Picha, P.R.; Stanley, D.G. 

1996. Archeology of the northeastern plains. In 

Frison, G.C.; Mainfort, R.C.; editors. Archeological and bioarcheological resources of the northern 

plains. 77–90. Research Series No. 47. Arkansas 

Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. 

Guo, Q.; Shaffer, T. 2006. Community maturity, species 

saturation and the variant diversity–productivity 

relationships in grasslands. Ecology Letters 9:1–9. 

Hamer, T.L.; Flather, C.H.; Noon. B.R. 2006. Factors 

associated with grassland bird species richness: the 

relative roles of grassland area, landscape structure, 

and prey. Landscape Ecology 21:569–83. 

Hanowski, J.M.; Christian, D.P.; Niemi, G.J. 2000. 

Landscape requirements of prairie sharp-tailed 

grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus campestris in 

Minnesota, USA. Wildlife Biology 6:257–63. 

Herkert, J.R. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on midwestern grassland bird communities. 

Ecological Applications 4:461–71. 

Herkert, J.R. 1995. An analysis of Midwestern breeding bird population trends: 1966–1993. American 

Midland Naturalist 134:41–50. 

Herkert, J.R.; Reinking, D.L.; Wiedenfeld, D.A.; 

Winter, M.; Zimmerman, J.L.; Jensen, W.E.; Finck, 

E.J.; Koford, R.R.; Wolfe, D.H.; Sherrod, S.K.; Jenkins, M.A.; Faaborg, J.; Robinson, S.K. 2003. Effects of prairie fragmentation on the nest success 
254

of breeding birds in the mid continental United 

States. Conservation Biology 17:587–94. 

Hickman, K.R.; Farley, G.H.; Channell, R.; Steier, J.E. 

2006. Effects of old world bluestem (Bothriochloa 

ischaemum) on food availability and avian community composition within the mixed-grass prairie. 

Southwestern Naturalist 51:524–30. 

Higgins, K.F. 1986. Interpretation and compendium 

of historical fire accounts in the northern Great 

Plains. Resource Publication 161. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. [Pages unknown]. 

Higgins, K.F.; Barker, W.T. 1982. Changes in vegetation structure in seeded nesting cover in the prairie 

pothole region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Science Report—Wildlife 242. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. [Pages unknown]. 

Higgins, K.F., Dowd-Stukel, E., Goult, J.M., and D.C. 

Backlund. 2000. Wild mammals of South Dakota. 

Pierre, SD: South Dakota Department of Game, 

Fish and Parks. 

Hill, G.R.; Platt, W.J. 1975. Some effects of fire upon 

a tallgrass prairie plant community in northwestern Iowa. In: Wali, M.K.; editor. Prairie: a multiple 

view. Proceedings, Symposium on prairie restoration. Grand Forks, ND: University of North Dakota. 103–13. 

Howe, H.F. 1994. Managing species diversity in tallgrass prairie: assumptions and implications. Conservation Biology 8:691–704. 

Howell, E.A. 1988. The role of restoration in conservation biology. Endangered Species 5:1–4. 

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

bluestem prairie in Kansas. Ecology 50:874–77. 

———. 1986. Fire effects on tallgrass prairie. In: 

Clambey, G.K.; Pemble, R.H.; editors. The prairie: past, present, and future. Proceedings, 9th 

North American prairie conference. Fargo, ND: 

Tri-College University Center for Environmental 

Studies. 138–42. 

Hunt, H.W.; Trlica, M.J.; Redente, E.F.; Moore, J.C.; 

Detling J.K.; Kittel, T.G.F.; Walter, D.E.; Fowler, 

M.C.; Klein, D.A.; Elliott, E.T. 1991. Simulation 

model for the effects of climate change on temperate grassland ecosystems. Ecological Modelling 53:205–46. 

Hutchinson, M. 1992. Vegetation management guideline: Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense [L.] Scop.). 

Natural Areas Journal 12:160–61. 

Igl, L.D.; Johnson, D.H. 1995. Migratory bird population changes in North Dakota. In: LaRoe, E.T.; Farris, G.S.; Puckett, C.E. [et al.]; editors. Our living 

resources. [Location of publisher unknown]: U.S. 

Department of the Interior. 298–300. 

———. 1997. Changes in breeding bird populations 

in North Dakota: 1967 to 1992–93. Auk 114:74–92. 

[ISSG] Invasive Species Specialist Group. 2001. 100 

of the world’s worst invasive alien species: a selection from the global invasive species database. May. 

Auckland, New Zealand: ISSG. Available online: 

<http://iucn.org/biodiversityday/100booklet.pdf> 

accessed July 19, 2001. 

Jackson, A.S. 1965. Wildfires in the great plains grasslands. Proceedings, tall timbers fire ecology conference. 4:241–59. 

Jackson, M.A.; Toom, D.L. 1999. Cultural resources 

overview studies of the Tewaukon National Wildlife 

Refuge, Sargent County, North Dakota, and the 

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge, Day County, 

South Dakota. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Denver. (SARC Archive 

Number ADA-0038). 

Jacobs, J.S.; Sheley, R.L. 1999. Competition and niche 

partitioning among Pseudoroegneria spicata, Hedysarum boreale, and Centaurea maculosa. Great 

Basin Naturalist 59:175–81. 

Johnson, Douglas H. 2006a. Terrestrial bird communities on the Woodworth study area. [Internet]. Revised August 3, 2006. Jamestown, ND: Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center online. <www 

.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/woodwort/ 

johnson.htm>. 

———. 2006b. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 

grassland bird use of conservation reserve program 

fields in the Great Plains. In: Farm Bill Contributions to Wildlife Conservation. [Internet]. Wildlife Habitat Management Institute online. <ftp:// 

ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/WHMI/WEB/ CompRev/ 

Johnson19-34.pdf> 19–33. 

Johnson, Douglas H.; Haseltin, Susan S.D.; Cowardin, Lewis M. 1994. Wildlife habitat management 

on the northern prairie landscape. [Internet]. Version 30APR2001. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center online. <www. npwrc 

.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/whabmgt/index. htm> 

Landscape and Urban Planning 28:5–21. 

Johnson, Douglas H; Igl, L.D. 2001. Area requirements of grassland birds; a regional perspective. 

Auk 118:24–34. 

Johnson, Douglas H.; Igl, Lawrence D.; Dechant 

Shaffer, Jill A. [series coordinators]. 2004. Effects 

of management practices on grassland birds. [Internet]. Version 12AUG2004. Jamestown, ND: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center online. 

<www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/ 

index.htm>. 

Johnson, J.R., Larson, G.E. 2007. Grassland plants 

of South Dakota and the Northern Great Plains. 

Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University. 

Johnson, L.C.; Matchett, J.R. 2001. Fire and grazing 

regulate belowground processes in tallgrass prairie. Ecology 82:3377–89. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 255

Johnson, R.G.; Temple, S.A. 1990. Nest predation and 

brood parasitism of tall grass prairie birds. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 54(1):106–11. 

Jordan, N.R.; Larson, D.L.; Huerd, S.C. 2008. Soil 

modification by invasive plants: effects on native 

and invasive species of mixed-grass prairies. Biological Invasions 10:177–90. 

Kadlec, J.A.; Smith, L.M. 1992. Habitat management 

for breeding areas. In: Batt, B.D.J.; Afton, A.D.; 

Anderson, M.G. [et al.]; editors. Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. Minneapolis, MN: 

University of Minnesota. [Pages unknown]. 

Kantrud, Harold A. 1983. An environmental overview 

of North Dakota: past and present. [Internet]. Version July 16, 1997. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center online. <www.npwrc 

.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/envovrvw/index.htm>. 

Kantrud, H.A.; Higgins, K.F. 1992. Nest and nest 

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

Naturalist 24:67–84. 

Kantrud, Harold A.; Krapu, Gary L.; Swanson, George 

A.; Allen, James A. 1989. Prairie basin wetlands of 

the Dakotas: a community profile. [Internet]. Version 16JUL1997. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center online. <www.npwrc 

.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/basinwet/index.htm>. 

Kantrud, H.A.; Stewart, R.E. 1984. Ecological distribution and crude density of breeding birds on 

prairie wetlands. Journal of Wildlife Management 

48:426–37. 

Kelsey, K.W.; Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F.; Bakker, 

K.K. 2006. Planting trees in prairie landscapes: do 

the ecological costs outweigh the benefits? Natural 

Areas Journal 26(3):254–60. 

Kiesow, Alyssa. 2006. Field guide to amphibians and 

reptiles of South Dakota. Pierre, SD: South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks. 

Kirby, D.R.; Carlson, R.B.; Krabbenhoft, K.D.; Mundal, 

D.; Kirby, M.M. 2000. Biological control of leafy 

spurge with introduced flea beetles (Aphthona sp.). 

Journal of Range Management 53:305–08. 

Kirsch, L.M.; Duebbert, H.F.; Kruse, A.D. 1978. Grazing and haying effects on habitats of upland nesting 

birds. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 43:486–97. 

Kirsch, L.M.; Kruse, A.D. 1973. Prairie fires and wildlife. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers fire ecology 

conference; 1972 June 8–9; Lubbock, TX. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station. 12:289–303. 

Klett, A.T.; Duebbert, H.F.; Heismeyer, G.L. 1984. 

Use of seeded native grasses as nesting cover by 

ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:134–38. 

Knapp, A.K. 1984. Post-burn differences in solar radiation, leaf temperature and water stress influencing production in a low-land tallgrass prairie. 

American Journal of Botany 71:220–27. 

———. 1985. Effects of fire and drought on the ecophysiology of Andropogon gerardii and Panicum 

virgatum in tall grass prairie. Ecology 66:1309–20. 

Knapp, A.K.; Seastedt, T.R. 1986. Detritus accumulation limits productivity of tallgrass prairie. BioScience 36:662–68. 

Knopf, F. L. 1994. Avian assemblages on altered grasslands. In: Jehl, J.R., Jr.; Johnson, N.K.; editors. 

A century of avifaunal change in western North 

America. 247–57. 

Knops, J.M.H. 2006. Fire does not alter vegetation in 

infertile prairie. Oecologia 150:477–83. 

Knutsen, G.A.; Euliss, N.H. 2001. Wetland restoration 

in the Prairie Pothole Region of North America: a 

literature review. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological 

Science Report. [Location of publisher unknown]: 

U.S. Geological Survey. 55 p. 

Kruse, A.D.; Bowen, B.S. 1996. Effects of grazing 

and burning on densities and habitats of breeding 

ducks in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:233–46. 

Kuehl, A.K.; Clark, W.R. 2002. Predator activity related 

to landscape features in northern Iowa. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 66:1224–34. 

Lariviére, S.; Messier, F. 1998. Effect of density and 

nearest neighbours on simulated waterfowl nests: 

can predators recognize high-density nesting 

patches? Oikos 83:12–20. 

Larson, M.A.; Ryan, M.R.; Murphy, R.K. 2002. Population viability of piping plovers: effects of predator 

exclusion. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:361–71. 

Laubhan, M.K.; Gleason, R.A.; Knutsen, G.A.; Laubhan, 

R.A.; Euliss, N.H. Jr. 2006. A preliminary biological 

assessment of Long Lake National Wildlife Refuge, 

North Dakota. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological 

Technical Publication, FWS/BTP-R6006-2006. 66 p. 

Leitch, J.A. 1989. Politicoeconomic overview of prairie 

potholes. In: van der Valk, A., editor. Northern prairie 

wetlands. Ames, IA: Iowa State University. 3–14. 

Lloyd, J.D.; Martin, T.E. 2005. Reproductive success 

of chestnut-collared longspurs in native and exotic 

grassland. The Condor 107(2):363–74. 

Lokemoen, J.T. 1984. Examining economic efficiency 

of management practices that enhance waterfowl 

production. In: Transactions of the North American 

Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference; [Date 

of conference unknown]; [Location of conference 

unknown]. [Location of publisher unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 49:584–607. 

Lorenzana, J.C.; Sealy, S.G. 1999. A meta-analysis of the 

impact of parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird 

on its hosts. Studies in Avian Biology 18:241–53. 

Madden, E.M.; Murphy, R.K.; Hansen, A.J.; Murray, 

L. 2000. Models for guiding management of prairie birds habitat in northwestern North Dakota. 

The American Midland Naturalist 144(2):377–92. 
256

Marrone, Gary. 2002. Field guide to butterflies of 

South Dakota. Pierre, SD: South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. 

McIntyre, N. E.; Thompson, T.R. 2003. A comparison 

of Conservation Reserve Program habitat plantings with respect to arthropod prey for grassland 

birds. American Midland Naturalist 150:291–301. 

McLauchlan, K.K.; Hobbie, S.E.; Post, W.M. 2006. 

Conversion from agriculture to grassland builds 

soil organic matter on decadal timescales. Ecological Applications 16:143–53. 

Moechnig, M.; Wrage, L.J.; Deneke, D.L. 2009. Noxious weed control: 2009. South Dakota State University. <http://agbiopubs.sdstate.edu/articles/ 

FS525N.pdf>. 

Murkin, H.; van der Valk, A.G.; Clark, W.R. 2000. 

Prairie wetland ecology: the contribution of the 

marsh ecology research program. Ames, IA: Iowa 

State University Press. 

Murphy, R.K., editor. 2005. Conservation strategy and 

guidelines for Dakota skippers on Service lands 

in the Dakotas. Bismarck, ND: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, refuges 

and wildlife and ecological services, Dakota skipper committee. 23 p. 

Murphy, R.K.; Grant, T.A. 2005. Land management 

history and floristics in mixed-grass prairie, North 

Dakota, USA. Natural Areas Journal 25:351–58. 

Murphy, R.K.; Grant, T.A.; Madden, E.M. 2005. Prescribed fire for fuel reduction in northern mixed 

grass prairie: influence on habitat and population 

dynamics of indigenous wildlife. Joint Fire Science 

Program RFP 2001–3:1–40. 

[NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

1999. Soil taxonomy: a basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 

2nd edition. Agriculture Handbook Number 436. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Naugle, D.E.; Bakker, K.K.; Higgins, K.F. 2000. A synthesis of the effects of upland management practices 

on waterfowl and other birds in the northern great 

plains of the U.S. and Canada. Wildlife Technical 

Report 1. 28 p. 

Naugle, D.E.; Estey, M.E.; Higgins, K.F.; Johnson, 

R.R. 2001. A landscape approach to conserving 

wetland bird habitat in the Prairie Pothole Region 

of eastern South Dakota. Wetlands 21:1–17. 

Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F.; Nusser, S.M. 1999. Effects of woody vegetation on prairie wetland birds. 

Canadian Field–Naturalist 113:487–92. 

Naugle, D.E.; Quamen, F.R. 2007. Assessing the impacts of tree plantings on grassland birds in North 

and South Dakota. Completion Report for North 

Dakota State Wildlife Grant #T19. [Location where 

on file unknown]. 25 p. 

Nenneman, M.P. 2003. Vegetation structure and floristics at nest sites of grassland birds in north central 

North Dakota. [master’s thesis]. Missoula, MT: 

University of Montana. [Pages unknown]. 

Neuman, R.W. 1975. The Sonota Complex and associated sites on the Northern Great Plains. Publications in Anthropology No. 6. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska 

State Historical Society. 

Nichols, J.D.; Williams, B.K. 2006. Monitoring for 

conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 

21(12):668–673. 

Niemuth, N.D. 2000. Land use and vegetation associated with greater prairie chicken leks in an agricultural landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:278–86. 

Niemuth, N.D.; Estey, M.E.; Reynolds, R.E.; Loesch, 

C.R.; Meeks, W.A. 2006. Use of wetlands by springmigrant shorebirds in agricultural landscapes of 

North Dakota’s Drift Prairie. Wetlands 26:30–39. 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U.S. 

Committee. 2009. The state of the birds, United 

States of America, 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Interior. 36 p. 

[NAWMA] North American Weed Management Association. 2002. North American invasive plant 

mapping standards. <www.nawma.org/> accessed 

February 16, 2010. 

[NDGF] North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 

2005. Mixed-grass prairie (Missouri Coteau). In: 

North Dakota comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. [Internet]. <http://gf.nd. gov/ 

conservation/docs/section%205.3%20mixedgrass%20 

prairie-missouri%20coteau.pdf> 54–57. 

North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department. 

[No date]. North Dakota prairie—our natural heritage. [Internet]. Version 05MAY99. Jamestown, 

ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 

online. <www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/ 

heritage/index.htm> 

Noss, R.F.; LaRoe, E.T.; Scott, J.M. 1995. Endangered 

ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary 

assessment of loss and degradation. Report No. 

0611-R-01 (MF). Washington, DC: National Biological Service. 

O’Leary, C.H.; Nyberg, D.W. 2000. Treelines between 

fields reduce the density of grassland birds. Natural Areas Journal 20:243–49. 

Old, S.M. 1969. Microclimate, fire, and plant production in an Illinois prairie. Ecological Monographs 

39:355–48. 

Ortega, Y.K.; Pearson, D.E. 2005. Weak vs. strong 

invaders of natural plant communities: assessing 

invasibility and impact. Ecological Applications 

15:651–661. 

Ortman, J.; Stubbendieck, J.; Mitchell, R. 1996. Management of eastern redcedar on grasslands. University of Nebraska–Lincoln Cooperative Extension Publication. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 257

Pampush, G.J.; Anthony, R.G. 1993. Nest success, 

habitat utilization and nest-site selection of longbilled curlews in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. 

Condor 95:957–67. 

Patten, M.A.; Shochat, E.; Reinking, D.L.; Wolfe, D.H.; 

Sherrod, S.K. 2006. Habitat edge, land management, 

and rates of brood parasitism in tallgrass prairie. 

Ecological Applications 16:687–95. 

Pedlar, J.H.; Fahrig, L.; Merriam, G.H. 1997. Raccoon 

habitat use at 2 spatial scales. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 61:102–12. 

Peterjohn, B.G.; Sauer, J.R. 1999. Population status 

of North American grassland birds from the North 

American breeding bird survey, 1966–1996. Studies in Avian Biology 19:27–44. 

Peterson, N.J. 1983. The effects of fire, litter, and ash 

on flowering in Andropogon gerardii. In: Brewer, 

R., editor. Proceedings, 8th North American prairie conference. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan 

University. 21–26. 

Platt, J.R. 1964. Strong inference. Science 146:347–53. 

Plissner, J.H.; Haig, S.M. 2000. Status of a broadly 

distributed endangered species: results and implications of the second international piping plover 

census. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:128–39. 

Pokorny, M.L. 2002. Plant functional group diversity 

as a mechanism for invasion resistance [master’s 

thesis]. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Pokorny, M.L.; Sheley, R.L.; Svejcar, T.J.; Engle, R.E. 

2004. Plants species diversity in a grassland plant 

community: evidence for forbs as a critical management consideration. Western North American 

Naturalist 64:219–30. 

Pokorny, M.L.; Sheley, R.L.; Zabinski, C.A.; Engel, 

R.E;. Svejcar, T.J.; Borkowski, J.J. 2005. Plant 

functional group diversity as a mechanism for invasion resistance. Restoration Ecology 13(3):448–59. 

Pyne, S.J. 1982. Fire in America: A cultural history 

of wildland and rural fire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 

University Press. 

———. 1986. These conflagrated prairies: a cultural 

fire history of the grasslands. In: Clambey, G.K.; 

Pemble, R.H.; editors. The prairie: past, present, 

and future. Proceedings, 9th North American prairie conference. Fargo, ND: Tri-College University 

Center for Environmental Studies. 121–37. 

Rehm, G.W. 1984. Yield and quality of a warm-season 

grass mixture treated with N, P, and atrazine. 

Agronomy Journal 76:731–33. 

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. 

Ribic, C.A; Guzy, M.J.; Sample, D.W. 2009. Grassland 

use of remnant prairie and conservation reserve 

program fields in an agricultural landscape in Wisconsin. The American Midland Naturalist 161:110–22. 

Ribic, C.A.; Sample, D.W. 2001. Associations of grassland birds with landscape factors in southern Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 146:105–21. 

Ringelman, James K.; editor. 2005. Prairie Pothole 

Joint Venture 2005 implementation plan. Bismarck, 

ND: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 160 p. 

Robel, R.J.; Briggs, J.N.; Dayton, A.D.; Hulbert, L.C. 

1970. Relationships between visual obstruction 

measurements and weight of grassland vegetation. 

Journal of Range Management 23:295–97. 

Romig, G.P.; Crawford, R.D. 1995. Clay-colored sparrows in North Dakota parasitized brown-headed 

cowbirds. Prairie Naturalist 27:193–205. 

Royer, R.A.; Austin, J.E.; Newton, W.E. 1998. Checklist and “pollard walk” butterfly survey methods 

on public lands. American Midland Naturalist 

140:358–71. 

Rumble, M.A.; Flake, L.D. 1983. Management considerations to enhance use of stock ponds by waterfowl 

broods. Journal of Range Management 36:691–94. 

Rumble, M.A.; Sieg, C.H.; Uresk, D.W.; Javersak, J. 

1998. Native woodlands and birds of South Dakota: past and present. General Technical Report 

RMRS-RP-8, Fort Collins, CA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 11 p. 

Runge, J.P. 2005. Spatial population dynamics of Microtus in grazed and ungrazed grasslands. [Ph.D. 

dissertation]. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 

Ryan, M.R.; Root, B.G.; Mayer, P.M. 1993. Status of 

piping plovers in the Great Plains of North America: a demographic simulation model. Conservation 

Biology 7:581–85. 

Salazar, Kenneth, Secretary of Interior. 2009. Secretarial Order 3289. Approved September 14, 2009. 

Samson, F.; Knopf, F. 1994. Prairie conservation in 

North America. BioScience 44:418–21. 

Samson, Fred B.; Knopf, Fritz L.; Ostlie, Wayne R. 

1998. Grasslands. In: Mac, M.J.; Opler, P.A.; Puckett Haecker, C.E.; Doran, P.D.; editors. Status and 

trends of the nation’s biological resources. [Internet]. Version 21JAN2000. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center online. <www 

.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/grlands/grlands 

.htm> 2:437–72. 

Sargeant, A.B. 1972. Red fox spatial characteristics in 

relation to waterfowl predation. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 36:225–36. 

Sargeant, A.B.; Allen, S.H.; Hastings, J.O. 1987. Spatial relations between sympatric coyotes and red 

foxes in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:285–93. 

Sauer, C.O. 1950. Grassland climax, fire and man. 

Journal of Range Management 3:59–69. 
258

Sauer, J.R.; Hines, J.E.; Fallon, J. 2008. The North 

American breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1966–2007. Version 15MAY2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. <www 

.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/> accessed 2010 January 24. 

Schacht, W.; Stubbendieck, J. 1985. Prescribed burning in the loess hill mixed prairie of southern Nebraska. Journal of Range Management 38:47–51. 

Schmitz, R.A.; Clark, W.R. 1999. Survival of ringnecked pheasant hens during spring in relation to 

landscape features. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:147–54. 

Schneider, F.E. 1982. A model of prehistoric cultural 

developments in the James River Valley of North 

Dakota. Journal of the North Dakota Archaeological Association 1:113–33. 

Schranck, B.W. 1972. Waterfowl nest cover and some 

predation relationships. Journal of Wildlife Management 36:182–86. 

Schroeder, R.L.; Holler, J.I.; Taylor, J.P. 2004. Managing national wildlife refuges for historic or nonhistoric conditions: determining the role of the refuge in the ecosystem. Natural Resources Journal 

44(4):1183–210. 

Seastedt, T.R. 1995. Soil systems and nutrient cycles 

of the North American prairie. In: Joern, A.; Keeler, 

K.H.; editors. The changing prairie: North American grasslands. New York, NY: Oxford University 

Press. 157–74. 

Sedivec, K.K.; Barker, W.T. Selected North Dakota 

and Minnesota range plants. Fargo, ND: North 

Dakota State University. 

Severson, K.E.; Sieg, C.H. 2006. The nature of eastern 

North Dakota: pre-1880 historical ecology. Fargo, 

ND: North Dakota State University, North Dakota 

Institute for Regional Studies. 308 p. 

Shaffer, J.A.; Goldade, C.M.; Dinkins, M.F. Johnson, 

D.H.; Igl, L.D.; Euliss, B.R. 2003. Brown-headed cowbirds in grasslands: their habitat, hosts, and response 

to management. Prairie Naturalist 35(3):145–86. 

Sheley, R.L.; Half, M. L. 2006. Enhancing native forb 

establishment and persistence using a rich seed 

mixture. Restoration Ecology 14:627–35. 

Shutler, D.; Mullie, A.; Clark, R.G. 2000. Bird communities of prairie uplands and wetlands in relation to 

farming practices in Saskatchewan. Conservation 

Biology 14:1441–51. 

Sims, P.I. 1988. Grasslands. In: Barbour, M.G.; Billings, W.D.; editors. North American terrestrial 

vegetation. Cambridge: Cambridge University 

Press. 266–86. 

Smith, B.J.; Higgins, K.F. 1990. Avian cholera and temporal changes in wetland numbers and densities in 

Nebraska’s Rainwater Basin area. Wetlands 10:1–5. 

Smith, M.D.; Knapp, A.K. 1999. Exotic plant species in 

a C4-dominated grassland: invisibility, disturbance, 

and community structure. Oecologia 120:605–12. 

Snyder, W.D. 1984. Ring-necked pheasant nesting ecology and wheat farming on the high plains. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 48:878–88. 

[SDGFP] South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. 2010. 

Facts about chronic wasting disease. [Internet]. 

Version AUG2010. <http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/ 

diseases/chronic-wasting-disease/cwd-facts.aspx> 

South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union. 1991. The birds 

of South Dakota. Aberdeen, SD: Northern State 

University Press. 

Sovada, M.A.; Burns, M.J.; Austin, J.E. 2005. Predation of waterfowl in prairie breeding areas. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center. 70 p. 

[SHSND] State Historical Society of North Dakota. 

1990. The North Dakota comprehensive plan for 

historic preservation: archeological component. 

Archeology and Historic Preservation Division, 

State Historical Society of North Dakota, North 

Dakota Heritage Center, Bismarck. 

Steuter, A.A.; McPherson, G.R. 1995. Fire as a physical stress. In: Bedunah, D.J.; Sosebee, R.E.; editors. Wildland plants: physiological ecology and 

developmental morphology. 550–79. 

Stewart, Robert E. 1975. Breeding birds of North 

Dakota. [Internet]. Version 06JUL2000. Fargo, 

ND: Tri-College Center for Environmental Studies. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center. 295 p. <www.npwrc.usgs.gov/ 

resource/ birds/bbofnd/biog.htm> 

Stewart, R.E.; Kantrud, H.A. 1971. Classification of 

natural ponds and lakes in the glaciated prairie 

region. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 

Resource Publication 92. Washington, DC. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Sugden, L.G.; Beyersbergen, G.W. 1984. Farming intensity on waterfowl breeding grounds in Saskatchewan parklands. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:22–26. 

Svedarsky, D.; Van Amburg, G. 1996. Integrated management of the greater prairie chicken and livestock 

on the Sheyenne National grassland. Bismarck, 

ND: North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Svedarsky, W.D.; Toepfer, J.E.; Westemeier, R.L.; 

Robel, R.J. 2003. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: greater prairie-chicken. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 42 p. 

Swanson, G.A.; Duebbert, H.F. 1989. Wetland habitats 

of waterfowl in the Prairie Pothole region. In: A. 

van der Valk; editor. Northern Prairie Wetlands. 

Ames, IA: Iowa State University. 228–67. 

Swanson, G.A.; Euliss, N.H.; Hanson, B.; Mushet, 

D.M. 2003. Dynamics of a prairie pothole wetland 

complex: implications for wetland management. 

In: Winter, T.C., editor. Hydrological, chemical, 

and biological characteristics of a prairie pothole 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 259

wetland complex under highly variable climate conditions—the Cottonwood Lake Area, East-Central 

North Dakota. US Geological Survey. Professional 

Paper 1675. 55–94. 

Tallman, D.; Swanson, D.L.; Palmer, J.S. 2002. Birds 

of South Dakota (3rd edition). South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union. Aberdeen, South Dakota, SD 

Midstates/Quality Quick Print. 

Tilman, D. 1997. Community invisibility, recruitment 

limitations, and grassland biodiversity. Ecology 

78(1):81–92. 

Tilman, D.; Wedin, D.; Knops, J. 1996. Productivity 

and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in 

grassland ecosystems. Nature 379:718–20. 

Towne, G.; Owensby, C.E. 1984. Long-term effects 

of annual burning at different dates in ungrazed 

Kansas tallgrass prairie. Journal of Range Management 37:392–97. 

Trammell, M.A.; Butler, J.L. 1995. Effects of exotic 

plants on native ungulate use of habitat. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 59:808–16. 

Trlica, M.J.; Biondini, M.E. 1990. Soil water dynamics, 

transpiration, and water losses in a crested wheatgrass and native shortgrass ecosystem. Plant and 

Soil 126:187–201. 

[DOI] U.S. Department of the Interior. 2008. An analysis of climate change impacts and options relevant 

to the Department of the Interior’s managed lands 

and waters. Department of the Interior Task Force 

on Climate Change. Report of the Subcommittee 

on Land and Water Management. <www.usgs 

.gov/global_change/doi_taskforce.asp> accessed 

December 28, 2011. 

———. 2009. Order No. 3289: addressing the impacts 

of climate change on America’s water, land, and 

other natural and cultural resources. [Location 

of publisher unknown]: U.S. Department of the 

Interior. 4 p. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Climate 

change and South Dakota EPA 236-F-98-007x. Washington, DC: Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Climate and Policy Assessment Division. 

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1957. Wildlife refuges manual. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 

———. 1990. Interior population of the least tern 

recovery plan. [Location of publisher unknown]: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. [Pages unknown]. 

———. 1994a. Draft revised recovery plan for piping 

plovers breeding on the Great Lakes and northern 

Great Plains of the U.S. [Location of publisher unknown]: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown]. 

———. 1994b. Whooping crane recovery plan. [Location of publisher unknown]: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown]. 

———. 1996. Western prairie fringed orchid (Plantanthera praeclara) recovery plan. [Location of 

publisher unknown]: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 101 p. 

———. 1999. Fulfilling the promise—the national 

wildlife refuge system: visions for wildlife, habitat, 

people, and leadership. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

———. 2001a. Policy on maintaining the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the 

national wildlife refuge system. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 601 FW3. 66 Fed. Reg. 3817. 

———. 2001b. 2000–2001 contingency plan: federalstate cooperative protection of whooping cranes 

[unpublished report]. On file at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Albuquerque, NM. 42 p. 

———. 2002a. Status assessment and conservation 

guidelines, Dakota skipper. Arlington, VA: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown]. 

———. Map of known Dakota skipper locations in 

South Dakota by County. <www.fws.gov/south 

dakotafieldoffice/images/dakota%20skipper%20 

oct23%202002%20general.jpg> 

———. 2004a. Director’s Order 172, “Responsibilities 

of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds”. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Washington, DC. 15 p. 

———. 2004b. Chronic wasting disease plan for U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service lands in the Dakotas 

[unpublished report]. [Location where on file unknown]. 17 p. 

———. 2006. Wildlife disease contingency plan. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, South 

Dakota, USA. 

———. 2008a. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. 

United States Department of Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 p. [Online version available at <www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/>] 

———. 2008b. Identifying resources of concern and 

management priorities for a refuge: a handbook. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Wildlife Refuge System. 61 p. 

———. 2009. Rising to the challenge: strategic plan for 

responding to accelerating climate change (draft). 

<www.fws.gov/home/climatechange/pdf/CCDraftStratPlan92209.pdf> accessed September 22, 2009. 

———. 2010. Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate 

Change. United States Department of Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia. 36 p. 

[Online version available at <http://www.fws.gov/ 

home/climatechange/pdf/CCStrategicPlan.pdf>] 

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Ecoregions 

of North Dakota and South Dakota. [Internet]. 
260

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center online. <www.npwrc.usgs. gov/ 

resource/habitat/ndsdeco/ecotext.htm> [date accessed unknown.] 

———. 2007. Wetlands of North Dakota. [Internet]. 

Water Science Center. <http://nd.water.usgs.gov/ 

wetlands/index.html> accessed March 2007. 

U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2009. 2009 Global 

climate change impacts in the United States. New 

York: Cambridge University Press. 196 p. <www. 

globalchange.gov/> accessed December 22, 2011. 

van der Valk, A.G. 2005. Water-level fluctuations in 

North American prairie wetlands. Hydrobiologia 

539:171–88. 

van der Valk, A.G.; Davis, C.B. 1978. The role of seed 

banks in the vegetation dynamics of prairie glacial 

marshes. Ecology 59: 322–35. 

Vermeire, L.T.; Mitchell, R.B.; Fuhlendore, S.D.; Gillen, 

R.L. 2004. Patch burning effects on grazing distribution. Journal of Range Management 57:248–52. 

Vickery, P.D.; Herkert, J.R. 2001. Recent advances 

in grassland bird research: where do we go from 

here? The Auk 118:11–15. 

Vinton, M.A.; Goergen, E.M. 2006. Plant-soil feedbacks 

contribute to the persistence of Bromus inermis 

in tallgrass prairie. Ecosystems 9:967–76. 

Vogl, R.J. 1974. Effect of fire on grasslands. In: Kozlowski, T.T.; Ahlgren, C.E.; editors. Fire and ecosystems. New York: Academic Press. [Pages unknown]. 

Warren, J.M.; Rotella, J.; Thompson, J.E. 2008. Contrasting effects of cattle grazing intensity on 

upland-nesting duck production at nest and field 

scales in the Aspen Parkland, Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 3(2):6. <www.ace-eco.org/ 

vol3/iss2/art6/>. 

Watson, A.K. 1985. Introduction: the leafy spurge 

problem. In: Watson, A.K.; editor. Leafy spurge. 

Weed Science Society of America Monograph 3:1–6. 

Weaver, J.E.; Albertson, F.W. 1936. Effects of the 

great drought on the prairies of Iowa, Nebraska 

and Kansas. Ecology 17(4):567–639. 

Webb, S.D. 1983. The rise and the fall of the late Miocene ungulate fauna in North America. In: Nitecki, 

H.H.; editor. Coevolution. Chicago, IL: University 

Chicago Press. 267–306. 

Weller, M.W. 1988. Issues and approaches in assessing cumulative impacts on waterbird habitat in 

wetlands. Environmental Management 12:695–701. 

———. 1994. Freshwater marshes. 3rd edition University of Minnesota Press. 

———. 1999. Wetland birds: habitat resources and 

conservation implications. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 

Weller, M.W.; Fredrickson, L.H. 1974. Avian ecology 

of a managed glacial marsh. Living Bird 12: 269–91. 

Weller, M.W.; Spatcher, C.S. 1965. Role of habitat in 

the distribution and abundance of marsh birds. 

Department of Zoology and Entomology Special 

Report Number 43. Ames, IA: Iowa State University, Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment Station. 

Wells, P.V. 1970. Postglacial vegetational history of 

the Great Plains. Science 167:1574–75. 

Wilcove, D.S.; Rothstein, D.; Dubow, J.; Phillips, A.; 

Losos. E. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled 

species in the United States. BioScience 48:607–15. 

Willson, G.D. and J. Stubbendieck. 2000. A provisional 

model for smooth brome management in degraded 

tallgrass prairie. Ecological Restoration 18:34–38. 

Wilson, E.O. 1992. The diversity of life. New York: 

W.W. Norton & Co. 432 p. 

Wilson, S.D. 2002. Prairies. In: Davy, A.J.; Perrow, M.R.; 

editors. Handbook of ecological restoration. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 443–65. 

Wilson, S.D.; Belcher, J.W. 1989. Plant and bird communities of native prairie and introduced Eurasian 

vegetation in Manitoba, Canada. Conservation Biology 3(1):39–44. 

Winham, R.P.; Hannus, L.A. 1989. South Dakota State 

plan for archeological resources: introduction and 

overview to study units and archeological management regions. Archeology Laboratory, Augustana 

College, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Submitted to 

the South Dakota Archeological Research Center, 

Rapid City. 

Winter, M.; Johnson, D.H.; Faaborg, J. 1999. Patterns 

of area sensitivity in grassland nesting birds. Conservation Biology 13:1424–36. 

———. 2000. Evidence for edge effects on multiple 

levels: artificial nests, natural nests, and distribution of nest predators in Missouri tallgrass prairie 

fragments. Condor 102:256–66. 

Winter, T.C.; Rosenberry, D.O. 1995. The interaction 

of groundwater with prairie potholes in the Cottonwood Lake area, east-central North Dakota, 

1979–1990. Journal of Hydrology 15:193–221. 

Wood, W.R.; editor. 1998. Archaeology on the Great 

Plains. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.