Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment

Huron Wetland Management District

Madison Wetland Management District

Sand Lake Wetland Management District

South Dakota

September 2011

Prepared by

Huron Wetland Management District

Room 309 Federal Building

200 Fourth Street SW.

Huron, SD 57350

605 / 352 5894

Madison Wetland Management District

23520 SD Highway 19

Madison, SD 57042 

605 / 256 2974 

Sand Lake Wetland Management District

39650 Sand Lake Drive

Columbia, SD 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, CO 80228

303 / 236 8145

Contents 

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI

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

1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

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

Decision to be Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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

Consumptive Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
IV Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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— Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.1 Alternatives Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.2 Elements Common to All Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.3 Description of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Alternative A—Current Management (No Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Alternative B—Increased Efficiency (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Alternative C—Increased Efficiency with Expanded Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.4 Comparison of Alternatives................................................................... 32

CHAPTER 4— Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4.1 Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Climate..................................................................................... 42

Physiography, Geography, and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4.2 Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Vegetation Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Invasive Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4.3 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Paleoindian Period (9500–5500 B.C.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Plains Archaic Period (5500–500 B.C.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Plains Woodland Period (500 B.C.–A.D. 1000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Plains Village Period (A.D. 1000–1780) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Protohistoric and Early Historic Period (A.D. 1780–1890) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

4.4 Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Wildlife Observation and Photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Environmental Education and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Trapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4.5 Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

4.6 Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Current Socioeconomic, Population, and Employment Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Contents V

4.7 Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

CHAPTER 5— Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

5.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Water Quality, Wetlands, and Floodplains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Public Health and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

5.2 Description of Consequences by Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Alternative A—Current Management (No Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Alternative B—Increased Efficiency (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Alternative C—Increased Efficiency with Expanded Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

5.3 Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

CHAPTER 6— Implementation of the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

6.1 Identification of the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

6.2 Description of Alternative B, the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

6.3 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Native Prairie Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Planted Grasslands Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Wetlands Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Research and Monitoring Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Consumptive Uses Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Nonconsumptive Uses Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Operations and Administration Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Partnerships Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Environmental Education and Interpretation Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Appendixes

Appendix A–Compatibility Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Appendix B–Key Legislation and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Appendix C–Preparers and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Appendix D–Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Appendix E–Location Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Appendix F–South Dakota Upland Plant Associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Appendix G–South Dakota Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Appendix H–Approved Organization Charts............................................................ 259

Appendix I–Compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

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
VI Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

9 Distribution of vegetation communities in the three districts, South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

10 Map of predicted duck-pair concentrations in the three districts, South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

11 Decision tree for prioritizing management of native sod tracts on WPAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

12 Dominant vegetation community types on native prairie, averaged by district, 2006–2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

13 North American bird population indicators based on trends for obligate species in four major habitats . . . . . . . . . 82

14 Quantitative measurements of visual obstruction readings of upland nesting species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

15 Known Dakota Skipper locations in South Dakota by county . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

16 Decision tree for prioritizing management of planted grasslands......................................... 93

17 Whooping crane sightings throughout South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

18 Priority wetlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

19 Distribution of priority grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

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

3 Comparison of alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4 Prairie decline in South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

5 State-listed and local noxious weeds and their distribution in the South Dakota Wetland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

6 Birds of Conservation Concern or Priority Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

7 Selected focal grassland bird species by wetland management district . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

8 Listed species (based on published population data) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

9 Assigned priority levels according to the decision tree for prioritizing management of native prairie . . . . . . . . . . . 78

10 Assigned priority levels according to the decision tree for prioritizing management of planted native vegetation . 94

11 Wildland-urban interface communities on Federal communities at risk and 

South Dakota communities of interest lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
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.
VIII Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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 IX

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.

The Draft Plan

The Service has prepared this document with public 

participation. After reviewing a wide range of public 

issues and comments as well as management needs, 

the Service developed three management alternatives 

for the districts. Alternative B, the proposed action, 

is presented in chapter 6 as the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan.

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

 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

districts Huron, Madison, and Sand Lake Wetland Management Districts

DOI U.S. Department of Interior

DPS Distinct Population Segment

DNC dense nesting cover

Duck Stamp Act Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act

EA environmental assessment

EO Executive order

ESA Endangered Species Act

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

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

NPAM Native Prairie Adaptive Management
XII Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Partners Program Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program

P.L. Public Law

PPJV Prairie Pothole Joint Venture

RECD Rural Economic and Community Development

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

System National Wildlife Refuge System

U.S.C. United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

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 6.
CHAPTER 1— Introduction

Student Conservation Association intern Shannon Crawford releases a banded duck.

© SDGFP

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

plan) 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). 

When finalized, the CCP will serve as a working guide 

for management programs and actions for these three 

districts over the next 15 years.

This draft CCP was developed in compliance with 

the Improvement Act (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997) and Part 602 (National 

Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of “The Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions described in this 

draft CCP and EA (environmental assessment) meet 

the requirements of NEPA (National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969). NEPA compliance is being achieved 

through public involvement and the analyses presented 

in this document.

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 System (National Wildlife Refuge System), and 

public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) is allowed 

and encouraged as long as it is compatible with the 

districts’ purposes. 

The draft CCP and EA 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. The proposed action is summarized in chapter 

3, “Alternatives,” with its predicted effects described 

in chapter 5, “Environmental Consequences.” The details of the proposed action constitute the draft CCP 

(chapter 6, “Implementation of the Proposed Action”). 
2 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

1.1 Purpose and Need for the 

Plan

The purpose of this draft CCP is to identify the role 

that these districts will play in support of the 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 System’s mission;

■ 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 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 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 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”;
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 3Figure 1. Vicinity map of the three districts, South Dakota.
4 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

■ 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”; 

■ 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 System’s mission, the wildlife and 

habitat vision for each unit of the 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 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 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 System differ from multiple-use 

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 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 System’s assistant regional director. 

Compatibility determinations are typically completed 

as part of the process for a CCP or step-down 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 draft compatibility determinations for these 

districts are presented in appendix A and are available for public review and comment as part of the 

draft CCP and EA.

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
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 5

➤ 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

➤ 705,532.59 grassland easement acres

➤ 712.23 flowage and miscellaneous easement acres

➤ 40,875.90 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 SDGFP (South Dakota 

Game, Fish and Parks) 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 

System units are managed to achieve the 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 System 

are in the Administration Act (National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966), Title 50 of the 

CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), “The Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual,” and the Improvement Act. 

The Improvement Act amends the Administration 

Act by providing a unifying mission for the 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 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 
6 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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 partnership-based 

bird conservation initiatives that have produced international, national, and regional conservation plans. 

“All-bird” conservation planning in North America is 

being achieved through the NABCI (North American 

Bird Conservation Initiative). 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 cost-effective 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.

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 BCRs (bird 

conservation regions) (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 NAWMP (North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan) envisioned a 15-year 

effort to achieve landscape conditions that could sustain waterfowl populations. Specific NAWMP objectives are to increase and restore duck populations to 

the average levels of the 1970s—62 million breeding 

ducks and a fall flight of 100 million birds. 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. 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 7

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

Joint ventures develop implementation plans focusing 

on areas of concern identified in the plan. The three 

districts covered in this draft CCP lie within the area 

covered by the PPJV (Prairie Pothole Joint Venture).

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 

(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.

RECOVERY PLANS FOR FEDERALLY LISTED 

THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES

Where species that are federally listed threatened or 

endangered under ESA (Endangered Species Act) 

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 SWG (State Wildlife Grant) 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 
8 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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 CWCS (comprehensive wildlife conservation 

strategy) 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 

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 non-habitat 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 EA. Implementation of the draft 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 USGS 

(U.S. Geological Survey) 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 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 9Figure 3. Map of the Plains and Prairie Potholes Geographic Area.
10 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Service and other Federal agencies, States, tribes, 

NGOs (nongovernmental organizations), 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.

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 draft CCP and EA 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 step-down 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 4 summarizes this information.

The draft CCP (chapter 6) 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. 

The draft 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).
12 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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 

Dakota.

Public opportunity offered (to learn about the CCP and 

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 temporarily 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.

July 2011 Public review of and public meetings on 

draft CCP and EA.

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

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

August 2011 Briefing of the Service’s Regional Director. Summary of public comments reviewed and addressed 

by the Service’s Regional Director and deputy regional 

director. 

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

Responses to public comments and necessary changes 

incorporated into the final CCP.

August 2011 CCP approval, publication, distribution, 

and implementation.

Final CCP approved by the Service’s Regional Director 

and districts’ staff begin implementing.
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 

this 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 

to be addressed in this 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.

DECISION TO BE MADE

The Service’s Director of Region 6 will make the final 

decision on the selection of a preferred alternative 

for the CCP. The Regional Director’s decision will be 

based on the legal responsibility of the Service and will 

consider the mission of the Service and the System, 

other legal and policy mandates, the purposes of the 

three districts, and the vision and goals in this draft 

CCP. In addition, the Regional Director will consider 

public input about the draft CCP and EA. Other considerations are land uses in the surrounding area and 

other parts of the ecosystem, the environmental effects 

of the alternatives, and future budget projections. 

The Service’s final decision will be documented in 

a finding of no significant impact that is published together with the final CCP and distributed to the public. The Service will begin to carry out the final CCP 

immediately on publication of the notice of availability 

of the final CCP in the Federal Register.

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 Draft CCP and EA, 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 CRP [Conservation Reserve 

Program]); 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 >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 Department (U.S. Department 

of Interior) with monies to acquire migratory bird 

habitat. The 1958 amendment to the Duck Stamp Act 

(Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation 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 USDA (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture) 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 System. 

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 

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
18 Draft CCP and EA, 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:

■■ Although the district is a huge entity, it operates in 

the shadow of Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

District staff is shared with the refuge. The staff 

is mostly focused on the refuge, not the district.

■■ Headquarters are at the Sand Lake refuge. This 

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

■■ The district has substantial noxious weed problems.

■■ 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 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 Draft CCP and EA, 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.

Western meadowlark singing.

© Chris Bailey

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.

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 Draft CCP and EA, 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.

Biologist Shilo Comeau on a wetland field visit.

anner/USFWS Bridgette Flanders-W

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.

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. 

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).

Red foxes thrive in human-influenced environments.

© Chris Bailey

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.

VISITOR SERVICES

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

are uses currently authorized on lands administered 

District lands serve multiple purposes.

anner/USFWS Bridgette Flanders-W
26 Draft CCP and EA, 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— Alternatives

Expansive grasslands characterize the districts.

USFWS

Alternatives are different approaches to the management of the districts designed to resolve issues; achieve 

the district’s purpose, vision, and goals as identified 

in the CCP; and help fulfill the System’s mission and 

comply with current laws, regulations, and policies. 

NEPA requires an equal and full analysis of all alternatives considered for implementation.

This chapter describes three management alternatives 

for the districts: alternative A, Current Management (no 

action); alternative B, Increased Efficiency (Proposed 

Action); and alternative C, Increased Efficiency with 

Expanded Resources. 

This CCP and EA have been developed at the programmatic level rather than as a management plan 

for each district. This was the most logical approach 

given the following circumstances:

■ Three wetland management districts addressed 

in the CCP.

■ All three districts involve a mixture of fee and 

easement authorities.

■ There is a similar purpose, vision, and goal for 

each district.

■ All three districts are located in central and eastern South Dakota.

3.1 Alternatives Development

Alternatives are formulated to address the significant 

issues identified by the Service, the public, and the 

governmental partners during the internal and public scoping process and throughout the development 

of the draft plan. 

This chapter contains the following sections:

■ Elements Common to All Alternatives

■ Description of Alternatives

■ Comparison of Alternatives (table 3)

This chapter describes three management alternatives that represent different approaches to enhancing the protection and restoration of fish, wildlife, 

plants, habitats, and other resources. Alternative 

A, Current Management, describes ongoing district 

management. The no-action alternative is a basis for 

comparison with alternatives B and C. Alternative B 

is the Service’s proposed action and basis for the draft 

CCP (chapter 6).

The planning team assessed biological conditions 

and external relationships affecting the districts. This 

information contributed to the development of alternatives, each of which presents a distinct approach 

for addressing long-term goals. Each alternative 

was evaluated on the basis of its expected success in 
28 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

A Canada goose wings overhead.

© Chris Bailey

meeting the vision and goals of the districts and how 

it would address core wildlife and habitat issues and 

threats. Where data are available, trends in habitat 

and wildlife are evaluated, and the environmental consequences of each alternative are projected.

3.2 Elements Common to All 

Alternatives

A number of elements are common to all three alternatives. The need to maintain suitable habitat for a 

wide range of migratory bird species, especially those 

species of management concern, is an overriding concern regardless of the alternative selected.

Management of upland habitats includes the potential use of an array of practices (fire, grazing, 

chemicals, and biological control) under all alternatives. Similarly, management of disturbed uplands 

(specifically, lands that have been or are currently 

being cropped, farmed, broken, or seeded to a native 

or tamegrass mixture) focuses on improved habitat 

quality for migratory birds.

Public use and education, such as workshops and 

enhanced outreach, will be provided to area schools 

and the general public to the fullest extent possible. 

Maintaining support for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation are common to all three 

alternatives. 

All three alternatives promote, at a minimum, the 

opportunistic identification, documentation, and protection of the district’s cultural resources. All district 

activities are coordinated through Service Cultural 

Resources Specialists.

The research and monitoring efforts under all alternatives would focus on improving the Service’s 

knowledge of how best to control invasive nonnative 

flora, and would increase the intensity and extent of 

upland and wetland vegetation monitoring.

3.3 Description of Alternatives

Management actions to advance the System’s mission and the purpose and vision of the three districts 

under each of the alternatives are summarized below. 

The alternatives reflect options to address significant 

threats, problems, and issues raised by public agencies, private citizens, and interested organizations.

Each alternative differs in its ability to achieve 

long-term wildlife and habitat goals. However, each 

is similar in its approach to managing the districts. 

Each alternative would:

■ pursue the goals outlined in chapter 2

■ protect and enhance a diverse assemblage of habitats

■ be consistent with the purpose of the districts and 

with the System mission and goals 

The focus and actions for each of alternatives A–C 

are described below.

ALTERNATIVE A—CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO 

ACTION)

Summary

Under alternative A, management activities currently 

conducted by the Service throughout all three districts 

would not change. The no-action alternative provides 

the baseline against which to compare other alternatives. It is also a requirement of NEPA that a no-action 

alternative be addressed in the planning process. The 

Service would not develop any new management, restoration, education, or visitor services programs for 

the districts. Staff would not expand or change current habitat and wildlife management practices conducted for the benefit of waterfowl, State- and federally listed species, migratory birds, and other native 

wildlife. Staff would conduct monitoring, inventory, 

and research activities at their current level (that is, 

limited, issue-driven research and limited avian and 

vegetative monitoring and inventory). Funding and 

staff levels would not change, and programs would 

follow the same direction, emphasis, and intensity as 

they do at present. 

Habitat and Wildlife

The current management of wildlife habitat and associated species on district WPAs are prioritized (according to similar but distinct methodologies between 

districts) into high, medium, and low areas. In general, 

only high-priority WPAs currently receive consistent 

management.

All conservation easements are monitored by Service 

personnel; however, only the high-priority easement 

violations are consistently enforced. 

Acquisition efforts by the Division of Realty are focused on high-priority tracts; most of these efforts entail 

securing easements from willing private landowners.
CHAPTER 3—Alternatives 29

A concerted effort is made to control plant species 

that are recognized by the State and county as invasive. Habitat management on high-priority WPAs is 

directed to address invasive species of serious ecological concern.

Active burning, grazing, farming, and invasive 

species control programs are used to maintain and/or 

improve native prairie and planted grassland units.

District staff would continue to monitor energy 

development and evaluate road and pad development 

on a case-by-case basis. Staff would continue to monitor for contaminant spills and will direct cleanup by 

power companies.

Under this alternative, district staff would continue 

to monitor and document the presence and use of district lands by federally listed species, such as piping 

plover and whooping crane. District staff would continue to impose area closures to public use to protect 

federally listed species using district lands, especially 

during nesting season.

Monitoring and Research 

The current wildlife and habitat monitoring efforts on 

the lands managed by all three districts would continue. These efforts include annual surveys of various 

bird groups (such as breeding waterfowl and migrant 

shorebirds) on certain Service lands, and periodic monitoring of waterfowl and colonial waterbird nesting efforts and success on certain Service lands. Monitoring 

and inventory of projects related to the flora of district 

lands (for example, belt transect monitoring of management effects) would continue. Periodic monitoring 

of line transects would continue on a limited number 

of units to track trends in progress toward improving 

native prairie habitat. Four-square-mile waterfowl 

pair counts would be completed as scheduled. Various 

cooperative research efforts with other agencies and 

organizations would continue. Staff would continue to 

use available information and sound science to make 

informed management decisions. District staff would 

complete Service-mandated surveys on wildlife and 

habitat within specified timeframes, and some baseline 

monitoring would continue on high-priority tracts.

Visitor Services

Currently, events and workshops with such groups as 

school districts, youth groups, and conservation groups 

are conducted upon request. District informational 

brochures and publications are updated periodically. 

Displays and exhibits, including signs and brochures, 

would continue to be maintained at the districts’ 

headquarters, as well as at other public use facilities 

throughout the lands managed by the districts. The 

districts implement occasional media outreach efforts 

through newspaper articles and radio announcements.

WPAs are open to all types of hunting (waterfowl, 

small game, furbearer) consistent with State regulations. Hunting and fishing programs would continue, 

with seasons paralleling the regular statewide seasons. 

Access is limited to foot traffic on all Service lands, 

with the exception of identified motorized vehicle 

trails in specific WPAs.

Public trapping is currently regulated by special 

use permits on all district lands and targets predator management objectives. Recreational trapping 

programs on the districts are administered by each 

district. Recreational trapping on WPAs has been approved by legislation. 

Partnerships

Staff would work to preserve existing partnerships 

that strive to address resource information needs; protect and enhance habitat (both public and private); and 

promote public use, education, and outreach. Current 

partners include local private landowners for management, grassland and wetland easement acquisition, 

weed initiatives, and outreach. The districts also partner with government agencies, such as SDGFP, and 

NGOs, such as Ducks Unlimited, for assistance with 

biological projects, acquisition, and public outreach. 

Operations

The funding and staffing resources for the districts 

would remain at current levels to provide the necessary legal and obligated mandates and to provide 

management for high-priority WPAs.

Operations and maintenance would continue to 

consist of maintaining buildings, vehicles, and other 

equipment in good working condition to achieve management goals. Maintenance staff would operate with 

available funding and resources. Law enforcement 

personnel and activities would be provided at current levels for visitor safety and protection of facilities and wildlife.

The Service would act in compliance with the NHPA 

(National Historic Preservation Act) and other pertinent cultural resource laws. 

ALTERNATIVE B—INCREASED EFFICIENCY 

(PROPOSED ACTION)

Summary

Under alternative B, management of the three districts would emphasize developing and implementing 

an improved, science-based 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 mediumpriority tracts. The focus of this alternative would be 

to restore ecological processes and native grassland 

species to the greatest extent possible within the 

parameters of available resources and existing constraints. Under this alternative, 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.
30 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Habitat and Wildlife 

Under this alternative, the amount, periodicity, and 

type of management of native prairie habitats would 

follow an improved, science-based prioritization system driven by present habitat needs and conditions 

and the probability of successful native vegetation 

enhancement. District staff would pursue these targets through enhanced management using existing 

habitat management tools. 

Old croplands would be reseeded utilizing native 

species in an ongoing process to convert unsuitable 

nesting habitat (for example, cropland, degraded DNC 

[Dense Nesting Cover], monotypic cool-season stands 

of tamegrass) to a diverse native plant community. 

Species included in the plant mix would be based on 

historic vegetation composition, soil structure, and 

requirements of the target species. Established native grass stands and the remainder of the disturbed 

uplands would be periodically managed to rejuvenate 

grass, reduce litter accumulations, and control undesirable noxious weeds through haying, grazing, burning, 

and chemical or biological treatments.

Planted and exotic woody vegetation would be 

managed to provide the greatest overall benefit to 

a selected group of target species. This alternative 

would allow for the removal of trees and shrubs if it 

is decided that such is the appropriate management 

direction for the benefit of migratory birds and other 

native wildlife.

Under this alternative, the Service’s Division of 

Realty would focus acquisition efforts on high-priority 

easements and some of the highest priority fee tracts 

(such as roundouts; roundouts are parcels either adjacent or internal to WPAs, the addition of which would 

enhance the management or ecological value of the 

WPA) from willing sellers.

Control of invasive species would be the same as 

under alternative A, but it would be implemented in 

accordance with a prioritization system. 

Monitoring and Research

Under alternative B, monitoring and research would 

continue current efforts described for alternative A. 

District staff would complete some baseline monitoring currently underway on high- and medium-priority 

tracts. Staff would participate in landscape-level analysis to guide acquisition; promote management-level 

research to improve habitat management practices; 

promote further efforts to monitor for improved success 

of transitioning seeded areas to native grasses (in both 

composition and structure); and monitor control efforts 

for nonnative grasses (such as Kentucky bluegrass 

and smooth brome) and other invasive plant species.

Visitor Services

Under this alternative, staff would increase the quality of environmental education and interpretation opportunities and facilities to meet the needs of a wide 

array of target audiences. Hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, and photography uses would be similar 

to those under alternative A. Workshops with school 

groups and teachers would emphasize waterfowl and 

migratory bird identification. 

Media outreach to local newspapers and radio stations would be conducted as often as staff time allows. 

District brochures and publications would be reviewed 

annually and updates completed as needed.

All public use facilities would be reviewed to ensure they meet Service standards and, if necessary, 

upgraded. The Service proposes, at a future date, to 

construct a new administration/visitor center for the 

Huron WMD at the Maga-Ta-Hohpi WPA near Huron to 

meet the demands of public and school group visitation.

Partnerships

Under this alternative, existing partnerships would 

be expanded to address habitat and wildlife management in accordance with the new prioritization system. This alternative would encourage ongoing work 

with local, State, and Federal agencies to explore new 

avenues to implement the goals of this alternative. 

Neighboring private landowners would be targeted 

for new partnerships. This alternative would also promote developing and fostering partnerships with local 

communities, such as Friends organizations, to inform 

the public of district programs and special events.

Operations

This alternative would not necessitate an increase 

but rather a redistribution of resources and staffing. 

These changes would follow the prioritization system 

in district operations to address program needs, pursuing an “increased efficiency” strategy.

Operations and maintenance would be redistributed and managed to support management of priority resources. A minimum threshold of staffing needs, 

equipment, and funding would be identified to support management. It is believed that no increase in 

funding for staffing, equipment, or supplies would be 

necessary to achieve the goals and objectives of this 

alternative. However, an increase in both funding and 

staffing would afford the districts the possibility of 

improving the management of lower priority tracts.

As under alternative A, law enforcement would 

be provided for visitor safety and protection of facilities and wildlife.

The Service would act in compliance with the NHPA 

and other pertinent cultural resource laws. 

ALTERNATIVE C—INCREASED EFFICIENCY WITH 

EXPANDED RESOURCES

Summary

Under alternative C, management would follow the 

same prioritization system for restoration and management as under alternative B, but it would be based on 
CHAPTER 3—Alternatives 31

projected staffing and funding increases. The management focus, like that of alternative B, would follow an 

improved prioritization system, but would also widen 

into additional WPAs. With increased funding and staffing, acquisition of new WPAs in fee title would increase. 

Similarly, increased funding and staffing would enable 

commensurate increases in the number and scope of 

partnerships. The districts would continue to provide 

the same types of public uses but would expand the 

scope and quality of these opportunities.

Under alternative C, management targeting native 

prairie/wetland complexes would be more intensive and 

widespread. District staff would seek out projects for 

restoring high-quality native prairie in both high- and 

low-priority tracts. This alternative would have the 

potential to provide additional management options 

to address habitat requirements and wildlife needs. 

The staff would seek to develop new environmental 

education and public use programs as well as to reach 

out to new users. As under alternative B, the Service 

proposes, at a future date, a new administration /visitor center for the Huron WMD at the Maga-Ta-Hohpi 

WPA near Huron.

Habitat and Wildlife

Under alternative C, all WPAs in all three districts 

would receive consistent management based on the 

prioritization system. 

District staff would intensively manage native prairie/wetland complexes that would focus on the most 

intact systems, which are more likely to support a wide 

range of migratory bird species, especially those of 

management concern. Restoring grasslands to highquality native prairie would be a priority. Emphasis 

would be placed on the restoration of healthy areas of 

native mixed- and tallgrass prairies to benefit groundnesting species of migratory birds.

Management of disturbed upland habitats would be 

driven by the resource needs of waterfowl and shorebirds. Under this alternative, old cropland sites and 

badly degraded native prairies would be the lowest 

priority, but they would be managed to attract high 

densities of waterfowl species that use DNC; efforts 

to increase nest and brood survival would focus on 

these tracts. 

District staff would expand the pursuit of easement acquisition and enforcement through proactive 

mapping and strong enforcement actions. Acquisition 

efforts would be directed at high-priority easements, 

fee-title WPAs, and roundouts. Under alternative C, 

acquisition of WPA easements would focus on highpriority native prairie and wetlands. 

Because native prairie habitat has more long-term 

value for supporting ducks and other grassland birds 

than those areas invaded by introduced grasses and 

forbs, all nonnative invasive species would be managed 

on priority WPAs, allowing for management actions 

that provide the greatest benefit to migratory birds and 

resident wildlife. This alternative would allow for the 

removal of existing nonnative trees and shrubs for the 

benefit of native wildlife, such as grassland-dependent 

passerines, upland-nesting shorebirds, and waterfowl.

Management of invasive species under alternative C would be the same as under alternative B, but 

would address a greater extent of lands because of the 

increased levels of funding and staffing.

Monitoring and Research

Monitoring and research activities would parallel 

those described for alternative B, with the addition of 

addressing specific management questions. Research 

funds would be available for graduate student work 

and self-directed research projects.

Visitor Services

The current level and quality of environmental education and interpretation opportunities and facilities 

would be expanded to meet the needs of a wide array of 

target audiences. District staff would seek to develop 

programs that enhance public use, outdoor classroom 

activities, and interpretive exhibits and displays. 

Public use events such as teacher and waterfowl 

identification workshops presented by district staff 

would be expanded over current levels and possibly 

conducted annually. Brochures and publications would 

most likely be reviewed and renewed annually. New 

publications and educational materials would likely 

be developed to aid in the interpretation of sights and 

sounds on WPAs.

Outreach would include the media and partner 

groups such as wildlife clubs and conservation nonprofit groups. Presentations to area schools and communities would be a priority.

Under alternative C, as under alternative B, the 

Service proposes, at a future date, to construct a new 

administration/visitor center for the Huron WMD at 

the Maga-Ta-Hohpi WPA near Huron to meet the demands of public and school group visitation.

Partnerships

Partnership development and management would 

parallel the direction outlined for alternative B. 

Additionally, under alternative C, existing partnerships 

with the local public and SDGFP would be expanded. 

New partnerships—through development of Friends 

organizations—would be pursued with community 

members who have an appreciation and interest in 

the welfare of area districts. 

Operations

Operations under alternative C would be the same as 

alternative B, but with the likely expansion of easement monitoring and enforcement on all conservation 

easements as a result of increased levels of funding 

and staffing.
32 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

The Service would act in compliance with the NHPA 

and other pertinent cultural resource laws. District 

staff would develop an educational program and interpretive opportunities for the public pertaining to 

cultural resources.

3.4 Comparison of 

Alternatives

Table 3 provides a comparison of alternatives.

Table 3. Comparison of alternatives.

Alternative C Alternative A Alternative B (increased efficiency with (no action) (increased efficiency) expanded resources)

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.

Native Continue to use prescribed fire, grazing, Manage lands according to a Same as B, but increase/expand 

upland and invasive plant control to maintain priority system. the number of treated units.

habitats and improve grassland health. Maintain selected native habi- Restoration would occur on 

Suppress nonnative introduced grasses tats in as natural or native con- more lands under this alternative.

and invasive species. dition as possible.

Manage to enhance the competitive Continue to use same tools as A.

ability of native plants.

Invasive Species

Nonnative trees Continue to remove trees (e.g., shelter- Same as A, but prioritize removal Same as B, but increase/expand 

and shrubs belts, volunteers) according to budgetary of trees on high-priority tracts. the number of treated units.

constraints and biological justification. Restoration (removal of trees/

Remove trees on a site-specific basis. shrubs) would occur on more 

lands under this alternative.

Nonnative Continue to suppress invasive plants Same as A, but prioritize man- Same as B, but increase/expand 

introduced grasses (e.g., smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, agement of non-native introduced the number of treated units.

crested wheatgrass) and promote the grasses on high-priority tracts. Restoration would occur on 

competitive abilities of native species more lands under this alternative.

to restore grassland health.

Continue to use prescribed fire and 

grazing at current levels as management tools.

Continued limitations in management efforts due to current staffing 

and funding levels.

Noxious Maintain current noxious weed man- Same as A, plus establish and Same as B, but increase moniweeds agement programs. maintain an inventory of the de- toring to determine effectiveUse IPM (integrated pest management). gree and density of infestation. ness of treatment. 

Control of noxious weeds is limited. Prioritize treatment.

Currently, higher use of spot treatments than blanket treatments.

Continue to use target-specific herbicides that exert the least impacts on 

native forbs and grasses.

Management Continue to use a range of manage- Prioritize and focus manage- Increase use of all tools; drastools ment tools. ment on WPAs with the most tic increase of prescribed fire.

(e.g., fire, graz- Currently, grazing is primary man- restoration potential. Under this alternative, more 

ing, clipping) agement tool. Determine which WPAs ben- WPAs would be managed.

Continue limited use of prescribed efit most from a particular man- Greater use of tools in 

fire. Current use of fire is concentrated agement tool. combination.

on native prairie tracts. Continue to use a range of 

management tools.
CHAPTER 3—Alternatives 33

Table 3. Comparison of alternatives.

Alternative A

(no action)

Alternative B

(increased efficiency)

Alternative C

(increased efficiency with 

expanded resources)

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.

Tamegrass Continue to manage as tamegrass; Develop formal prioritization Restore more lands and diver-

(DNC [dense when possible, restore to planted na- system. sify species.

nesting cover], tive vegetation. Focus conversion to planted This alternative would rebrome, Kentucky Continue working systematically to- natives on high-priority WPAs. flect a finer scale of restoration 

bluegrass) ward restoration of tamegrass areas to 

planted native vegetation.

Continue to maintain healthy productive stands of tamegrass as an interim step.

(e.g., focus more on local ecotype plant material, increased 

diversity).

Planted Continue managing planted native Use same tools as under alter- Same as B, but increase/exnative grasslands to suppress nonnative in- native A. pand the number of treated 

grasslands troduced grasses and invasive species.

Use prescribed fire, grazing, and 

invasive plant control to maintain and 

improve grassland health.

Manage for competitive ability of 

native plants.

Prioritize and manage lands 

through a priority system and 

apply treatments as needed.

Maintain planted native grassland habitats in as natural or native condition as possible.

units and the maintenance/

management thereof.

“Partial” restoration would 

occur on more lands under this 

alternative.

Management Cropped land: seedbed preparation for Continue use of the same tools Continue use of the same tools 

tools (fire, graz- grassland restorations. as under alternative A. as under alternative A but ining, herbicides, Continue to use grazing and limited Determine which WPAs show crease their rate of use, with 

cropped land, fire and clipping. best restoration potential and dramatic increase in the use of 

other) Continue use of herbicide for preparing cropland and controlling noxious weeds.

Continue limited use of cropping/

seeding and herbicide in combination 

(e.g., applying herbicide for restoration 

then inner-seeding).

focus use of available management tools on those.

prescribed fire.

Under this alternative, more 

tracts would be managed by 

one tool or another.

Implement greater use of 

management tools in combination (e.g., use grazing and 

fire together).

Invasive Species

Nonnative trees Continue to remove trees (e.g., shelter- Same as A, but prioritize removal Same as B, but increase/expand 

and shrubs belts, volunteers) according to budgetary 

constraints and biological justification.

Remove trees on site-specific basis.

of trees on high-priority tracts. the number of treated units.

Restoration (removal of trees 

and shrubs) would occur on more 

lands under this alternative.

Nonnative intro- Continue to use grazing and prescribed Same as A, but prioritize. Same as B but increase/expand 

duced grasses fire as tools.

Continue to suppress invasives (e.g., 

smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, 

crested wheatgrass) in restored grasslands and promote the competitive 

abilities of native species to restore 

grassland health.

Management efforts are limited by 

staffing and funding levels.

the number of treated units.

Restoration would occur on 

more lands under this alternative.
34 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Table 3. Comparison of alternatives.

Alternative C Alternative A Alternative B (increased efficiency with (no action) (increased efficiency) expanded resources)

Noxious weeds Maintain current noxious weed man- Use IPM. Increase monitoring to deteragement programs (these vary from Establish and maintain an in- mine effectiveness of treatment.

district to district and from more struc- ventory of the degree and den- Use IPM.

tured to reactionary). sity of infestation.

Use IPM. Prioritize treatment.

Control of noxious weeds is limited.

Continue to conduct more blanket 

spaying in areas of grass as opposed to 

areas of grass-forb mix (i.e., more spot 

treatments in areas of grass-forb mix).

Use target-specific herbicides to minimize impacts on native forbs and grass.

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.

Wetlands Protect existing wetlands from drain- Management of wetlands based Pursue active management of 

without water age or other manipulation (e.g., tilling). both on the prioritization and wetlands.

control structures Restore and maintain natural hydrol- management of surrounding up- Identify areas of wetland 

ogy if possible. lands, as well as some targeted degradation and actively manWetland management is dependent management of wetlands, where age them where possible. More 

on management of surrounding uplands appropriate (based on specific wetlands would be managed 

(i.e., they are not managed separately prioritization tools developed than under alternative B.

from uplands). under this alternative).

Management efforts in wetlands are Prioritization based on the 

dependent on available staff and funding. degree of wetland degradation 

and also the management potential of the area.

Identify and actively manage degraded wetlands where 

possible.

Winter burn of cattails, herbicide treatments, etc.

Wetlands with Same as for wetlands without water Same as A, plus assess the po- Same as B, plus take an active 

water control control structures, except staff can tential for increased manage- role in managing water levels.

structures manipulate water levels. ment of water levels.

Structures do not provide complete 

control.

Water resources Currently, staff is uncertain of legal Request and secure a comprehen- Same as B.

(artificial drain- rights regarding acceptance of drainage. sive water rights and hydrology 

age affecting compendium from USFWS Region 

hydrology) 6 Water Resources Division.

Management Continue to use a variety of tools. Prioritize and focus manage- Same as B, except more units 

tools Because wetland management would ment on wetlands that have the would be treated by appropri-

(fire, grazing, continue to reflect management of sur- greatest need. ate management tools.

mowing, her- rounding uplands, continue primary de- Determine which tool is most 

bicides, other) pendence on grazing and limited use of appropriate to use in those wetprescribed fire. lands that will benefit most (based 

on degree of degradation).

Invasive Species

Nonnative trees Continue to use a reactive rather than Same as A. Utilize proactive approach to 

and shrubs (e.g., a proactive management approach. treatment and monitoring.

salt cedar) Continue to monitor known sites and Develop partnerships with 

actively treat them. groups to assist in monitoring 

Goal is eradication at early infes- and removal.

tation, but this is difficult to achieve.
CHAPTER 3—Alternatives 35

Table 3. Comparison of alternatives.

Alternative C Alternative A Alternative B (increased efficiency with (no action) (increased efficiency) expanded resources)

Nonnative introduced grasses

Currently engaged in research (adaptive management project on reed canary grass).

Continue treating reed canary grass 

as part of management of surrounding uplands.

Same as A. Same as A, but more inventory 

with the purpose of understanding levels of reed canary grass 

infestation. 

More actively fight reed canary grass using the adaptive 

management study.

Noxious weeds

Provide a learni

standing of the 

Maintain current noxious weed management programs (these vary from 

district to district and from more structured to reactionary).

Use IPM.

Control of noxious weeds is limited.

Continue to use required herbicides.

Researc

ng platform that uses science, monitorin

Prairie Pothole Region and management of these areas.

Continue to use IPM.

Establish and maintain an inventory of the degree and density of infestation.

Prioritize treatment.

h and Monitoring

g, applied research, and adaptive management to advance underIncrease treatment of noxious 

weeds using IPM.

Increase monitoring to determine effectiveness of treatment.

Research Continue to accommodate requests 

for use of lands for research on a caseby-case basis.

Allow and participate in research 

as feasible and practical. Currently, 

there is extensive research conducted 

on WMD lands.

Research involves a wide variety of 

topics relevant to the Prairie Pothole 

Region.

Currently staff is exploring adaptive 

management model (Northern Prairie).

Same as A, plus participate in 

the development/implementation 

of adaptive management models 

to benefit WMD management.

Proactively pursue research.

Shift toward more Servicedirected research. Identify research needs ahead of time and 

work with partners to achieve.

More staff and increased 

partnerships will lead to more 

research.

Inventory 

and 

monitoring

Currently, staff applies principles of 

adaptive management, but not in a 

formalized, structured way.

Currently pursuing baseline data 

(varies from district to district).

Currently in the initial phase of monitoring management actions and addressing specific management questions.

Continue mandated surveys (e.g., 

four-square mile).

Ongoing refinement of inventory.

Same as A, but monitoring would 

become more strategic.

Focus adaptive management 

on high-priority tracts or issues.

Complete baseline inventory 

and refine ongoing inventory.

Expand monitoring to all 

tracts.

More monitoring would enable increased effectiveness of 

management.

Expand partnerships for 

monitoring.

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.

Hunting All WPAs are open to hunting (unless 

there is a specific decision to close).

There are no special regulations regarding hunting. All WPAs are open 

to hunting of species allowed by State: 

(e.g., big game, waterfowl).

Over time, continue to provide more 

hunting opportunities through limited 

acquisition of additional fee lands.

Same as A. Same as A, but provide more 

hunting opportunities through 

acquisition of additional fee lands.
36 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Table 3. Comparison of alternatives.

Alternative C Alternative A Alternative B (increased efficiency with (no action) (increased efficiency) expanded resources)

Fishing Continue to allow public access to WPAs 

that sustain fisheries. In cooperation 

with SDGFP, certain WPAs are closed 

to fishing to enable rearing of brood 

stock/fingerlings.

The Service maintains access to certain WPAs that sustain fisheries and 

are open to public.

Some are adjacent to meanders; public can access these from WPAs.

Access points are provided (trail to 

the water); these are not enhanced.

Limited stocking (one site, stocked 

by SDGFP).

Same as A. Provide additional fishing opportunities through acquisition 

of more fee lands.

Trapping Continue to allow recreational trapping on WPAs per State regulations.

Same as A. Provide more trapping opportunities through acquisition of 

additional fee lands.

Other

(e.g., fruit 

harvesting)

Harvesting wild fruits (including mushrooms) is currently allowed for personal use.

Same as A. Provide more opportunities for 

harvesting wild fruits through 

acquisition of additional fee lands.

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.

Photography 

and wildlife 

observation

Photography and wildlife observation 

are allowed and encouraged.

There are an abundance of opportunities, but use is currently loosely 

monitored.

Some facilities for wildlife observation/photography (i.e., a few blinds and 

observation platforms) are provided 

where there are good opportunities 

and the use is compatible. Existing 

facilities are used by small, dedicated 

community of photographers.

Additional facilities are provided as 

opportunities present themselves (opportunistic approach).

Currently, staff wishes to increase 

number of blinds and platforms/ towers, but this depends on funding.

Improvements to the Auto Tour at 

the Madison WMD with interpretive 

panels and other facilities are currently 

underway.

Some instructional programs on photography are currently offered (e.g., 

at the annual Prairie Fest, groups are 

taken to WPAs).

Currently, the Service partners with 

the State to promote opportunities for 

wildlife observation/photography. For 

example, all three WMDs are highlighted in a brochure as part of a statewide birding trail.

Assess the quality of the existing program to determine if 

there are any needs that should 

be addressed.

Increase accessibility by providing an accessible blind.

Increase number of blinds and 

platforms/towers for observation.

Proactively identify suitable 

locations and opportunities for 

facilities. Enlist help of photographers and others in this effort.

Focus new facilities in places 

already developed for public use 

(e.g., Maga-Ta-Hohpi, Madison 

WPAs).

Proactively promote the opportunities for observation/ 

photography.

Update species list for Sand 

Lake WMD.

Same as B, plus provide more 

opportunities through acquisition of more fee lands.

Build new facilities (e.g., 

observation towers, blinds). 

Consider building new facilities in new locations (i.e., not 

just areas where efforts are 

currently focused).

Actively pursue partnerships 

to provide more facilities.

Explore opportunities to increase partnerships with photographers (e.g., promotional 

purposes).

Outdoor recreation planner 

would likely coordinate partnerships and work with groups 

to provide more opportunities.

Update species list for Sand 

Lake WMD by developing a 

partnership. 
CHAPTER 3—Alternatives 37

Table 3. Comparison of alternatives.

Alternative C Alternative A Alternative B (increased efficiency with (no action) (increased efficiency) expanded resources)

Other uses (e.g., 

geo-caching, virtual geo-caching, 

pod-casting)

The Service is currently developing policy with regard to geo-caching (virtual 

geo-caching is already deemed compatible). Geo-caching is on the rise nationally and has been identified in Region 

6 as an opportunity for attracting new 

users. This activity is likely already occurring on Service lands.

Currently working with the City of 

Madison to build a hiking and biking 

trail at the Payne WPA, which will 

eventually connect with the Auto Tour 

route at the Madison WPA.

Influence policy decision regarding geo-caching.If geo-caching is determined 

to be compatible, pursue opportunities on district lands.

Explore opportunities presented 

by new media and technology.

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.

Programs Sustain environmental education and 

interpretation programs at existing 

levels.

Accommodate requests for programs 

when contacted by schools or other 

groups. 

Currently, there is no outdoor recreation planner position. All staff contributes to environmental education/

interpretive programs such as those 

offered at SD Outdoor Expo or Huron 

Prairie Fest.

Huron Friends Group goal is to offer 

programs quarterly.

Evaluate effectiveness of existing environmental education/

interpretive programs.

Improve quality of existing 

programs.

Evaluate community interest for potential new programs. 

Evaluate community interest 

for new programs and implement them.

Take advantage of new staffing (such as dedicated outdoor 

recreation planner position) to 

greatly improve outreach to 

communities (“Take it to the 

communities”).

Increase outreach to children 

and educate public on the purposes of the WMDs and their 

role in the System.

Outdoor classroom idea: turn 

key WPAs (e.g., those close 

to a community) into outdoor 

classrooms by partnering with 

schools and other groups.

Explore opportunities presented by new technology and 

other interpretive media. 

Facilities Continue to maintain a limited number Same as A. Explore opportunities presented 

(contact stations, of displays and exhibits at the contact by new technology and media.

displays, kiosks, stations, along with brochures, signs, Create satellite office/contact 

signs) and public use facilities in various areas. station for the Sand Lake WMD.

Existing interpretive signs tend to Expand existing facilities to 

be outdated. Currently staff is work- accommodate new staff.

ing to improve and update interpretive New high-quality displays 

panels on all WMDs. and signs for existing and fuThere is a proposal to construct a ture headquarters-contact stanew district headquarters office and tions (i.e., treat any new facilivisitor center for the Huron WMD at ties/signs as an opportunity for 

the Maga-Ta-Hohpi WPA. increasing quality).

There is a proposal for office expansion for Madison WMD.
38 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Table 3. Comparison of alternatives.

Alternative A

(no action)

Alternative B

(increased efficiency)

Alternative C

(increased efficiency with 

expanded resources)

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.

Land protection Maintain current practice of easement Evaluate current land acquisi- With increased staff and fund-

(e.g., purchases, acquisition based on funding levels. tion program. ing, place greater emphasis on 

easements, ex- Continue limited fee title acquisition. Explore new methods of pri- expanding fee title lands.

changes, resi- Acquisition tends to occur when land- oritizing lands for acquisition. Eliminate current backlog.

dential devel- owners approach the Service. Prioritize acquisitions in core Expand more partnerships 

opment, wind Stay engaged in developing policies areas that need protection. for land acquisition.

power) related to development requests. Continue evaluating lands for 

efficiency/ effectiveness, but use 

a finer level of precision than 

under A.

Strengthen public education 

regarding the importance of 

the Duck Stamp to acquisition.

Funding Funding for all key programs would 

remain inadequate.

Same as A. Increased funding.

Staffing Staffing would remain inadequate. Same as A. Increase personnel.

(including Volunteers are not actively pursued Staff current organization 

volunteers) unless funding is available.

Currently staff is working to develop 

a long-term volunteer program.

chart. 

Increase recruitment of 

volunteers.

Infrastructure Maintain infrastructure at current levels. Same as A. Complete inventory of infrastructure. 

(e.g., roads, Current funding is inadequate to Address deficiencies and increase 

buildings) maintain infrastructure.

Roads are maintained.

Certain management trails are in poor 

shape. It is difficult to access lands using these trails.

Fences are in various stages of disrepair.

Currently in the process of installing 

updated boundary signs.

maintenance of infrastructure.

Equipment Maintain existing equipment at cur- Same as A. Fund high-priority equipment 

(e.g., vehicles, rent levels. that will increase management 

machinery, tools) Continue to explore new equipment/

technology that may increase efficiency.

effectiveness and efficiency.

Increased staff means that 

more vehicles would be needed.

Law enforcement Maintain existing levels of law enforcement. Same as A. Additional staff could address 

(e.g., trespass- Violations on both easement and law enforcement deficiencies.

ing, illegal uses) fee-title lands appear to be on the rise.

More violations are occurring (e.g., 

trespassing, guided hunts). Currently 

staffing is inadequate to address these 

issues.

Increase and improve outreach to neighbors to promote 

“eyes on the land.”

Notify landowners of their 

easement obligations.

Increase outreach to other 

agencies.

Cultural 

resources

Continue mandated protection of cultural resources and continue inventory 

procedures as needed.

Same as A. Same as A, and review all known 

cultural resources for interpretive and educational values.
CHAPTER 3—Alternatives 39

Table 3. Comparison of alternatives.

Alternative A

(no action)

Alternative B

(increased efficiency)

Alternative C

(increased efficiency with 

expanded resources)

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.

Volunteer 

programs

In many ways, volunteers help fulfill 

the Service’s mission.

Volunteers are not actively pursued 

unless funding is available.

Currently, working to develop a longterm volunteer program.

Same as A. Prioritization would guide volunteer efforts. Aggressively 

pursue volunteers with the 

desired skills to achieve specific tasks.

Outdoor recreation planner 

or volunteer coordinator added 

to staff to coordinate new partnership efforts.

Friends 

Groups

Currently Huron is the only district with 

a Friends Group. They assist Huron in 

a variety of capacities (outreach, education, advocacy, fundraising).

Huron would grow Friends Group 

membership.

Pursue Friends Group for other 

districts.

Other

(State, landowners and NGOs, 

public) 

Maintain existing partnerships.

Depending on project needs, work 

with network of partners to accomplish mission.

Same as A. More staff would lead to increased partnerships.

Explore opportunities to 

partner with new groups.

CHAPTER 4— Affected Environment

Grasslands in the Millerdale Waterfowl Production Area.

anner/USFWS Bridgette Flanders-W

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.

4.1 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 CO2 (carbon dioxide) 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. 
42 Draft CCP and EA, 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, EPA’s (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’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.”

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 

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.
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 43

Figure 8. Draft Level III and IV Ecoregions of South Dakota.
44 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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.

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). 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 45

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, 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 
46 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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 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.
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 47

➤ 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.

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 

American white pelicans breed in freshwater areas in the 

interior of North America.

© Chris Bailey

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 

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 
48 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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 HAPET (Habitat 

and Population Evaluation Team), 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 

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. 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 49

Many Western States do not provide this protection 

and, consequently, 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 E. 

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.

■ 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.
50 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Table 4. 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. 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 NAAQS (National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards) 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-by-county 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).

4.2 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 4). 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 

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, 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 51

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

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).

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 westcentral South Dakota and North Dakota. The perimeter is not well defined because of the array of shortstature, 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 

above the Drift Plains (ecoregion 46i) and James 

River Lowlands (ecoregions 46n) to the east. Here, 

the mixed-grass 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, 
52 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

and alfalfa. The mixed-grass 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 RoundupReady corn and soybeans, makes farming of native 

prairie possible even where it was previously impractical due to rugged terrain.

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 

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 

A male bobolink surveys its grassland habitat.

© Chris Bailey

A sora forages in wetland habitat.

© Chris Bailey
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 53

Canada thistle is a widespread invasive on district lands.

Mason Sieges/USFWS

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% 

of the continental waterfowl breeding, the Prairie 

Pothole Region produces about 50% 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).

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 5). 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 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. 
54 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Table 5. 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

Salt Cedar 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, Edmunds, Hyde, Lake, McPherson, Moody

Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale Hyde

■ 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 

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 

Prescribed fire is an important tool to manage the health 

of grassland ecosystems.

USFWS
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 55

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.

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 

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 

The burrowing owl is a South Dakota Priority Species 

and a Region 6 Bird of Conservation Concern.

© Chris Bailey
56 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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 IPM (integrated 

pest management) 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 G.

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.” 

BCC (Birds of Conservation Concern) 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 

A badger relaxes in the sun.

© Chris Bailey

communities. Table 6 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 6—that they are best positioned 

to help protect and maintain on the basis of the species’ 

geographic ranges and specialized habitats (table 7).

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.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Laws passed in the late 1960s gave some attention to 

endangered species; however, it was not until ESA was 

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 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 57

Table 6. Birds of Conservation Concern or Priority Species.

Species Range

Prairie 

Potholes 

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern 

(USFWS 

2008a)

Region 6 

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern 

(USFWS 

2008a)

South Dakota 

Priority 

Species 

(Bakker 

2005)

Threatened or 

Endangered 

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
58 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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 8 and 

described below. 

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.

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 

Table 7. 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
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 59

Table 8. Listed species (based on published population data).

Status Species/listing name

E American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus)

C Dakota skipper (Hesperia dacotae)

E Topeka shiner (Notropis topeka [=tristis])

E Whooping crane (Grus americana)—except where EXPN 

E Eskimo curlew (Numenius borealis)

T Piping plover (Charadrius melodus)—except Great Lakes watershed 

E Least tern (Sterna antillarum)—interior DPS 

C Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii)

E Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes)—entire population, except where EXPN 

E 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

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.

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 
60 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

The whooping crane is a listed species.

Ryan Hagerty/USFWS

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 non-prairie 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. 

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. 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 61

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 DPS (Distinct Population 

Segment) has been proposed for delisting.

4.3 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. Paleoindian (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 Euroamerican tradition 

becomes dominant.

PALEOINDIAN PERIOD (9500–5500 B.C.)

The Paleoindian period has been provisionally dated 

to approximately 9500–5500 years B.C. The age range 

of this period is based mainly on Paleoindian finds 

elsewhere in the Great Plains because the amount of 

Paleoindian 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 Paleoindian 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.

Paleoindian 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 Paleoindian peoples lived, so cultural 

remains of those peoples should be present at or near 

the surface. If Paleoindian 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 Paleoindian 

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, 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 
62 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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 

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 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 63

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.

4.4 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.

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 

District programs reach out to young hunters.

USFWS

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 

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. 
64 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

4.5 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.

4.6 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 FTEs (full-time equivalents).

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 

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 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 65

district. Huron and Sand Lake WMDs report a combined total of fewer than 100 fishermen per year. 

Non-consumptive 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 non-consumptive 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 

non-locals, 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 

non-local. The proportion of visitation that is non-local 

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 non-locals (about one-third); and the more 

remote Sand Lake WMD has the highest proportion 

of non-local visitation (60 percent).

Offsite spending by visitors helps support local lodging and retail establishments in surrounding towns. 

Only non-resident 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 non-consumptive) 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 non-local 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 

non-resident 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 non-resident visitor days per 

year. Of these, roughly 54,400 are for hunting, 1,500 

for fishing ,and 2,300 for non-consumptive 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 non-consumptive 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.

4.7 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 5— Environmental 

Consequences

Sandhill cranes flying overhead.

Wyman Meinzer/USFWS

This chapter describes the environmental consequences 

for the management alternatives considered for the 

three wetland management districts (see chapter 3). 

The Service assessed the environmental consequences 

of carrying out each alternative on the biological, 

physical, social, economic, and cultural resources of 

the districts.

5.1 Effects Common to All 

Alternatives

All alternatives would have the same effects on the 

following resource areas, as described in this section:

■ climate change

■ soils

■ water quality, wetlands, and floodplains

■ air quality

■ cultural resources

■ socioeconomics

■ public health and safety

■ environmental justice

CLIMATE CHANGE

The actions proposed in this document would conserve 

or restore land and habitat, thus retaining existing 

carbon sequestration in the districts. These actions 

would contribute positively to efforts to mitigate 

human-induced global climate change.

The use of prescribed fire, which releases CO2, 

would result in no net loss of carbon sequestration capacity because new vegetation would quickly replace 

the consumed biomass. Overall, there should be little 

or no net change in the amount of carbon sequestered 

at the districts under any of the management alternatives. As it relates to global climate change, the documentation of long-term changes in vegetation, species, 

and hydrology is an important part of monitoring and 

research. Adjustments in management may be necessary over time to adapt to a changing climate.

SOILS

All alternatives would beneficially affect soil formation processes on district lands. Some disturbances 

to surface soils and topography would occur at those 

locations selected for administrative, maintenance, and 

visitor facilities; invasive plant removal and eradication; and restoration of native habitat.

WATER QUALITY, WETLANDS, AND FLOODPLAINS

All alternatives would beneficially affect water quality. 

Such effects are anticipated to result from protecting 

groundwater recharge, preventing runoff, retaining 

sediment, and minimizing nonpoint source pollution.

The management alternatives are not anticipated 

to have any adverse effects on the districts’ wetlands 

and floodplains, pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 

11990 and EO 11988.
68 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

AIR QUALITY

No adverse effects on air quality are expected. Shortterm effects on air quality from the use of prescribed 

fire at the districts would not vary significantly between any of the alternatives.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Overall, cultural resources would be enhanced through 

protection of existing resources and extension of such 

protection to newly discovered cultural resources.

Cultural resource surveys in the districts have been 

limited on the Service’s fee-title lands. Consequently, 

additional surveys would be required before any new 

construction or excavation to comply with NEPA and 

applicable acts and policies related to historical and archaeological resources. Potentially adverse effects from 

construction of trails or facilities would require review 

by the regional archaeologist and consultation with 

the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office.

SOCIOECONOMICS

Economic impacts are typically measured in terms 

of numbers of jobs lost or gained and the associated 

result on income. None of the alternatives would significantly affect the economics of the local area.

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

None of the alternatives are anticipated to have any 

adverse effects on the quality of the human environment, including public health and safety.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

None of the alternatives would disproportionately 

cause any adverse environmental, economic, social, or 

health effects on minority or low-income populations.

Implementation of any action alternative that includes visitor services and environmental education is 

anticipated to benefit minority and low-income citizens 

living near the districts by stimulating the economy 

and creating jobs.

5.2 Description of 

Consequences by Alternative

Management actions are prescribed under each alternative as the means for responding to problems and 

issues raised by Service managers, the public, and 

governmental partners. Because management would 

differ under each alternative, some of the environmental effects resulting from implementation would 

likely differ as well.

This section presents an analysis of the effects 

anticipated to result from the alternatives. Table 3 in 

chapter 3 summarizes these findings. The effects are 

organized to correspond to the presentation of the effected environment in chapter 3.

ALTERNATIVE A—CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO 

ACTION)

Habitat and Wildlife

The current level of habitat management would be 

maintained at approximately the same intensity using 

the same resources (funding and staff). All management 

activities at WPAs would be prioritized, with only the 

high-priority WPAs receiving consistent management.

All conservation easements would continue to be 

monitored annually, and all easement violations would 

be consistently enforced. Habitat protection through 

acquisition efforts would focus on high-priority tracts. 

Only those legally identified invasive plants on highpriority WPAs would be addressed with some type of 

management. Active management such as prescribed 

burning, grazing, farming, and invasive plant control 

would be used to maintain and improve native prairie tracts and tamegrass units. The quality of native 

vegetation on high-priority WPAs would be improved, 

and vegetation on medium- and low-priority WPAs 

would be maintained at current conditions.

District staff would continue the current level of 

monitoring and documenting the presence and use of 

district lands by federally listed species, such as piping plover and whooping crane. The staff would continue to impose area closures to public use to protect 

federally listed species using the districts.

Prescribed burning during the nesting season can 

lead to nest destruction and/or increased nest production. Destruction is usually caused by burning nests, 

but islands of unburned areas may be targeted by nest 

predators (e.g., coyote, skunk, raccoon). However, birds 

frequently re-nest if the nest is destroyed, although 

re-nests typically contain fewer eggs. This loss of nests 

and potential reduction in bird numbers is offset in future years by improved habitat conditions, which lead 

to improve nesting conditions and numbers. 

Prescribed fire’s effects on vegetation are influenced by the fire’s heat and the phenological state of 

the vegetation. Grass fires conducted in late spring 

generally benefit warm-season grasses while decreasing native forbs and cool-season grasses. Late summer 

burns can reduce woody encroachment. 

Fire has little effect on wetland vegetation other 

than removal of residual cover. However, if wetland 

soils are dry, fire can burn down into these organic 

layers and kill cattails and phragmites. Fires during 

drought conditions may lead to increased soil erosion 

by reducing regrowth. 

Prescribed fire can assist in controlling nonnative 

vegetation, often in concert with chemical treatment. 

Prescribed fire in conjunction with chemical or mechanical treatments can be used to reduce hazardous 
CHAPTER 5—Environmental Consequences 69

The black-crowned night heron is a wetland inhabitant 

on several continents.

© Chris Bailey

fuels and reduce risk of wildfire damage. Prescribed 

fire reduces wildland fuel loadings leading to a reduction in a wildfire’s resistance to control.

Prescribed fire treatments for Huron, Madison, 

and Sand Lake WMDs range between 1,000 and 2,500 

acres per station during the past 5 years depending 

on management needs, funding levels, and priorities.

Monitoring and Research

By maintaining the current level of monitoring, inventory, and research, Service staff would be able to use 

available information and sound science to continue 

making informed management decisions.

Visitor Services

The hunting and fishing programs at the WPAs would 

continue to be valued as two of the six priority public 

uses and would provide hunters with many opportunities to hunt without compromising the System’s 

mission and goals.

The current level of environmental education and 

interpretive programs would continue to be priority 

public uses and would provide visitors with many opportunities to learn about the districts and the Refuge 

System. Events such as Service-led school visits would 

be conducted upon request. District staff would occasionally make updates to brochures and publications. 

Staff would undertake occasional media outreach.

Partnerships

Existing partnerships would allow district staff to accomplish much more than they could in the absence of 

partnerships. District staff would continue to improve 

and build partnerships with the local public, primarily landowners adjacent to the WPAs. Partnerships 

with SDGFP would help the staff manage hunting at 

the WPAs.

Operations

District staff would be maintained at existing levels 

of personnel, funding, and resources. The districts 

would continue with the current level of operations and 

maintenance, including the maintenance of equipment 

and vehicles in good working conditions to achieve 

management goals. Prescribed fire acres treated annually would likely decrease because hazardous fuel 

treatments and wildland-urban interface treatments 

must be allocated nationwide, and funding is prioritized as appropriate.

ALTERNATIVE B—INCREASED EFFICIENCY 

(PROPOSED ACTION)

Habitat and Wildlife

Under alternative B, district lands would be managed 

with an emphasis on establishing and following an 

improved, science-based priority system to restore 

prairie habitats to native vegetation for the benefit of 

waterfowl, State- and federally listed species, migratory birds, and other native wildlife. The focus of this 

alternative would be to restore ecological processes 

and native grassland species where possible. District 

staff would monitor and enforce all conservation easements. Monitoring efforts would evaluate the effects 

of management and restoration actions on target migratory birds.

Alternative B would offer the potential to increase 

the quality and distribution of native grasses and forbs, 

leading to a corresponding decrease in the acreage of 

nonnative grasses and forbs. Once some degree of success is achieved in this undertaking, it is likely that, 

through continued management, the degree of future 

invasion would be minimized.

The management actions specified under this 

alternative, if successful, would result in improved 

breeding habitat conditions for the target bird species—waterfowl, shorebirds, and grassland-dependent 

neotropical migrants—and commensurate increased 

nest success and nest densities for these groups. Less 

favorable breeding habitat conditions could be created 

for certain species, such as nonnative birds.

Predator management through trapping, where 

feasible and desirable, could lead to a reduction of nest 

predators (such as skunks, red fox, and raccoon); however, such an approach could also result in expanded 

populations of small mammals such as shrews and 

voles as a result of the removal of mid-sized predators. 

Removal of trees would result in less favorable 

habitat conditions for game species such as wintering 

deer and resident bird species. Landscape fragmentation would be reduced through the replanting of native 

grass cover in areas where trees are removed, as well 

as through acquisition of additional lands. 

Habitat protection through acquisition would focus 

on high-priority conservation easements.

In the long term, waterfowl and other grassland 

birds would benefit from increased areas of native 

prairie that, otherwise, would be invaded by introduced grasses and forbs.
70 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Monitoring and Research

District staff would improve their understanding of the 

effects of management activities in upland communities 

(for example, prescribed burning, grazing, and haying) 

on the composition and structure of vegetation communities. Monitoring would also contribute to better 

understanding of how management activities in both 

uplands and wetlands affect overall habitat productivity.

Under this alternative, district staff would set priorities and develop strategies regarding the extent 

of land in the WPAs that is monitored for changes 

in vegetation structure and composition in wetland 

and upland habitats. Sustained monitoring activities 

would lead to an improved understanding of wildlife 

responses to management activities, facilitating better management decisions that target specific wildlife objectives. This understanding of habitats at the 

landscape scale would (1) guide acquisition efforts 

for habitat protection, and (2) promote managementlevel research to improve understanding of habitat 

management practices.

Through additional research, district staff would 

improve their knowledge of the response of migratory birds—particularly waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

grassland species—to management actions.

Visitor Services

There would be no change to the priority uses of hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. Further 

fee-title acquisition of lands within district boundaries 

would consequently provide visitors with enhanced 

opportunities for the existing compatible wildlifedependent recreational opportunities.

District staff would have the opportunity to continue organizing and participating in events such as 

school visits and waterfowl identification workshops. 

All visitor programs would be evaluated for their effectiveness and, if necessary, would be modified to 

ensure the continued and expanded quality of programs and visitor experiences. The districts would 

evaluate community interest in existing and potential 

new programs to ensure that the CCP’s vision and the 

Service’s and System’s missions are met. Brochures 

and publications would be reviewed annually, and updates would be completed as needed.

With expanded and new visitor facilities, district 

staff would be able to (1) meet the demand for increased 

visitation, (2) provide infrastructure to conduct education programs for school groups, and (3) host larger, 

more diverse groups of visitors.

Partnerships

Maintenance of existing partnerships and pursuit of 

new ones would increase the Service’s ability to provide 

quality habitats for waterfowl, shorebird, and grassland bird species and improve public use opportunities. 

District staff would have improved relationships with 

a greater number of private landowners, government 

agencies, and NGOs. 

Operations

Under alternative B, increased funding is not contemplated for staff, equipment, or supplies (such as fuel 

and native grass seed). Consequently, the districts 

would rely on increased efficiencies to afford district 

staff the ability to accomplish goals and objectives associated with habitat and wildlife management, visitor 

services, monitoring, and research.

Increased efficiencies and partnerships would enable the districts to meet legal and obligated mandates, 

to provide management at high- and medium-priority 

WPAs, to use limited resources for other projects, and 

to provide adequate law enforcement for visitor safety 

and protection of facilities and wildlife. This alternative would result in both positive and negative effects 

pertaining to the use of prescribed fire. Increased efficiencies would allow high-priority treatments to be 

accomplished, but the overall acreage treated with 

prescribed fire could be reduced due to funding constraints associated with the National Fire Plan.

ALTERNATIVE C—INCREASED EFFICIENCY WITH 

EXPANDED RESOURCES

Habitat and Wildlife

In addition to the effects described for alternative B, 

alternative C would increase the number of treated 

units, thereby increasing the acreage of native grasses 

and forbs. This increase would result in a corresponding 

decrease in the acreage of nonnative grasses and forbs. 

Under this alternative, district staff would expand 

the use of prescribed fire and of other habitat management tools. This alternative would facilitate a finer 

scale of restoration, with a greater focus on local genetics and diversity of plant species included in seeding projects. More restoration, albeit partial, would 

occur on more lands under this alternative.

Use of IPM activities would provide for a more 

proactive and effective treatment program.

Because degraded wetlands would be proactively 

identified and treated to improve their condition under this alternative, it is expected that a more robust 

and diverse population of waterfowl, other waterbirds, 

neotropical migrants, and other wildlife would make 

use of these habitats.

Monitoring and Research

District staff would improve their understanding of 

the effects of management actions on vegetation composition and structure. Specific research would be conducted to answer management questions and improve 

understanding of native prairie habitat. Under this 

alternative, district staff would complete baseline inventories and would refine ongoing inventory efforts, 

thus allowing for increased knowledge of the natural 
CHAPTER 5—Environmental Consequences 71

resources in the districts and increased efficiencies in 

subsequent land management treatments.

Grassland-, wetland-, and wildlife-monitoring activities would be increased through additional funding 

and resources. Vegetation transects on native prairie 

habitats would be expanded to include more district 

lands and would be surveyed annually. Ultimately, 

this alternative would result in an improved understanding of wildlife responses to management activities, allowing for better management decisions that 

target specific wildlife objectives. The result would be 

improved habitat throughout the districts and a better 

ability for staff to maintain and improve recruitment 

of target wildlife populations.

Through additional research, district staff would 

improve their knowledge of the response of migratory birds—particularly waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

grassland species—to management actions.

Visitor Services

In addition to the effects described for alternative B, 

enhanced outdoor education opportunities would enable students to gain an improved understanding of 

South Dakota’s natural history, wildlife biology, the 

history and qualities of Service lands, and the missions of the Service and the System.

Public use would be enhanced, outdoor classroom 

activities would be developed, and interpretive exhibits and displays would be added to improve the 

public’s understanding of South Dakota’s prairie system and associated wildlife. District staff would be 

increasingly able to conduct or support more events, 

such as school outdoor lab activities and waterfowl 

identification sessions.

These changes would give the districts the potential to generate greater support for future district and 

System programs.

Partnerships

Maintenance of existing partnerships and pursuit of 

new ones would increase the Service’s ability to provide quality habitats for waterfowl, shorebird, and 

grassland bird species and improve public use opportunities. District staff would have improved relationships with a greater number of private landowners, 

government agencies, and NGOs. 

Operations

In addition to the effects described for alternative B, 

increased funding would be available for facility and 

program development, as well as for possible increased 

costs for operations and staff. Increased resources 

would enable district staff to monitor and enforce all 

conservation easements.

5.3 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are the potential effects of each 

alternative in combination with past, present, and 

future actions. NEPA regulations define cumulative 

effects as “the impact on the environmental which 

results from the incremental impact of the actions 

when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency 

(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such 

other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor, but collectively significant actions 

taking place over time.” (40 CFR 1508.7.)

The cumulative effects analysis for this draft CCP 

and EA is based on reasonably foreseeable future actions that, if carried out, would contribute to the effects 

of the alternatives. No reasonably foreseeable actions 

are anticipated. Impacts would be monitored during 

implementation of the final CCP. Implementation 

over an extended period would reduce the likelihood 

of negative cumulative impacts.

NEPA requires mitigation measures when the environmental analysis indicates possible adverse impacts 

on habitats, wildlife, or the human environment. All 

activities that constitute the Service’s proposed action 

(alternative B) are not expected or intended to produce 

significant levels of environmental impacts that would 

require mitigation measures. Nevertheless, the final 

CCP will contain the following measures to preclude 

significant environmental impacts from occurring:

■ Federally listed species will be protected from intentional or unintentional adverse effects by banning 

or restricting activities where these species occur.

■ All proposed activities will be regulated to reduce 

potential effects on wildlife and plant species, especially during their sensitive reproductive cycles.

■ Hunting safety regulations will be closely coordinated with and enforced by district staff and 

SDGFP personnel.

■ Monitoring protocols will be established to determine goal achievement levels and possible unforeseen effects on resources. Results of monitoring will 

be used in developing and implementing adaptive 

management measures to ensure that habitat and 

wildlife resources, as well as cultural resources, 

are preserved.

■ The final CCP can be revised and amended after 5 

years of implementation for application of adaptive 

management to correct unforeseen effects that occur during the first years of the plan.

CHAPTER 6— Implementation of the 

Proposed Action

A young enthusiast measures up at a visitors’ center.

anner/USFWS Bridgette Flanders-W

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.
74 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

6.1 Identification of the 

Proposed Action

The Service has identified a proposed action (alternative B) after a determination that it accomplishes 

the following:

■ best achieves the districts’ purposes, vision, and goals

■ helps fulfill the System mission

■ maintains and, where appropriate, restores the 

ecological integrity of the districts and the System

■ addresses the significant issues and mandates

■ is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management

6.2 Description of Alternative 

B, the Proposed Action

Alternative B is the proposed action for the CCP for 

the three districts. Under alternative B, management 

of the three districts would emphasize developing and 

implementing an improved, science-based 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.

6.3 Goals, Objectives, 

Strategies, and Rationale

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.

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 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.
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 75

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

CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 77

Figure 11. Decision tree for prioritizing management of native sod tracts on WPAs.
78 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Prioritization Objective 

Implement the standardized, science-based prioritization decision tree developed for the CCP (figure 11) so 

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 F) 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 9). In all, there are 40 priority 

Table 9. 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
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 79

Table 9. Assigned priority levels according to the decision tree for prioritizing management of native prairie.

County WPA Priority Code County WPA Priority Code

Deuel Eilen 1A Moody Thompson 2E

Deuel Miller 1B Miner Muller 2E

Miner Sullivan 1D Brookings Wenk 2J

Miner North Windedahl 1D Hamlin Rider 2J

Miner Hepner 1D Kingsbury Hodges 2J

Deuel Bunde 1E Kingsbury Katke 2J

Kingsbury R.S. Anderson 1E Kingsbury Ratfield 2J

Kingsbury Silver Lake 1E Kingsbury Williams 2J

Miner Corbin 1E Lake Fischer 2J

McCook Gottlob 1E Lake Pearson 2J

McCook Huls 1E Moody Heinricy 2J

Miner Twin Lakes 1E McCook Reif 2J

McCook Sabers 1J Moody Benson 2J

McCook Schuldt 1J McCook Holm 2J

McCook Hamaker 1J Lake Cassutt 2J

Hamlin Peterson 2A McCook Hamilton 2J

Deuel Nelson 2A Deuel Nordquist 3A

Deuel Stoltenburg 2A Hamlin Cox 3A

Lake Alquire 2A Lake Long Lake 3B

Deuel Severson 2A Lake Madison 3C

Moody Long 2A Minnehaha Petri II 3C

Brookings Goodfellow 2B Minnehaha Jordan 3C

Brookings Errington 2C Hamlin Wayrynen 3D

Kingsbury Shutler 2C Minnehaha Wise_becker 3D

Brookings Bjornlie 2C Minnehaha Kindt-Munce 3D

Lake Katke 2C Deuel Kreger 3E

Brookings Gerdink 2D Brookings Pittenger 3E

Lake Murfield 2D Lake Wolf 3E

Miner Raesley 2D Minnehaha Island Lake 3E

Miner Foos 2D Minnehaha Graham 3E

Kingsbury Muser 2E Minnehaha Petri I 3E

Brookings Brush Lake 2E Minnehaha Acheson 3F

Brookings Cotton 2E McCook Lukes 3F

Brookings Lund 2E Deuel Lounsbery 3H

Brookings Eriksrud 2E Kingsbury Schultz 3H

Deuel Adams 2E Lake Gerry 3H

Kingsbury Apland 2E Brookings Bjornlie 3H

Kingsbury Holland 2E Lake Katke 3H

Kingsbury Neu 2E Deuel Bork 3I

Kingsbury Plum Lake 2E Brookings Dry Lake 3I

Lake Pekarek 2E Minnehaha Costello 3I

Miner South Windedahl 2E Brookings Bolstad 3J

Miner Hein 2E Brookings Brookings 3J

Miner Johnston 2E Moody Reaves 3J

Lake Lake Henry 2E Moody Anderson 3J
80 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Table 9. Assigned priority levels according to the decision tree for prioritizing management of native prairie.

County WPA Priority Code County WPA Priority Code

Moody Petsch 3J McPherson Schafer 1D

Minnehaha Clear Lake 3J McPherson Swisher 1D

Minnehaha Buffalo Lake 3J McPherson West North 1D

Minnehaha Voelker II 3J Campbell BLM-1A 1E

Minnehaha Lost Lake 3J Faulk Lane 1E

McCook Bank 3J Faulk Seidschlaw 1E

McCook Deneui 3J Faulk Stephan 1E

Minnehaha Schaefer 3J Faulk Waldman 1E

Brookings Kasperson 3J Faulk Zell Lake 1E

Brookings Kasperson 3J Faulk Zens 1E

Brookings Kasperson 3J McPherson Adam-Gienger 1E

Lake Long Lake 4B McPherson Bauer-Fischer 1E

Sand Lake WMD McPherson Schnabel-Hoff 1E

Campbell Goetz 1A McPherson Eureka Demonst. Area 1E

Campbell Cooper 1A McPherson Feickert 1E

McPherson Anderson-Vilhauer 1A McPherson Haerter 1E

McPherson Burrer-Schnabel 1A McPherson Helfenstein-Opp 1E

McPherson Dockter 1A McPherson Heyd Lake 1E

McPherson Eureka Grazing Association 1A McPherson Highland 1E

McPherson Long Lake 1A McPherson Job-Anderson 1E

McPherson Imberi 1A McPherson Mehlhaff I 1E

McPherson Schafer-Schafer-Hoffman 1A McPherson Neuharth 1E

McPherson Weisser 1A McPherson Schultz-Reinhold 1E

McPherson Woehlhaff-Schnabel 1A Edmunds Bierman 1E

Edmunds Bowdle Lake 1A Edmunds Hettich 1E

Campbell Schlomer 1B Edmunds Kindlespire-Leboldus 1E

Brown Hayes 1B Edmunds Ryman 1E

McPherson Buntrock 1B Edmunds Mitzel 1E

McPherson Charley-Harley 1B Edmunds Rieger 1E

McPherson Rau Lake 1B Edmunds Stotz 1E

Edmunds Dewald 1B Edmunds Tang 1E

Edmunds Hosmer 1B Spink Jessen 1E

Edmunds Schurr 1B Brown Lord Lake 1I

Edmunds Stephan North 1B Brown Maunu 1I

Brown Proud 1C Brown Engle Dam 1J

Brown Ristau 1C Walworth Leibelt 2A

Edmunds Anderson 1C Campbell Thullner 2E

Edmunds Stephan South 1C Campbell Goehring 2E

Faulk Christianson 1D Spink Boekelheide East 2E

McPherson 10/45 1D Spink Boekelheide West 2E

McPherson Cantwell 1D Faulk Voight 2E

McPherson Ehresman 1D McPherson Mettler 2E

McPherson Hoffman-Gottleib 1D Spink Hahler-Carda 2J

McPherson Klooz 1D McPherson Mettler 3E

McPherson

McPherson

Mehlhaff II

Perch Lake

1D Spink Sanderson, Bruckner 3I

1D
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 81

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

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 Native 

Prairie Restoration Objectives below.

Rationale 

Most northern mixed-grass and tallgrass prairie has 

been destroyed. Key roles of the 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% 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 
82 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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

(North American Bird Conservation Initiative 2009).

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 6). Johnson (2006) found that at 

current rates of decline, within 40 years only 10–25 

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 7).

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.

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. 
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 83

■ 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.

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 BMPs 

(best management practices) 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).

Rationale 

Native Prairie Restoration

One of the most important management standards 

of the Improvement Act is a provision directing the 

The short-eared owl is a focal grassland species.

© Chris Bailey

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 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 uplandnesting duck habitat that emphasizes rest has longterm implications that are often overlooked in shortterm management studies, because continuous idling 
84 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Prairie habitat on the Slunecka Waterfowl Production 

Area.

anner/USFWS Bridgette Flanders-W

without periodic defoliation disturbance fails to promote 

long-term grassland health (Naugle et al. 2000). With 

extended rest, introduced grasses, especially smooth 

brome and Kentucky bluegrass, may more rapidly 

displace native vegetation (Murphy and Grant 2005). 

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) → nonnative, 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 
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 85

An upland sandpiper surveying its habitat from a 

convenient vantage point.

© Chris Bailey

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 

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. 

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, 
86 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

A badger on the move in prairie habitat.

© Chris Bailey

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 

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). 

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 VOR (visual obstruction reading) 

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 I).
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 87

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Huron's Data

Minimum (25%)

Northern Harrier

Gadwall

Mallard

Greater Prairie-Chicken 1

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 Maximum (75%)

Visual Obstruction Reading (in)

Figure 14. Quantitative measurements of visual obstruction readings of upland nesting species (Laubhan et al. 

2006, except [1] Svedarsky et al. 2003 and [2] Dechant et al. 1999).

Rationale

By 2 years after CCP approval, district staff would 

have identified high-priority native prairie tracts to 

manage for biological integrity, ecological diversity, 

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, bluewinged 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.

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 
88 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Figure 15. Known Dakota skipper locations in South Dakota by county (USFWS 2002b). 

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.

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 
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 89

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).

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). 
90 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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 

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. 
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 91

Invasive nonnatives such as this Russian olive tree can degrade prairie habitat if they remain unchecked.

anner/USFWS Bridgette Flanders-W

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. 

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 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 
92 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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). 

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 F) 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 10). 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 
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 93

Figure 16. Decision tree for prioritizing management of planted grasslands.
94 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Table 10. Assigned priority levels according to the decision tree for prioritizing management of planted native 

vegetation.

Management Priority Management Priority 

County WPA unit code County WPA unit code

Huron WMD Deuel Stoltenburg   2C

Beadle Schull 1A Deuel Johnson I (W)   3F

Beadle Weaver   1C Hamlin Juntunen   2E

Beadle Wipf 2A Hamlin LaClair   1E

Beadle Kahre 1B Kingsbury Albrecht   2E

Beadle Rogers   1C Kingsbury Duffy 2E

Beadle Thesenvitz   1B Kingsbury Easland   2D

Beadle South Weaver   1B Kingsbury Hoyer 2B

Beadle Yauney   1B Kingsbury Kattke   2F

Beadle Weiting   1B Kingsbury Kopperud   2C

Beadle Kleinsasser   1A Kingsbury Plum Lake   2A

Beadle Cain Creek   1B Kingsbury R.S. Anderson   1C

Beadle LeClaire Unit 4&5 1B Kingsbury Warne 3E

Beadle LeClaire Unit 6A 1B Kingsbury Williams   2E

Beadle LeClaire Unit 6&3 1C Kingsbury Silver Lake   1A

Beadle Clouser Unit 1B 1B Kingsbury Johnson   2B

Beadle Clouser Unit 2 1B Kingsbury Sterr 2B

Beadle Ingle Unit 3 1B Lake Hart 3D

Beadle Ingle Unit 1&2 1B Lake Gerry 3D

Beadle Maga-Ta-Hohpi Unit 5 1A Lake Lentsch   2F

Beadle Maga-Ta-Hohpi Unit 12,13&8 1B Lake Krug 2E

Beadle Maga-Ta-Hohpi Unit 7 N/A* Lake Habeger   2E

Beadle Maga-Ta-Hohpi Unit 3&4 1B Lake Hansen   3D

Beadle Bauer Unit 4C 1B Lake Alquire   2C

Beadle Bauer Unit 2 1B Lake Fischer   2E

Beadle Bauer Unit 4A 1B Lake Kattke West 2D

Beadle Bauer Unit 3 1B Lake Kattke East 3D

Buffalo Mills Unit 5 1B Lake Lake Henry North 3E

Buffalo Mills Unit 4 N/A* Lake Lake Henry South 3D

Hand Slunecka Unit 2A&2C 1B McCook Garrett   2F

Hand Slunecka Unit 1 1B McCook Gottlob   1B

Jerauld Freudenburg   1B McCook Schimmel   1A

Jerauld Winter   1B McCook Lions Lake   1C

Madison WMD McCook Sabers   1D

Brookings Brush Lake   2A McCook Holm 2F

Brookings Gerdink   2A McCook DeNeui   3D

Brookings Eriksrud   3B Miner Corbin   1C

Brookings Bjornlie   2B Miner Eyekamp   3E

Brookings Kenneth Nelson 2A Minnehaha Johnson   3A

Deuel Schafer   1C Minnehaha Fensterman   3A

Deuel Bunde 2C Minnehaha Wise/Becker   3A

Deuel Coteau Prairie   1C Minnehaha Island Lake   3C

Deuel Fox Lake   2E Minnehaha Jordan   1F
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 95

Table 10. Assigned priority levels according to the decision tree for prioritizing management of planted native 

vegetation.

Management Priority Management Priority 

County WPA unit code County WPA unit code

Minnehaha Buffalo Lake West N/A* Brown Hayes 1A

Minnehaha Buffalo Lake East 3D Brown Hecla 1B

Minnehaha Kindt/Munce North 3A Brown Ryman 2B

Minnehaha Kindt/Munce Middle 3B Spink Einspahr 1A

Minnehaha Kindt/Munce South N/A* Spink Stroschein 2E

Moody Reaves 2F Spink Jessen 1A

Moody Dobbs 3E McPherson Helfenstein-Opp 1C

Moody Long 2B McPherson Kary 1C

Moody Benson 2E McPherson Haerter 1A

Moody Bothwell East 2E McPherson Bauer-Fischer 1A

Moody Lee Northwest 3E McPherson Schell 1C

Moody Lee Southeast 2E McPherson Stuglemayer 1C

Moody Bothwell West 3E McPherson Rath 1C

Moody Anderson North 3E McPherson Heyd Lake 1C

Moody Anderson South N/A* Edmunds Bieber-Buechler 1C

Sand Lake WMD Edmunds Feiock 1C

Edmunds Tang 1A Edmunds Grismer 1C

*Species composition data not available

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 

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 DNC-type mixtures limit this structural diversity and likely attract 

only bird species that key in on this tall, dense cover. 
96 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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 

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 

System units are to promote biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health and attempt the 

restoration of historical conditions on 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. 
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 97

The Savannah sparrow is a South Dakota Priority 

Species.

© Chris Bailey

■■ 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).

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 
98 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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.

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 
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 99

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).

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 

(dense nesting cover). 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. 
100 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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.

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 RLGIS (Refuge Land Geographic Information 

System) 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% 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. 
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 101

■■ Obtain help with noxious weeds (treatments and 

monitoring) by pursuing additional money through 

partnerships, grants, and invasive plant programs. 

■■ 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. 

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 

Control of Canada thistle is one objective of upland 

management on the districts.

Mason Sieges/USFWS

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 
102 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

2–3 years and aboveground after 5 years post-release 

(Kirby et al. 2000). Researchers from North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming have 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 

An American bittern enjoying the bounty of its wetland 

habitat.

© Chris Bailey

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 

HAPET (Habitat and Population Evaluation Team), 

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). 
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 103

The Canadian toad is a denizen of the Prairie Pothole 

Region.

© Chris Bailey

Natural Wetlands Management Objective

Over a 15-year period, wetlands will be managed 

along with the uplands in which they are embedded 

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. 

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 
104 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Figure 17. Whooping crane sightings throughout South Dakota. 
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 105

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 

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 

Dragonflies in a prairie wetland.

© Chris Bailey

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.

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 
106 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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 

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 USFWS “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 step-down plans such as inventory and monitoring plans and habitat management plans are produced. The purpose of step-down 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 
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 107

A white-tailed buck easily clears a livestock fence.

© Chris Bailey

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. 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.

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, utilize 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 
108 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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 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 NPAM (Native Prairie 

Adaptive Management) 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. 
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 109

Such indicators could be used to guide restoration 

efforts, vary seed mixtures, or adjust stocking rates 

for grazing management.

■■ 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 stand-alone 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 APHIS (Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service) Wildlife Services and 

SDGFP for response to HPAI (Highly Pathogenic 

Avian Influenza, or bird flu), where possible.

■ Continue to support SDGFP with CWD (chronic 

wasting disease) 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 
110 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

A blue-winged teal taking wing.

© Chris Bailey

influenza are worse than others (USGS 2006). Recently, 

the H5N1 strain of HPAI has been found in 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.

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. 
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 111

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.

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). 

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks supports youth 

hunting through a variety of programs.

USFWS

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.
112 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

The great blue heron is an iconic symbol of wetlands 

across the country.

© Chris Bailey

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 

A photographer on Vaillancourt-Schneck Memorial 

Natural Trail.

anner/USFWS Bridgette Flanders-W

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 draft 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.
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 113

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, NAWCA (North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act), 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 (Habitat and Population Evaluation Team) 

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 
114 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Partnerships between the Service and area ranchers are 

powerful tools to manage wildlife habitat.

USFWS

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.

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 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 115

Figure 18. Priority wetlands.
116 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Figure 19. Distribution of priority grasslands.
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 117

■ 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 stand-alone or roundout properties with 

habitat values equal to or greater than existing 

high-priority WPAs. 

■■ Stand-alone 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 
118 Draft CCP and EA, 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 

H). A national team of 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 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 

System, encompassing 692,132 acres of fee-title 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/research agreements. In addition, biological monitoring personnel could utilize the facilities 

for continued research.

Two counties—Brown and Spink—would remain 

with the Sand Lake Refuge Complex for complete 

management purposes. These two counties combined 
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 119

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 System. 

Cultural Resources

Cultural Resources Objective

Throughout the life of the CCP, integrate the process 

for section 106 of the 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 

the required permit from the administering district, 

which is a violation of the easement provisions. 
120 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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% 

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.

■ utilizing BAER (Burned Area Emergency Response) 

or BAR (Burned Area Rehabilitation ) funding as 

needed following wildfires
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 121

➤ 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 non-emergency 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 FMP (fire management 

plan) 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 step-down 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 11)

➤■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 11 identifies the communities at risk and communities 

of interest within the districts.

The HFI (Healthy Forests Initiative) 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 

personnel and seek additional supplemental support 

(when available) for desired subsequent prescribed 

burns to manage habitat on unqualified priority units.
122 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Table 11. 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 —
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 123

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 NFP 

(National Fire Plan) while adhering to Federal policy 

and habitat objectives for uplands, river bottoms, riparian areas, wetlands, and shorelines.

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 of the Huron Fire District and the Mid Dakota 

District FMPs are step-down 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% of the Service lands adjacent to the South 

Dakota communities at risk and the South Dakota 

communities of interest (table 11) 

■■ 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 11).

■■ 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 

Wildfire Protection Plans; these plans will identify 

mitigation actions that can be taken to assist in protecting communities from catastrophic wildfires.

Table 11. 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 — — —
124 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

■■ 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 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 System units through a landscape-scale 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 

the Service to maintain wetland and grassland ecosystems for future generations. Private lands adjacent to 

System lands benefit species that require larger landscapes for their survival. These partnerships benefit 

many sensitive fish and wildlife species.
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 125

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) promote 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 

A volunteer with the Friends of Maga-Ta-Hohpi staffs an 

interpretive station.

anner/USFWS Bridgette Flanders-W

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. 

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 VCSs (visitor contact stations).

■ 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.

■ 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.
126 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Wildlife biologist Laura Hubers introduces some new 

friends at Huron Prairie Fest. © Sandy Uecker

■ 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 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 under¬standing, the public can be better informed about fish and wildlife issues in general and 

on-the-ground management activities in particular.
CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 127

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 SDDOT (South Dakota Department 

of Transportation) 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/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.
128 Draft CCP and EA, 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/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/interpretive 

outdoor classroom facility that would include a 

parking lot, restroom, contact station, informational 

kiosk, entrance sign, accessible interpretive/educational trail, boardwalk to the wetland, observation 

Service staffer Harris Hoistad builds a shelter.

anner/USFWS Bridgette Flanders-W

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. 
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 
130 Draft CCP and EA, 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. 

EO—Executive order.

EPA—Environmental Protection Agency.

extinction—Complete disappearance of a species from 

the earth; no longer existing.

extirpation—Extinction of a population; complete 

eradication of a species within a specified area.
GLOSSARY 131

fauna—All the vertebrate and invertebrate animals 

of an area. 

Federal land—Public land owned by the Federal Government, including lands such as national forests, 

national parks, and national wildlife refuges.

federally listed species—Species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 

either as endangered, threatened, or species at risk 

(formerly candidate species).

fee title—Acquisition of most or all of the rights to a 

tract of land.

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% 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. 
132 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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 133

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 partnering wildlife 

agencies as appropriate.

planning team leader—Typically a professional planner or natural resource specialist knowledgeable 

of the requirements of National Environmental 

Policy Act and who has planning experience. The 

planning team leader manages the refuge planning 

process and ensures compliance with applicable 

regulatory and policy requirements.

planning unit—Single refuge, an ecologically or administratively related refuge complex, or distinct 

unit of a refuge. The planning unit also may include 

lands currently outside refuge boundaries. 

plant association—Classification of plant communities 

based on the similarity in dominants of all layers of 

vascular species in a climax community. 

plant community—Assemblage of plant species unique 

in its composition; occurs in particular locations under particular influences; a reflection or integration 

of the environmental influences on the site such as 

soil, temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, 

aspect, and rainfall; denotes a general kind of climax 

plant community (ponderosa pine or bunchgrass). 

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.
134 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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. 

step-down management plan—Plan that provides the 

details necessary to carry out management strategies identified in the comprehensive conservation plan (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

strategy—Specific action, tool, or technique or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5).
GLOSSARY 135

submergent—Vascular or nonvascular hydrophyte, 

either rooted or nonrooted, that lies entirely beneath 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 forest 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 administrative act, is held in trust for the people by the 

government. A Federal trust resource is one for 

which trust responsibility is given in part to the 

Federal Government through Federal legislation 

or administrative act. Generally, Federal trust resources are those considered to be of national or 

international importance no matter where they occur, such as endangered species and species such as 

migratory birds and fish that regularly move across 

statelines. In addition to species, trust resources 

include cultural resources protected through Federal historic preservation laws, nationally important and threatened habitats, notably wetlands, 

navigable waters, and public lands such as State 

parks and national wildlife refuges.

trust species—See trust resource.

understory—Any vegetation whose canopy (foliage) 

is below, or closer to the ground than canopies of 

other plants. 

upland—Dry ground; other than wetlands.

USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, USFWS)—Principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, 

protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 

people. The Service manages the 93-million-acre 

National Wildlife Refuge System composed of more 

than 530 national wildlife refuges and thousands 

of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 

national fish hatcheries and 78 ecological service 

field stations, the agency enforces Federal wildlife 

laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores 

national significant fisheries, conserves and restores 

wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the 

Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also 

oversees the Federal aid program that distributes 

millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and 

hunting equipment to State wildlife agencies.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mission—The mission 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working 

with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, 

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

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

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—Federal agency whose 

mission is to provide reliable scientific information 

to describe and understand the earth; minimize loss 

of life and property from natural disasters; manage 

water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; 

and enhance and protect our quality of life.

USGS—See U.S. Geological Survey.

vision statement—Concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what the Service hopes to 

do, based primarily on the Refuge System mission, 

specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. In 

addition, the vision statement is tied to the maintenance and restoration of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of each refuge 

and the Refuge System. 

visual obstruction—Pertaining to the density of a plant 

community; the height of vegetation that blocks 

the view of predators and conspecifics to a nest. 

visual obstruction reading (VOR)—Measurement of the 

density of a plant community; the height of vegetation that blocks the view of predators to a nest. 

VOR—See visual obstruction reading.

wading birds—Birds having long legs that enable 

them to wade in shallow water. Includes egrets, 

great blue herons, black-crowned night-herons, 

and bitterns. 

warm-season grass—Grass that begins growth later in 

the season (early June); require warmer soil temperatures to germinate and actively grow when 

temperatures are warmer (85–95°F). Examples 

are Indiangrass, switchgrass, and big bluestem.

waterfowl—Category of birds that includes ducks, 

geese, and swans.

watershed—Geographic area within which water drains 

into a particular river, stream or body of water. A 

watershed includes both the land and the body of 

water into which the land drains.

wetland—Land transitional between terrestrial and 

aquatic systems where the water table is usually 

at or near the surface or the land is covered by 

shallow water.

wetland easement—Perpetual agreement entered 

into by a landowner and the Service. The easement 

covers only the wetlands specified in the agreement. In return for a single lump-sum payment, 

the landowner agrees not to drain, burn, level, or 

fill wetlands covered by the easement.

wetland management district (WMD)—Land that the 

Refuge System acquires with Federal Duck Stamp 

funds for restoration and management primarily 

as prairie wetland habitat critical to waterfowl and 

other wetland birds. 

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 
136 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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 
138 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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

Harris Hoistad Date

Project Leader, Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex

USFWS, Region 6

Clarke Dirks Date

Project Leader, Huron WMD 

USFWS, Region 6

Thomas Tornow Date

Project Leader, Madison WMD

USFWS, Region 6

Review

Paul Cornes Date

Refuge Supervisor 

USFWS, Region 6

Approval

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date

Assistant Regional Director

National Wildlife Refuge System

USFWS, Region 6

MANDATORY 15-YEAR REEVALUATION DATE: 2026 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 139

A.2 Compatibility 

Determination for Waterlines 

on Grassland Easements to 

Provide Livestock Watering

USE

Waterlines on grassland easements to provide livestock watering. 

DISTRICT NAMES

■■ Arrowwood WMD

■■ Audubon WMD

■■ Chase Lake WMD

■■ Crosby WMD

■■ Devils Lake WMD

■■ Huron WMD

■■ J. Clark Salyer WMD

■■ Kulm WMD

■■ Lake Andes WMD

■■ Long Lake WMD

■■ Lostwood WMD

■■ Madison WMD

■■ Sand Lake WMD

■■ Tewaukon WMD

■■ Valley City WMD

■■ Waubay WMD

COUNTIES

All counties within the districts.

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES

■■ Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

■■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act

■■ Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Tax

■■ North American Wetlands Conservation Act

■■ Emergency Wetlands Resources Act

DISTRICT PURPOSES

“...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. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“...for conservation purposes ...” 7 U.S.C. 2002 (Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act)

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 activity requested involves burying waterlines to provide for livestock watering on 

areas encumbered by Service grassland easements 

in North and South Dakota. The buried waterline is 

a new use of the grassland easement because of the 

surface grass disturbance that would be considered 

an economic use. There are approximately 2,500 individual grassland contract holders in the two States. It 

is estimated that no more than 10 percent or 250 will 

ever make a request for a buried waterline. In those 

cases where additional water supplies are provided, 

there is a better distribution of grazing on the easement tract, and overall health and sustainability of the 

grass is improved. The waterlines are installed with 

either a chisel plow or narrow trenching (not exceeding 2 feet) equipment to a depth of 6–8 feet. Minor and 

very temporary disturbance to the grass is confined 

to an area no greater than 10 feet on either side of the 

pipe location. The waterlines are polyethylene pipe of 

approximately 2 inches in diameter. The disturbance 

to grass is minimal (generally not exceeding 1 acre of 

disturbance) in relation to the acreage involved in the 

easement tract (average 600 acres). The disturbance 

caused by the trench is immediately restored and with 

residual and seeded grasses, the activity disturbance 

is temporary, and within 1–2 years little to no evidence 

remains of the activity. The activity will be permitted 

with a SUP and stipulations provided to ensure special and limiting conditions are adhered to and restoration is complete. The waterline will deliver water 

to a holding tank and gravel pad causing permanent 

disturbance to grass on an area of approximately 60 

feet by 60 feet, representing less than one-tenth of 

one acre or less than 0.00001 percent of the average 

grassland easement tract. 

Where would the use be conducted? The use will be 

conducted on grassland easements in all the wetland 

management districts listed. Generally the grassland 

easement tracts are native grassland areas that are 

used predominately for cattle grazing. There will be 

minimal or nondetected disturbance to wildlife as a 

result of the activity and what does occur will be very 

temporary. The disturbance to the average grassland 

easement tract will represent less than 0.002 percent 

of the average easement tract.
140 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

When would the use be conducted? The use will be 

conducted as a one time event in the summer season 

when frost no longer exists and conditions have dried 

sufficiently to minimize grass disturbance. There is 

little to no future maintenance.

How would the use be conducted? The activity will 

be conducted with either trenching equipment (such 

as a backhoe) or a chisel plow. Disturbance will not 

exceed 2 feet in width, and it would be less if the chisel 

plow is used. 

Why is this use being proposed? The grassland easement holder will request the use. The request will be 

made to provide better water availability for improved 

grass utilization due to more equal grazing distribution. Buried waterlines for livestock watering is a 

cost-effective and reliable alternative to traditional 

stock watering dams, especially in times of drought 

or low precipitation conditions.

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES

Resource 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. There will be only temporary 

disturbance to the grass from the construction activities, so all impacts will be short-term. In 1–2 years, 

little to no evidence exists of the activity. There will 

be no indirect impacts associated with this activity.

Long-Term Impacts. There will be no long-term impacts associated with this activity.

Cumulative Impacts. The only cumulative direct impact 

will be the loss of grassland from the installation of

water holding facilities, estimated to be approximately 360 square feet, representing 0.008 of an acre 

or 0.00001 percent of the average grassland easement 

(600 acres). There are no indirect impacts from the 

proposed activity.

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

The period of public review and comment began August 9, 2004 and ended August 13, 2004.

The following methods were used to solicit public 

review and comment: posted notices in public places

Why was this level of public review and comment selected? The proposed activity is considered minor, incidental, one-time with minimal temporary disturbance.

Summarize comments received and any actions taken 

or not taken because of comments received. No comments were received.

DETERMINATION

Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE 

COMPATIBILITY

1. Soil, if removed through trenching, will be replaced 

in the same soil profile as it was removed. Topsoil 

will be replaced and all soils compacted. 

2. Activity will occur during the time when soils are 

dry and equipment activity will have reduced impact to grasses and soils. 

3. Any areas that are disturbed will be reseeded to 

the appropriate grass mixture if determined necessary for reestablishment by the refuge manager.

JUSTIFICATION

There will be minimal and temporary disturbance to the 

grassland resources protected by the Service’s easement by this activity. The use will not detract from or 

materially interfere with the mission or purpose of the 

Refuge System. It is an economic use and as such the 

activity will benefit the Service mission and purpose 

through better management of the grassland community by providing improved grazing distribution.

If the proposed use is an economic use of refuge 

natural resources, how would it contribute to the 

purposes of the refuge or the mission of the Refuge 

System? The activity of providing water for livestock 

grazing will contribute to the mission by providing 

improved grazing distribution and better range management of the grassland resources protected by the 

Service’s easement.

TEXT OF PUBLIC NOTICE

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

is soliciting public comments on whether to 

allow buried waterlines to provide for livestock 

watering on Service Grassland Easements in 

North and South Dakota. The activity will 

cause minor and temporary disturbance to the 

grassland area. Restoration will be ensured 

through stipulations defined in a Special Use 

Permit agreed to by the landowner. Through 

better distribution of livestock grazing the 

health and sustainability to the grasslands will 

be better ensured. People wishing to provide 

comments can do so by August 13th by submitting them to the Wetland Habitat Office, 

3425 Miriam Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58501. 

For more information contact Lloyd Jones at 

(701) 355-8529.
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 141

Submitted

Kim Hanson Date

Arrowwood WMD 

Mike McEnroe Date

Audubon WMD

Mick Erickson Date

Chase Lake WMD

Tim Kessler Date

Crosby WMD 

Roger Hollevoet Date

Devils Lake WMD 

Harris Hoistad Date

Huron WMD 

Lee Albright Date

J. Clark Salyer WMD 

Bob Vanden Berge Date

Kulm WMD 

Mike Bryant Date

Lake Andes WMD 

Paul VanNingen Date

Long Lake WMD 

Todd Frerichs Date

Lostwood WMD 

Thomas Turnow Date

Madison WMD 

Gene Williams Date

Sand Lake WMD 

Jack Lalor Date

Tewaukon WMD 

Cory Richardson Date

Valley City WMD 

Larry Martin Date

Waubay WMD
142 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Review

Lloyd Jones Date

Regional Compatibility Coordinator

Paul Cornes Date

Refuge Supervisor 

USFWS, Region 6

Approval

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date

Assistant Regional Director

National Wildlife Refuge System

USFWS, Region 6

MANDATORY 10- OR 15-YEAR REEVALUATION 

DATE: 2019
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 143

A.3 Compatibility 

Determination for Authorized 

Health and Safety Requests 

Associated with Service 

Wetland Easements 

Resulting in Only Minor 

Impacts to the Easement 

Interest

USE

Requests to resolve a health and safety issue that 

cannot be resolved by temporary authorization, and 

which results in only a minor impact to the Service’s 

wetland easement interest. The use, if authorized, will 

result in non-material impacts to protected wetlands 

involving partial drainage and/or filling, both of which 

are acquired interests in the easement wetland.

STATION NAMES

South Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

and National Wildlife Refuge

■ Lake Andes WMD

■ Madison WMD

■ Huron WMD

■ Waubay WMD

■ Sand Lake WMD

■ Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

North Dakota Wetland Management Districts

■ Tewaukon WMD

■ Kulm WMD

■ Arrowwood WMD

■ Valley City WMD

■ Chase Lake WMD

■ Audubon WMD

■ Long Lake WMD

■ J. Clark Salyer WMD

■ Devils Lake WMD

■ Lostwood WMD

■ Crosby WMD

Montana Wetland Management Districts

■ Northeast Montana WMD

■ Bowdoin WMD

■ Benton Lake WMD

■■ Northwest Montana WMD

■■ Charles M. Russell WMD

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES

Waterfowl Production Areas, Wetland Easements, Grassland Easements

The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

Act, March 16, 1934, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 718-718h, 48 Stat. 

452) as amended August 1, 1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 

486) for acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”

 The Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5, Stat. 813), funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with 

duck stamp receipts in the fund and appropriated to 

the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory bird 

refuges under the provisions of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act, February 18, 1929, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 

715, 715d - 715r, as amended)

FmHA deed restricted properties

Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 

U.S.C. Para. 2002)

Tallgrass Prairie Tracts

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 through 460l-11)

DISTRICT AND REFUGE PURPOSES

“...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. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

“...for conservation purposes...” 7 U.S.C. 2002 (Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act) 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION

The Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System is to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration 

of 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

Wetland management districts frequently receive requests for use or modification of wetlands protected 

by easement which may affect the Service interest acquired in private property. The uses authorized under 
144 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

this compatibility determination are related to actions 

necessary to avert or resolve a health and safety issue 

involving a Service-protected wetland. Requests may 

be received by wetland management districts primarily from private property owners who are experiencing difficulties associated with easement-protected 

wetlands. The Service has wetland easements in every county within the Prairie Pothole Region in the 

States of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana. 

Examples of the kinds of requests anticipated under 

this category include: (1) the possible need to establish a sill elevation on a wetland to lower it slightly to 

avoid flooding a domestic sanitary system, building, 

basement, or existing private road; (2) the need to 

place fill material in a protected wetland to widen a 

driveway or farm approach to more safely transport 

equipment and/or loaded grain trucks; or (3) the need 

to protect a foundation or footing for existing building 

or grain bins. Lowering a wetland or adding fill to a 

wetland to remove water from cropland or hayland 

is not included in this compatibility determination. 

All requested uses under this category will be 

evaluated using the right side of the Easement Permit Flowchart (Health and Safety) to evaluate the 

requested activity. If the proposal passes through 

the flowchart as a legitimate health and safety issue, 

then it becomes a request that the Service will try to 

honor as a necessary resolution to a hardship which 

may be caused by the easement wetland. 

At times, the requested use may impact Service 

easement interests. Managers will always try to resolve 

the issue or situation with temporary measures, meaning that the impact on Service interests will be only a 

temporary disturbance. If temporary relief measures 

will not resolve the issue, then a more permanent impact on Service lands or interests will likely result. 

Region 6 has defined a “threshold” level of impact 

that may occur as a result of permitting the requested 

use but will not materially interfere with, nor detract 

from, the purposes for which the easement interest 

was acquired. These levels of impact are defined more 

fully in the “Justification” section of this compatibility determination, and are based on years of scientific 

evaluation of prairie pothole-type habitat and how 

habitat impacts affect migratory bird populations. 

These threshold levels of potential impact for protected wetlands have been established at 0.4 acres 

of wetland, not to exceed 25 percent of the wetland 

basin. These levels have been established based on 

biological models developed by HAPET in Bismarck, 

North Dakota. 

Threshold levels are not used in conjunction with 

highway improvement projects or 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 compatibility determination. 

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 of the Use” 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 ensure 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 on 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 Refuge System as described in “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. 

The Region 6 States of North Dakota, South Dakota, 

and Montana have over 15,000 wetland easement contracts comprising over 1.2 million acres of wetlands. It 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 145

is anticipated that between 5 and 10 requests annually 

may be received to allow partial drainage or filling of 

protected wetlands. Cumulative impacts under this 

scenario may include up to 4 acres of impact annually 

out of 1.2 million acres of protected wetlands. 

If multiple requests are received from the same 

landowner, each request will be evaluated on its own 

merit. Each easement contract may be authorized up 

to one threshold level of impact in total, whether it 

occurs all at one time, or in different authorizations. 

Therefore, only up to 0.4 acres of potential wetland 

impact may be authorized for each easement contract 

for resolution of legitimate health and safety issues, 

or for other authorized uses. 

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

The period of public review and comment began 

________ and ended __________.

Posted notices were made in public places for 

each of the field stations listed on this compatibility 

determination.

DETERMINATION

Compatibility Threshold. Material interference or 

detraction from the purposes and/or mission of the 

Refuge System.

Authorized health and safety requests associated 

with Service wetland easements resulting in only minor 

impacts to the easement interest are compatible uses 

at Lake Andes WMD, Madison WMD, Huron WMD, 

Waubay WMD, Sand Lake WMD, Lacreek National 

Wildlife Refuge, Tewaukon WMD, Kulm WMD, Arrowwood WMD, Valley City WMD, Chase Lake WMD, 

Audubon WMD, Long Lake WMD, J. Clark Salyer 

WMD, Devils Lake WMD, Lostwood WMD, Crosby 

WMD, Northeast Montana WMD, Bowdoin WMD, 

Benton Lake WMD, Northwest Montana WMD, and 

Charles M. Russell WMD.

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE 

COMPATIBILITY

1. Issuance of a permit does not preclude the requirements for obtaining necessary permits and/

or approvals from other county, State, or Federal 

agencies and from local landowners.

2. The permit is issued subject to the revocation and 

appeals procedure contained in Title 50, Part 25 

of the CFR.

3. Regardless of the authorized threshold level, the 

permit will require the least amount of impact on 

the Service easement interest as is necessary to 

resolve the health and safety issue.

4. If the requested use passes the flowchart and is 

authorized, and results in minor impacts which are 

more than temporary, then the use will be subject 

to the terms and conditions of the easement permit.

5. If past authorizations for any reason have been 

granted for this easement, then the manager cannot 

authorize any use that will exceed the aggregate 

total authorization of 0.4 acres of wetland impact, 

including the past authorizations.

6. Site-specific stipulations may be added to the permit to address resolution of any potential secondary impacts.

JUSTIFICATION

The administration of the Service easement program 

in Region 6 requires managers to make decisions regarding requested uses of private lands encumbered 

by Service easement interests. Managers will use the 

Easement Permit Request Flowchart to determine 

if the requested use should be authorized. If the requested use is authorized, then this compatibility determination will be used for the requests that have 

passed through the evaluation process and that fall 

within the established levels of impact authorized for 

easement wetlands to approve means to resolve legitimate health and safety issues. It is anticipated that no 

more than 5–10 authorizations will be granted each 

year for the entire Prairie Pothole Region portion of 

Region 6 (North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana) that 

would require the use of this compatibility determination. Once again, the compatibility determination 

will only be used if temporary means cannot be used 

to resolve the issue. 

Data provided by HAPET have been used to predict the effect to waterfowl resources resulting from 

impacts to wetlands. When these habitat impacts occur on lands protected by Service easements, then a 

determination must be made as to whether these impacts represent a material interference or detraction 

from the purposes for which the easement area was 

established or from the mission of the Refuge System. 

With the HAPET information about how waterfowl populations respond to habitat changes within the 

Prairie Pothole Region, managers may now use applied science and compelling data to quantify impacts 

resulting from wetland-altering activities—whereas 

before, they were using only a judgment. The level 

of wetland impact which corresponds with a “nonmaterial” impact (as portrayed under compatibility 

standards) is defined as one pair of ducks, the lowest 

whole unit and functional common denominator. 

The impacts of wetland loss on breeding duck 

pairs (that is, mallard, northern pintail, gadwall, bluewinged teal, and northern shoveler, which together 

compose approximately 90 percent of the breeding 

ducks in North and South Dakota) were evaluated 

using models developed with data collected by the 

Service during the annual Four Square Mile Breeding Waterfowl Population Survey. HAPET applied 

the models to all wetlands mapped by the National 

Wetland Inventory to predict the average number of 
146 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

breeding duck pairs attracted to each wetland for 13 

years (1987–1999) of the Four Square Mile Breeding 

Waterfowl Population Survey. Results indicate that 

temporary and seasonal wetlands, on average, attract 

about one duck pair per acre; while semipermanent 

wetlands attract about one pair for every 1.5 wetland 

acres. While the average breeding pair densities are 

as identified above, the highest density occurring on 

a single wetland district for a single class of wetlands 

was 1.98 pairs per acre or one pair for 0.5 acres (Sand 

Lake–temporary wetlands). These estimates can be 

used as a foundation for identifying non-material levels 

of impact on wetlands. Wetland impacts that result in 

affecting less than one pair of breeding ducks is below 

a “material” impact relative to compatibility. 

Even though the overall average for all classes of 

wetlands for all wetland management districts is approximately one pair of ducks for each wetland acre, 

and the highest density encountered is one pair per 

0.5 acres, this proposal is to ensure that any authorized use resulting in a wetland impact will not result 

in the loss of one whole pair of ducks on the landscape, 

regardless of where it is within the Region 6 Prairie 

Pothole Region, and which class of wetland is affected. 

Therefore, the proposal to use 0.4 acres as the upper 

limit of impact to achieve compatibility inherently 

builds in an additional 20 percent margin of safety.

In addition, it is further determined that impacts 

must be less than 25 percent of the affected basin to be 

within these threshold criteria. This recommendation, 

combined with the wetland and duck pair relationship 

information provided by HAPET and outlined above, 

suggests that a wetland impact of 0.4 acres or less, 

and not including more than 25 percent of the wetland 

basin, will not materially interfere with nor detract 

from the purposes for which the wetland easement 

was acquired, nor will it detract from the mission of 

the Refuge System. 

The not-to-exceed threshold levels of impact to 

easement-protected wetlands which are necessary 

to ensure compatibility are 0.4 acres or less, and not 

over 25 percent of the wetland basin. These levels 

were selected because of the following: (1) they result in built-in margins of safety (80 percent) from 

the actual figures determined by HAPET; (2) the 

represented levels are based on the best available science, the pair-wetland relationship model developed 

by HAPET and the Mallard Model, as well as many 

years of collected data from nearly the entire Prairie 

Pothole Region within Region 6; the threshold levels 

of impact represent a biologically meaningful measure (that is, one pair of ducks); the levels establish 

a consistent, science-based method for managers to 

use when evaluating compatibility of proposed uses 

for less than fee-title land interests.

Submitted

Michael Bryant, Project Leader Date

Lake Andes WMD

Tom Tornow, Project Leader Date

Madison WMD

Clarke Dirks, Project Leader Date

Huron WMD

Larry Martin, Project Leader Date

Waubay WMD

Harris Hoistad, Project Leader Date

Sand Lake WMD

Brian DeVries, Project Leader Date

Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge

Rob Bundy, Acting Project Leader Date

Tewaukon WMD

Mike Erickson, Project Leader Date

Kulm WMD
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 147

Kim D. Hanson, Project Leader Date

Arrowwood WMD 

Chase Lake WMD 

Valley City WMD

Lloyd Jones, Project Leader Date

Audubon WMD

Paul Van Ningen, Project Leader Date

Long Lake WMD

Kelly Hogan, Project Leader Date

J. Clark Salyer WMD

Roger Hollevoet, Project Leader Date

Devils Lake WMD

Dave Gillund, Project Leader Date

Lostwood WMD 

Crosby WMD

Jerry Rodriguez, Project Leader Date

Northeast Montana WMD

Carmen Luna, Project Leader Date

Bowdoin WMD

Kathy Burchett, Project Leader Date

Benton Lake WMD

Jeff King, Project Leader Date

Northwest Montana WMD

Kathy Burchett, Project Leader Date

Northwest Montana Flathead County WMD

Rick Potts, Project Leader Date

Charles M. Russell WMD

Review

Lloyd Jones Date

Regional Compatibility Coordinator

Paul Cornes Date

Refuge Supervisor 

USFWS, Region 6

Dean Rundle Date

Refuge Supervisor 

USFWS, Region 6
148 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Approval

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date

Assistant Regional Director

National Wildlife Refuge System

USFWS, Region 6

MANDATORY 10-YEAR REEVALUATION DATE

10 years from the date of approval signature.

Enter Reevaluation Date: 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 149

A.4 Compatibility 

Determination for 

Glyphosate-Tolerant 

Soybeans and Corn for 

Habitat Restoration and 

Management on National 

Wildlife Refuge System 

(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 glyphosatetolerant corn and soybeans for habitat restoration and 
150 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

management purposes on lands owned in fee title or 

managed through agreement by the National Wildlife Refuge 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 F.

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.
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 151

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)
152 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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 153
154 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 155
156 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

-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. 
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 157
158 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 159
160 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 161
162 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 163
164 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 165
166 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 167
168 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 169
170 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 171
172 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 173
174 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 175
176 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 177
178 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 179
180 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 181
182 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 183
184 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 185
186 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 187
188 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 189
190 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 191
192 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 193
194 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 195
196 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 197
198 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 199
200 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 201
202 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 203
204 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 205
206 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 207
208 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 209
210 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix A—Compatibility Determinations 211
212 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
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 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.
214 Draft CCP and EA, 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 215

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 draft CCP and EA. 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
218 Draft CCP and EA, 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
220 Draft CCP and EA, 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+)
Appendix E

Location Notices

HURON WETLAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LOCATION NOTICES

Location 

notice no. County Area

Priority 

date

Structure 

type Use

Storage

acre-feet

Additional 

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 

stock

2.8 —

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 —
222 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Location 

notice no. County Area

Priority 

date

Structure 

type Use

Storage

acre-feet

Additional 

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 

wildlife

3.5 —

72452 Sanborn Huron WMD 10/15/1990 Ditch plug Stock, fish and 

wildlife

22.3 —

72453 Sanborn Huron WMD 10/15/1990 Ditch plug Stock, fish and 

wildlife

10.1 —

72454 Sanborn Huron WMD 10/15/1990 Ditch plug Stock, fish and 

wildlife

19 —

MADISON WETLAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LOCATION NOTICES 

Location 

notice no. County Area

Priority 

date

Structure 

type Use

Storage

acre-feet

Additional 

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 1.0 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 E—Location Notices 223

Location 

notice no. County Area

Priority 

date

Structure 

type Use

Storage

acre-feet

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 2.0 AF

#6 1.2 AF

76010 Brookings Madison WMD 12/06/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 17.4 #1 2.6 AF

#2 14.0 AF

#3 0.8 AF

76009 Brookings Madison WMD 12/06/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 14 #1 1.0 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 1.0 AF

#9 1.9 AF

76624 Brookings Madison WMD 09/08/2006 Dam Fish and wildlife 23.4 #1 9.0 AF

#2 2.4 AF

#3 12.0 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 6.0 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 3.0 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 —
224 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Location 

notice no. County Area

Priority 

date

Structure 

type Use

Storage

acre-feet

Additional 

information

74782 Brookings Madison WMD 07/18/1998 Ditch Wildlife 8.5 #1 2.0 AF

#2 1.0 AF

#3 2.0 AF

#4 1.0 AF

#5 0.5 AF

#6 0.5 AF

#7 1.0 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 3.0 AF

75064 Brookings Madison WMD 07/02/1999 Ditch Wildlife 10 —

74820 Brookings Madison WMD 09/02/1998 Ditch Wildlife 14.5 #1 3.0 AF

#2 11.0 AF

#3 0.5 AF

74818 Brookings Madison WMD 08/20/1998 Ditch Wildlife 3 #1 2.0 AF

#2 1.0 AF

74806 Brookings Madison WMD 08/20/1998 Ditch Wildlife 3.5 #1 3.0 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 4.0 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 

plug

Wildlife 1.2 —

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 

wildlife

8.3 —

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 8.0 AF

#2 8.0 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 E—Location Notices 225

Location 

notice no. County Area

Priority 

date

Structure 

type Use

Storage

acre-feet

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 1.0 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 —
226 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Location 

notice no. County Area

Priority 

date

Structure 

type Use

Storage

acre-feet

Additional 

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 4.0 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 E—Location Notices 227

Location 

notice no.

76146

76310

76623

76321

76128

76741

76740

76928

76933

76934

76935

76936

76937

76938

76939

76940

74917

75355

74919

74918

75353

75354

74706

County Area

Priority 

date

Structure 

type Use

Storage

acre-feet

Additional 

information

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 1.0 AF

Deuel Madison WMD 10/23/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 23 —

Deuel Schaeffer WPA 09/08/2006 Dam Fish and wildlife 3.9 #1 0.8 AF

#2 1.7 AF

#3 1.4 AF

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

Deuel Madison WMD 02/13/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 10 —

Deuel Madison WMD 07/10/2007 Ditch plug Fish and wildlife 15.8 —

Deuel Madison WMD 07/10/2007 Ditch plug Fish and wildlife 14.9 —

Deuel Madison WMD 05/26/2010 Dam Fish and wildlife 12.1 #1 0.9 AF

#2 2.0 AF

#3 4.2 AF

#4 1.1 AF

#5 1.8 AF

#6 0.3 AF

#7 1.8 AF

Deuel Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 19.8 —

Deuel Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 17.7 —

Deuel Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 11.1 —

Deuel Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 23.4 —

Deuel Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 23.4 —

Deuel Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 16.9 —

Deuel Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 21.1 —

Deuel Madison WMD 08/19/2009 Dam Fish and wildlife 13.3 —

Deuel Madison WMD 11/18/1998 Ditch plug Wildlife 0.5 —

Deuel Madison WMD 05/15/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 21.9 #1 5.3 AF

#2 3.0 AF

#3 4.8 AF

#4 2.5 AF

#5 3.5 AF

#6 2.8 AF

Deuel Madison WMD 11/18/1998 Ditch plug Wildlife 13.5 —

Deuel Madison WMD 11/18/1998 Ditch plug Wildlife 9 #1 8.0 AF

#2 0.5 AF

#3 0.5 AF

Deuel Madison WMD 05/12/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 2.2 —

Deuel Madison WMD 05/12/2000 Ditch plug Wildlife 10.3 #1 3.5 AF

#2 6.8 AF

Deuel Madison WMD 10/15/1997 Dam/ditch plug Wildlife 11.4 #1 4.6 AF

#2 6.8 AF
228 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Location 

notice no. County Area

Priority 

date

Structure 

type Use

Storage

acre-feet

Additional 

information

74705 Deuel Madison WMD 10/15/1997 Dam/ditch plug Wildlife 24.2 #1 2.2 AF

#2 4.0 AF

#3 5.0 AF

#4 13.0 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 3.0 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 1.0 AF

 #4 0.8 AF

 #5 1.0 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 9.0 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 1.0 AF

 #2 1.0 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 —

76760 Deuel Madison WMD 09/04/2007 Dugout Stock 1 —
Appendix E—Location Notices 229

Location 

notice no. County Area

Priority 

date

Structure 

type Use

Storage

acre-feet

Additional 

information

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 2.0 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 14.0 AF

74519 Hamlin Madison WMD 10/31/1996 Ditch plug Wildlife 5 #1 2.0 AF

 #2 3.0 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

73220 Kingsbury Madison WMD 09/09/1992 Dam/ditch Stock 5.5 —
230 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Location 

notice no. County Area

Priority 

date

Structure 

type Use

Storage

acre-feet

Additional 

information

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 3.0 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 1.0 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 2.0 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 1.0 AF

#2 1.0 AF

#3 1.0 AF

#4 2.0 AF

#5 17.0 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 E—Location Notices 231

Location 

notice no.

17459

51626

75808

47766

76137

75809

76142

76141

76014

76140

76006

76138

76025

76136

76135

76134

76133

76132

76131

76139

75812

75814

75804

75811

75818

County Area

Priority 

date

Structure 

type Use

Storage

acre-feet

Additional 

information

Lake Madison WMD 12/31/1959 Dry draw Stock 1 —

Lake Madison WMD 06/28/1971 Dry draw Stock 0.9 —

Lake Madison WMD 07/23/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 21.7 #1 4.0 AF

#2 3.0 AF

#3 3.2 AF

#4 8.0 AF

#5 3.5 AF

Lake Madison WMD 04/04/1972 Well Domestic — —

Lake Madison WMD 10/15/1969 Dry draw Stock 1 —

Lake Madison WMD 04/08/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 22 —

Lake Madison WMD 07/23/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 10 —

Lake Madison WMD 04/29/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 5 #1 3.0 AF

#2 2.0 AF

Lake Madison WMD 04/29/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 5 —

Lake Madison WMD 07/11/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 2.5 —

Lake Madison WMD 04/29/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 10.8 #1 3.2 AF

#2 7.6 AF

Lake Madison WMD 11/04/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 20.8 #1 6.5 AF

#2 13 AF

#3 1.3 AF

Lake Madison WMD 04/28/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 22.5 —

Lake Madison WMD 05/21/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 9.9 #1 1.2 AF

#2 6.6 AF

#3 2.1 AF

Lake Madison WMD 04/08/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 11 —

Lake Madison WMD 04/07/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 19.2 #1 3.4 AF

#2 5.2 AF

#3 10.6 AF

Lake Madison WMD 04/08/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 13 —

Lake Madison WMD 04/07/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 12.2 #1 9.0 AF

#2 3.2 AF

Lake Madison WMD 04/07/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 11.2 #1 7.0 AF

#2 3.3 AF

#3 0.9 AF

Lake Madison WMD 04/07/2003 Ditch plug Wildlife 17 —

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

Lake Madison WMD 11/01/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 20 —

Lake Madison WMD 08/14/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 2.5 —

Lake Madison WMD 07/23/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 18.2 #1 8.5 AF

#2 6.2 AF

#3 3.5 AF

Lake Madison WMD 11/01/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 21.1 #1 10.0 AF

#2 2.3 AF

#3 5.2 AF

#4 1.0 AF

#5 1.2 AF

#6 1.4 AF

Lake Madison WMD 01/29/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 15.5 —
232 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Location 

notice no. County Area

Priority 

date

Structure 

type Use

Storage

acre-feet

Additional 

information

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 1.0 AF

#2 2.1 AF

#3 1.0 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 3.0 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

75063 Miner Madison WMD 07/13/1999 Ditch Wildlife 3.1 #1 1.3 AF

#2 1.8 AF
Appendix E—Location Notices 233

Location 

notice no. County Area

Priority 

date

Structure 

type Use

Storage

acre-feet

Additional 

information

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 2.0 AF

#3 9.8 AF

76481 Miner Madison WMD 11/16/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 23.1 #1 20.1 AF

#2 3.0 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 3.0 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 1.0 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 3.0 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 —

76334 Miner Madison WMD 05/03/2004 Ditch plug Wildlife 8 #1 2.3 AF

#2 3.5 AF

#3 1.0 AF

#4 1.2 AF
234 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Location 

notice no. County Area

Priority 

date

Structure 

type Use

Storage

acre-feet

Additional 

information

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 8.7AF

#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 1.0 AF

76312 Miner Madison WMD 08/02/2004 Dam Fish and wildlife 10.9 #1 1.0 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 1.0 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 2.0 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 2.0 AF

#2 0.8 AF

#3 1.0 AF

#4 2.0 AF

#5 3.6 AF

#6 5.0 AF

76022 Miner Madison WMD 04/01/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 4.8 #1 1.2 AF

#2 1.7 AF

#3 1.9 AF
Appendix E—Location Notices 235

Location 

notice no. County Area

Priority 

date

Structure 

type Use

Storage

acre-feet

Additional 

information

76023 Miner Madison WMD 04/01/2002 Ditch plug Wildlife 11 #1 1.6 AF

#2 3.0 AF

#3 2.6 AF

#4 1.0 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 1.0 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 10.0 AF 

#2 5.3 AF 

#3 2.0 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 1.0 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 —

75796 Minnehaha Madison WMD 10/15/2001 Ditch plug Wildlife 8 #1 4.0 AF

#2 2.0 AF

#3 2.0 AF
236 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Location 

notice no. County Area

Priority 

date

Structure 

type Use

Storage

acre-feet

Additional 

information

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 1.0 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 12.0 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 3.0 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 1.0 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 —

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 —
Appendix E—Location Notices 237

Location Priority Structure Storage Additional 

notice no. County Area date type Use acre-feet information

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 

notice no. County Area

Priority 

date

Structure 

type Use

Storage

acre-feet

Additional 

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 —

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 —
238 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Location 

notice no.

41819

71-723

29726

75-429

80-376

59207

28009

56721

73-551

56954

74-189

69-471

40424

74384

74383

73401

73400

B-2345

73492

73491

70272

70063

69995

112

105266

107665

285

2566

112333

105959

1079

109311

4801

4392

4857

105978

110951

104681

1608

63792

101611

9889

8294

104699

County Area

Priority 

date

Structure 

type Use

Storage

acre-feet

Additional 

information

Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 07/31/1957 Dugout Stock 1.5 —

Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 12/21/1971 Dugout Stock 1.2 —

Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 08/29/1952 Dam Stock 1.9 —

Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 10/27/1975 Dugout Stock 1.25 —

Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 09/02/1980 Dugout Stock 1.8 —

Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 09/13/1966 Dugout Stock 1.4 —

Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 10/22/1951 Dugout Stock 1.9 —

Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 07/02/1965 Dugout Stock 1.5 —

Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 11/08/1973 Dugout Stock 1.3 —

Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 09/07/1965 Dugout Stock 1.8 —

Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 05/06/1974 Dugout Stock 1.25 —

Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 10/03/1969 Dugout Stock 1.3 —

Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 11/20/1956 Dugout Stock 1.2 —

Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 08/05/1996 Dam Wildlife 10 —

Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 08/05/1996 Dam Wildlife 10 —

Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 09/23/1992 Dugout Stock and wildlife 0.15 —

Edmunds Sand Lake WMD 09/23/1992 Dugout Stock 0.9 —

Faulk Sand Lake WMD 07/08/1958 Dugout Stock 0.6 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 06/01/1993 Dam Wildlife 15 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 06/02/1993 Dam Wildlife 13.5 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 09/10/1984 Dry draw dam Storage 1 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 11/02/1983 Dry draw dam Storage 1.1 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 09/29/1983 Dry draw dam Storage 1 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 08/09/1967 Dugout Stock 1.1 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 12/16/1959 Dugout Stock 1.2 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 11/27/1961 Dugout Stock 1.3 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 10/09/1967 Dugout Stock 1.2 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 12/30/1971 Dugout Stock 1.1 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 12/28/1965 Dugout Stock 1.5 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 08/11/1960 Dugout Stock 1.8 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 09/17/1968 Dugout Stock 1.5 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 05/21/1963 Dugout Stock 1.3 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 07/27/1977 Dam Stock 1.1 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 06/04/1976 Dam Stock 1.1 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 09/12/1977 Dugout Stock 1.1 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 08/19/1960 Dugout Stock 1.2 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 11/02/1964 Dugout Stock 1.8 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 07/08/1959 Dugout Stock 1.2 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 10/31/1969 Dugout Stock 1.0 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 08/05/1976 Dam Stock 1.0 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 09/22/1957 Dugout Stock 1.5 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 09/03/1958 Dugout Stock 1.2 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 01/17/1986 Dugout Stock 0.75 —

McPherson Sand Lake WMD 07/16/1959 Dugout Stock 1.2 —
Appendix E—Location Notices 239

Location 

notice no. County Area

Priority 

date

Structure 

type Use

Storage

acre-feet

Additional 

information

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 F

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% with 

category 25 (i.e., lead plant, 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 G

South Dakota Species

BIRDS1

Common name Scientific name

Loons

Common Loon Gavia immer

Grebes

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps

Horned Grebe2 Podiceps auritus

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis

Pelicans

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

Cormorants

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus

Herons and Bitterns

American Bittern2 Botaurus lentiginosus

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

Ibises

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi

Vultures

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura

Swans, Geese, and Ducks

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons

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
244 Draft CCP and EA, 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 G—South Dakota Species 245

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
246 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Common name Scientific name

Typical Owls

Eastern Screech-Owl Otus asio

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus

Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia

Long-eared Owl Asio otus

Short-eared Owl2 Asio flammeus

Goatsuckers

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus

Swifts

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica

Hummingbirds

Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris

Kingfishers

Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon

Woodpeckers

Red-headed Woodpecker2 Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus

Tyrant Flycatchers

Eastern Wood-Pewee 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 Tyrannus tyrannus

Shrikes

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus

Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor

Vireos

Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons

Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus

Jays, Magpies, and Crows

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata

Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

Larks

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris
Appendix G—South Dakota Species 247

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
248 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Common name Scientific name

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

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
Appendix G—South Dakota Species 249

Common name Scientific name

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

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).
250 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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 

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 
Appendix G—South Dakota Species 251

Common name Scientific name

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

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
252 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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

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
Appendix G—South Dakota Species 253

Common name Scientific name

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

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.
254 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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

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
Appendix G—South Dakota Species 255

Common name Scientific name

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

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.
256 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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

Hardstem bulrush Schoenoplectus acutus

Heath aster Aster ericoides

Indian breadroot Psoralea esculenta

Indiangrass Sorghastrum spp.

Intermediate wheatgrass Agropyron intermedium

Japanese brome Bromus japonicus
Appendix G—South Dakota Species 257

Common name Scientific name

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

Switchgrass Panicum virgatum

Timothy Phleum pretense

Torch flower Geum triflorum

Water hemlock Cicuta maculata

Western ragweed Ambrosia psilostachya
258 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Common name Scientific name

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 H

Approved Organization Charts
260 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Appendix H—Approved Organization Charts 261

Appendix I

Compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

and Guidance

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. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/ 

grlands/grlands.htm> 456–7.

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.

Baer, N.W. 1989. Shelterbelts and windbreaks in the 

Great Plains. Journal of Forestry 87:32–6. 

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 69:235–242.

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 55:462–474.

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.

Bragg, T.B.; Steuter, A.A. 1996. Prairie ecology—

the mixed prairie. In: Samson, F.B.; Knopf, F.L.; 
266 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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 119:300–307.

Brown, M.; Dinsmore, J.J. 1986. Implications of marsh 

size and isolation for marsh bird management. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:392–397.

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 

87:9610–9614.

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 80:2397–2407.

Clark, R.G.; Nudds, T.D. 1991. Habitat patch size 

and duck nesting success: the crucial experiments 

have not been performed. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:534–543.

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 68:1243–1250.

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 110:474–481.

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 35:1620–8.

Davis, M.A.; Pelsor, M. 2001. Experimental support 

for a resource based mechanistic model of invisibility. Ecology Letters 4:421–428.

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 pages.

Diboll, N. 1997. Designing seed mixes. In: Packard, 

S.; Mutel, C.F.; editors. The tallgrass restoration 

handbook. Washington, DC: Island Press. 135–150.

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. <http://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 267

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 126:563–568.

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 Evaulation 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 41:604–614.

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 72:175–185.

Gillen, R.L.; Rollins, D.; Strizke, J.F. 1987. Atrazine, 

spring burning, and nitrogen for improvement of 

tallgrass prairie. Journal of Range Management 

40:444–447.

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 22:106–111.

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 63:248–260.

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 21:569–583.

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 4:461–471.

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 
268 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

of breeding birds in the mid continental United 

States. Conservation Biology 17:587–594.

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 51:524–530.

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. 103–113.

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 50:874–877. 

———. 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. 138–142.

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 

53:205–246.

Hutchinson, M. 1992. Vegetation management guideline: Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense [L.] Scop.). 

Natural Areas Journal 12:160–1.

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. 4:241–259.

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 59:175–181.

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. <http://

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. <http://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. < http://

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 82:3377–3389.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 269

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 10:177–190. 

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. <http://

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 

48:426–437.

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 53:305–308.

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 43:486–497.

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 12:134–8.

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 71:220–227. 

———. 1985. Effects of fire and drought on the ecophysiology of Andropogon gerardii and Panicum 

virgatum in tall grass prairie. Ecology 66:1309–1320.

Knapp, A.K.; Seastedt, T.R. 1986. Detritus accumulation limits productivity of tallgrass prairie. BioScience 36:662–668.

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. 247–257.

Knops, J.M.H. 2006. Fire does not alter vegetation in 

infertile prairie. Oecologia 150:477–483. 

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 60:233–246.

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):363–374.

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.
270 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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.

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 16:143–153.

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 25:351–358.

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 pages.

[NAWMA] North American Weed Management Association. 2002. North American invasive plant 

mapping standards. <http://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> 54–7.

North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department. [No 

date]. North Dakota prairie—our natural heritage. 

[Internet]. Version 05MAY99. Jamestown, ND: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Resarch Center online. 

<http://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 20:243–9. 

Old, S.M. 1969. Microclimate, fire, and plant production in an Illinois prairie. Ecological Monographs 

39:355–348. 

Ortega, Y.K.; Pearson, D.E. 2005. Weak vs. strong 

invaders of natural plant communities: assessing 

invasibility and impact. Ecological Applications 

15:651–661.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 271

Ortman, J.; Stubbendieck, J.; Mitchell, R. 1996. Management of eastern redcedar on grasslands. University of Nebraska–Lincoln Cooperative Extension Publication.

Pampush, G.J.; Anthony, R.G. 1993. Nest success, 

habitat utilization and nest-site selection of longbilled curlews in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. 

Condor 95:957–967.

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 146:347–353.

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 64:219–230. 

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. 121–137.

Rehm, G.W. 1984. Yield and quality of a warm-season 

grass mixture treated with N, P, and atrazine. 

Agronomy Journal 76:731–733.

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 65:765–780.

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 

161:110–122.

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 23:295–297.

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 36:691–4.

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. 11p.

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 7:581–5.

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. 

<http://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 
272 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

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.

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. <http://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 1:113–133.

Schranck, B.W. 1972. Waterfowl nest cover and some 

predation relationships. Journal of Wildlife Management 36:182–186.

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):1183–1210.

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. 157–174.

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):145–186.

Sheley, R.L.; Half, M. L. 2006. Enhancing native forb 

establishment and persistence using a rich seed 

mixture. Restoration Ecology 14:627–635.

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 120:605–612.

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 South 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. <http://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 12:22–6.

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. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 273

van der Valk; editor. Northern Prairie Wetlands. 

Ames, IA: Iowa State University. 228–267.

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 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 379:718–720.

Towne, G.; Owensby, C.E. 1984. Long-term effects 

of annual burning at different dates in ungrazed 

Kansas tallgrass prairie. Journal of Range Management 37:392–397.

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. 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, D.C.

———. 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. <http://www.fws.gov/

southdakotafieldoffice/images/dakota%20skipper%20oct23%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, D.C. 15p.

———. 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 <http://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.

———. 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. 36p. 

[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]. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs. 

gov/resource/habitat/ndsdeco/ecotext.htm> [date 

accessed unknown.]
274 Draft CCP and EA, South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

———. 2007. Wetlands of North Dakota. [Internet]. 

Water Science Center. <http://nd.water.usgs.gov/ 

wetlands/index.html> accessed March 2007.

van der Valk, A.G. 2005. Water-level fluctuations in 

North American prairie wetlands. Hydrobiologia 

539:171–188.

van der Valk, A.G.; Davis, C.B. 1978. The role of seed 

banks in the vegetation dynamics of prairie glacial 

marshes. Ecology 59: 322–335.

Vermeire, L.T.; Mitchell, R.B.; Fuhlendore, S.D.; Gillen, 

R.L. 2004. Patch burning effects on grazing distribution. Journal of Range Management 57:248–252.

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 9:967–976.

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 uplandnesting duck production at nest and field scales in 

the Aspen Parkland, Canada. Avian Conservation 

and Ecology 3(2):6. <http://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 ed. 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: 269–291.

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 167:1574–1575.

Wilcove, D.S.; Rothstein, D.; Dubow, J.; Phillips, A.; 

Losos. E. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled 

species in the United States. BioScience 48:607–615.

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. 

443–465.

Wilson, S.D.; Belcher, J.W. 1989. Plant and bird communities of native prairie and introduced Eurasian 

vegetation in Manitoba, Canada. Conservation Biology 3(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.